2016 Copa America Centenario

[Addona]

Unless the number of spots in CONCACAF goes down to 1.5, I can't see them leaving.

 

Well, presumably this is what would have to happen if they both left ... or simultaneous with their leaving.  I agree that it's the only way they leave, but I also think that it's a reasonable alteration to the number of spots if they do leave.  At best, CONCACAF would deserve 2 spots.

[CanadianSoccerFan]

Mexico has no genuine incentive to leave CONCACAF right now.   Mexican clubs already get to play in both CONMEBOL competitions (Copa Libertadores and Copa Sudamericana) and their national team gets to play in Copa America every time.  Then when it comes to the messy business of WCQ they get to stay in CONCACAF for the easier route.  They've got the best of both worlds.

[canucklefan]

Mexico has no genuine incentive to leave CONCACAF right now.   Mexican clubs already get to play in both CONMEBOL competitions (Copa Libertadores and Copa Sudamericana) and their national team gets to play in Copa America every time.  Then when it comes to the messy business of WCQ they get to stay in CONCACAF for the easier route.  They've got the best of both worlds.

Mexican clubs doesn't play the Copa Sudamericana. CONCACAF won't let them.

[Obinna]

Why would the US and Mexico jump ship? They can qualify in CONCACAF. The US would never qualify in CONMEBOL. Mexico would qualify once every 12 years or so. Unless the number of spots in CONCACAF goes down to 1.5, I can't see them leaving.

I agree there is no incentive for either to leave, but I disagree in your assessment of their chances in CONMEBOL. What are you basing that on, just personal opinion? 

 

As far as opinions go, my belief is that both would probably qualify for every second world cup at least. Mexico (despite all their recent struggles), has a very deep pool of domestic NT players who play in a very good league. Liga MX is definitely a top 3 league in the America's. Mexico's record at WC's is second only to Argentia/Brazil/Uruguay.

 

The USA? Maybe they would be a bit less successful but I could see them still averaging close to every second WC. Also have a big domestic player pool in a decent league. 

[Blackdude]

I agree there is no incentive for either to leave, but I disagree in your assessment of their chances in CONMEBOL. What are you basing that on, just personal opinion? 

 

As far as opinions go, my belief is that both would probably qualify for every second world cup at least. Mexico (despite all their recent struggles), has a very deep pool of domestic NT players who play in a very good league. Liga MX is definitely a top 3 league in the America's. Mexico's record at WC's is second only to Argentia/Brazil/Uruguay.

 

The USA? Maybe they would be a bit less successful but I could see them still averaging close to every second WC. Also have a big domestic player pool in a decent league. 

 

Mexico has a nice record because they've played at every World Cup. If you go at a per World Cup, you'd see that they're average.

Let's take the Elo Rankings. The US are 6th, Mexico are 7th. And they've made their rankings because of beating CONCACAF teams. If they'd play more against CONMEBOL teams, they would certainly find themselves behind Ecuador, and could be even lower. Liga MX is a league that pays foreigners well and that's why it's a top 3 League, For players who don't play in Brazil and want to make money while staying on the continent, it's the best way.

 

The thing is that in CONCACAF, the worst thing you have is what Costa Rica away or Mexico/US away? In CONMEBOL, they would play good teams every time, maybe Bolivia, but even they have a big homefield advantage by playing at high altitude. I can't say for sure that Venezuela, Paraguay are worse than the US and Mexico. We're talking about a team that made the World Cup Final Eight missing the following World Cup and people think that the US or Mexico is better. The US kill in CONCACAF, but they'd be in a challenge every game. Please tell me results that the US have gotten against CONMEBOL opposition since a guy died for scoring an own goal? As good as the US are in CONCACAF, in CONMEBOL, they'd lose because CONMEBOL teams have more talent, and you see their stars playing in top leagues. Who does the US have aside from Tim Howard playing week in week out at a top league? 

 

CONCACAF is overrated and CONMEBOL is underrated. I think people forget about the amount of talent that comes here, but I've watched Paraguay Venezuela during WCQ, and i can't see the US doing something close to that. I'm talking about the team that finished 8th in CONMEBOL being better than the US. Imagine them having to sneak in a hypothetical 7th place. It would be insanely difficult to make it to the WC. I don't think that Mexico or the US could get that lucky once every 2 cycles.

[Keegan]

If you're going to make a non biased argument and talk about how the USA doesn't get results against CONMEBOL opposition, how about talking about how Mexico has fared in the Copa America?  

[Obinna]

Mexico has a nice record because they've played at every World Cup. If you go at a per World Cup, you'd see that they're average.

Let's take the Elo Rankings. The US are 6th, Mexico are 7th. And they've made their rankings because of beating CONCACAF teams. If they'd play more against CONMEBOL teams, they would certainly find themselves behind Ecuador, and could be even lower. Liga MX is a league that pays foreigners well and that's why it's a top 3 League, For players who don't play in Brazil and want to make money while staying on the continent, it's the best way.

 

The thing is that in CONCACAF, the worst thing you have is what Costa Rica away or Mexico/US away? In CONMEBOL, they would play good teams every time, maybe Bolivia, but even they have a big homefield advantage by playing at high altitude. I can't say for sure that Venezuela, Paraguay are worse than the US and Mexico. We're talking about a team that made the World Cup Final Eight missing the following World Cup and people think that the US or Mexico is better. The US kill in CONCACAF, but they'd be in a challenge every game. Please tell me results that the US have gotten against CONMEBOL opposition since a guy died for scoring an own goal? As good as the US are in CONCACAF, in CONMEBOL, they'd lose because CONMEBOL teams have more talent, and you see their stars playing in top leagues. Who does the US have aside from Tim Howard playing week in week out at a top league? 

 

CONCACAF is overrated and CONMEBOL is underrated. I think people forget about the amount of talent that comes here, but I've watched Paraguay Venezuela during WCQ, and i can't see the US doing something close to that. I'm talking about the team that finished 8th in CONMEBOL being better than the US. Imagine them having to sneak in a hypothetical 7th place. It would be insanely difficult to make it to the WC. I don't think that Mexico or the US could get that lucky once every 2 cycles.

Well, Liga MX certainly is a top 3 league, but that's not just because they pay foreigners well. Have a look at the rosters and you will see that many have a strong Mexican contingent. America, Chivas, Leon, Toluca, Pachuca, Morelia, and Puebla for example only have a sprinkling of imports - so your logic is a bit off my friend. The imports that you find largely come from Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador and ....*drumroll*... the United States.

 

Let's look at Mexico's WC record:

2010 - round of 16

2006 - round of 16

2002 - round of 16

1998 - round of 16

1994 - round of 16

1986 - QF

1978 - group stage

1970 - QF

1966 - group stage

1964 - group stage

1960 - group stage

1958 - group stage

1954 - group stage

1950 - group stage

 

So, you can look at this several ways. You could say that  "hey look, it took them 20 years to get to the knock out rounds", but that was from 1950 to 1970. If that is relevant for you than fair enough. I choose to say "hey look, they have made it to the knock out rounds in their last 5 tournaments". Regardless of how often they qualify, they still have a record that is above "average". Who in South America can lay claim to such consistency?

 

Paraguay: 

1986 - round of 16

1998 - round of 16

2002 - round of 16

2006 - group stage

2010 - QF

 

So....there is an argument to be had there...but your splitting hairs if you ask me.

 

Ecuador: 

2002 - group stage

2006 - round of 16

 

Extremely small sample size but if you project that out...worse than Mexico. Curiously...they just lost to El Tri 3-1.

 

Colombia:

1990 - round of 16

1994 - group stage

1998 - group stage

 

Mexico has the edge here.

 

Chile:

1962 - 3rd

1966 - group stage

1974 - group stage

1982- group stage

2006 - round of 16

2010 - round of 16

 

I think you can make the argument they are comparable based on recent tournaments, but like Paraguay, you can't say they clearly have a superior record to Mexico.

 

 

 

So that covers Mexico....I think it is clear to see they would certainly be competitive in South American qualifying. I think their large domestic player pool would give them an edge over countries like Chile and Paraguay if you take a medium to long term view.

 

 

 

I don't have time to touch the states in detail, but I would say that the USA has just as much talent in Europe as Venezuela, Peru, etc. I acknowledge a lot of it is German but if they qualify they qualify:

 

Brooks - Hertha Berlin - Bundesliga

Chandler - Frankfurt - Bundesliga

Johnson - 'Gladbach - Bundesliga

Green - Bayern - Bundesliga (just breaking into first team)

Jones - Besitkas - Turkey

Johanssen - AZ Alkmaar - Eredivise

Altidore - Sunderland - EPL

Guzan - Aston Villa - EPL

 

I am not going to go on but you see the what I'm saying. This is at least comparable to the Venezuelans and Peruvians and Ecuadorians that play in Europe. So your argument that those countries have more starts playing in top leagues and clubs is moot. Also the USA has domestic stars of the same quality, because MLS pays boat loads of money for them to come back as DP's. The same situation doesn't exist for South American nations in question. If you want to make lots of money you have to leave your homeland.

 

Bradley

Dempsey

Donavan

Edu

Johnson

....and so on.

[Blackdude]

Ok, so Mexico would be in a dogfight to qualify, but if you're telling me that Edu plays in MLS only for money and not also because he's been terrible in Europe. You name average Bundesliga players from the most part. They don't have stars who have proven they can play in Europe aside from Bradley, Howard and Dempsey. I'd take Sam Rondon, Oscar Cardozo, Jackson Martinez, over Altidore anyday. The US wish they had that kind of talent.

[Keegan]

Ok, so Mexico would be in a dogfight to qualify, but if you're telling me that Edu plays in MLS only for money and not also because he's been terrible in Europe. You name average Bundesliga players from the most part. They don't have stars who have proven they can play in Europe aside from Bradley, Howard and Dempsey. I'd take Sam Rondon, Oscar Cardozo, Jackson Martinez, over Altidore anyday. The US wish they had that kind of talent.

 

Mexico would be in a dogfight to qualify just as every team in CONMEBOL is every cycle save for Brazil and Argentina but they would have much better odds than you are giving them.  Mexico is an international power, simple as that and they're only getting better.  They've won 2 U17 world cups in the last 10 years and an Olympic gold (in which they beat the undisputed CONMEBOL power 3-1). 

 

Let's compare Mexico with CONMEBOL squads in competitive matches using the Copa America and Confederations Cup since they never play in qualifying

 

Copa America results:

93: Runners Up

95: Quarter Final

97: Third Place

99: Third Place

01: Runners Up

04: Quarter Final

07: Third Place

 

So Mexico has always made the knockout rounds save for 2011 when they sent a u23 squad.  In 5 of 7 tournaments Mexico has made the semis... now how can you argue with that?

 

In 97 Confederation Cup Mexico lost to Brazil 3-2

In the 1999 Confederations Cup Mexico faced Bolivia and Brazil.  They won 1-0 and 4-3 respectively.

In 2005 CC Mexico faced Brazil and won 1-0, they lost on penalties to Argentina in the semi

In 2013 CC Mexico lost to Brazil 2-0

 

And as I said previously these results are older.  Since then Mexico has improved and even though they had a rough go at qualifying this time around they still made the dance and the future looks extremely bright with the players coming up. 

 

Uruguay, Colombia and Paraguay are all teams around the level of Mexico at the moment.  I would put Uruguay ahead of Mexico at the moment but I can't really separate Colombia and Paraguay with Mexico.  And if we're honest the USMNT is at least Mexico's equal right now.

[mrstepp817]

Aside from Brazil and to a certain extent Argentina the US has done fine against CONEMBOL opponents. But it makes zero sense for them or Mexico to leave CONCACAF IMO. They both make plenty of $$$ and are all but guaranteed to make the World Cup every four years (although Mexico really tested this theory this time)

[One American]

Mexico has a nice record because they've played at every World Cup. If you go at a per World Cup, you'd see that they're average.

Let's take the Elo Rankings. The US are 6th, Mexico are 7th. And they've made their rankings because of beating CONCACAF teams. If they'd play more against CONMEBOL teams, they would certainly find themselves behind Ecuador, and could be even lower. Liga MX is a league that pays foreigners well and that's why it's a top 3 League, For players who don't play in Brazil and want to make money while staying on the continent, it's the best way.

 

The thing is that in CONCACAF, the worst thing you have is what Costa Rica away or Mexico/US away? In CONMEBOL, they would play good teams every time, maybe Bolivia, but even they have a big homefield advantage by playing at high altitude. I can't say for sure that Venezuela, Paraguay are worse than the US and Mexico. We're talking about a team that made the World Cup Final Eight missing the following World Cup and people think that the US or Mexico is better. The US kill in CONCACAF, but they'd be in a challenge every game. Please tell me results that the US have gotten against CONMEBOL opposition since a guy died for scoring an own goal? As good as the US are in CONCACAF, in CONMEBOL, they'd lose because CONMEBOL teams have more talent, and you see their stars playing in top leagues. Who does the US have aside from Tim Howard playing week in week out at a top league? 

The US beats South American teams not named Brazil or Argentina all the time.

[Blackdude]

The US beats South American teams not named Brazil or Argentina all the time.

 

And how many times did they play away in the past 13 years?  None. My argument is made comparing away games.

 

The US beat Venezuela at home in  January 2012 means nothing to the national team. It's more something like Domestic Americans>Domestic Venezuelans. The US don't count as much on foreign-based players as other countries do and it's the reason why they do well on FIFA date.

 

Did I overstate that the US would never qualify for the World Cup in CONMEBOL. Ok sure, they would have probably a 20% of making it in any given year if 6 teams of the 12 make it (including Mexico)

[Obinna]

Ok, so Mexico would be in a dogfight to qualify, but if you're telling me that Edu plays in MLS only for money and not also because he's been terrible in Europe. You name average Bundesliga players from the most part. They don't have stars who have proven they can play in Europe aside from Bradley, Howard and Dempsey. I'd take Sam Rondon, Oscar Cardozo, Jackson Martinez, over Altidore anyday. The US wish they had that kind of talent

Rondon, Cardozo and Martinez are all very good strikers but quite different from Jozy. I have watched plenty of Rondon with Venezuela and he is probably the closest comparison to Altidore in terms of playing style, but he doesn't hold up play in the same way. Say what you want about his poor poor scoring rate for Sunderland, the guy is extremely valuable to the way the US play and he is only 24 with 70 caps which is way more international experience than even Cardozo has (who is in his 30's). 

 

I am unsure whether the USA would trade Altidore for any of those players, simply because what he brings outside of scoring goals. Jackson Martinez is a great striker who is still young and playing for a great club, so perhaps that is an exception, but Cardozo is exiting his prime and Rondon does not offer the same power up front (although he is physical too I acknowledge that).

 

Aside from Altidore, Johanssen is a good striker as well. Had a breakout season with AZ and finished 3rd in the Dutch scoring race, not too bad for his first season in Holland. Clint Dempsey, although exiting his prime as well, is a very good attacker who is more inventive than people give him credit for. In a few seasons we may be talking about Julian Green as well, so the USA isn't as short on attacking options as you may think.....

 

 

Regarding Edu, it is equally valid to say he has had a good career in Europe (or a mixed career if you want to be really cynical). After all he spent the majority of his time across the pond at Rangers, where he was often a starter and played in multiple Champions League campaigns. It is probably more accurate to say he has been terrible at STOKE CITY. In fact, he hasn't even been given a chance, so how can we say he's been terrible? He did well when given the chance to go on loan in Turkey.

 

 

The USA has average Bundesliga players:

 

Brooks - the same age as Henry and was voted into the team of the week during the later stages of the season. He finished the season starting for team that finished mid-table. I wish Canada had average Bundesliga players like this....

 

Johnson - Just signed with a team that has been challenging/qualifying for Europe the last four or five seasons. Certainly fits the profile of an "average" Bundesliga player.

 

Chandler - Okay, this one is actually average, despite being one of Nurnbergs better players. He just signed with Frankfurt (who fought off Stuttgart for his signature) but right now he likely won't be a starter in Brazil because USA have so much depth. By contrast, one of Venezuela's starting CM's (Rincon) commonly comes off the bench at Hamburg. See? Average Bundesliga players have their importance to South American teams also. 

 

 

No other stars in Europe: Yes you may be right but some good players playing at good levels. Bedoya with Nates in France, Guzan starting at Aston Villa and voted player of the year for the club in 12-13, Cameron at Stoke City is an important part of their backline. Jones starting along side Hutchinson at Besiktas. 

 

Is this the lack of talent you are referring to my friend?

[Obinna]

And how many times did they play away in the past 13 years?  None. My argument is made comparing away games.

 

The US beat Venezuela at home in  January 2012 means nothing to the national team. It's more something like Domestic Americans>Domestic Venezuelans. The US don't count as much on foreign-based players as other countries do and it's the reason why they do well on FIFA date.

 

Did I overstate that the US would never qualify for the World Cup in CONMEBOL. Ok sure, they would have probably a 20% of making it in any given year if 6 teams of the 12 make it (including Mexico)

Yeah - and a domestic USA would have success over most domestic South American squads not named Argentina and Brazil. That is another reason why they would do better in CONMEBOL than you'd think. Not that Colombia and Peru are going to start relying on domestic squads, but WCQ is year round and at some point European based players are going to suffer from fatigue/travel/being out of season. The advantages of having a strong domestic contingent are numerous!  

[Blackdude]

Yeah - and a domestic USA would have success over most domestic South American squads not named Argentina and Brazil. That is another reason why they would do better in CONMEBOL than you'd think. Not that Colombia and Peru are going to start relying on domestic squads, but WCQ is year round and at some point European based players are going to suffer from fatigue/travel/being out of season. The advantages of having a strong domestic contingent are numerous!  

 

Wait, and you're telling me that a player from Seattle traveling to Orlando wouldn't have an effect on fatigue? Oh and since when does WCQ happen when they're out of season? Maybe they're out of season for 1 month, but they would be training with the NT, so there aren't any disadvantages. Those things are true for domestic players in the US too because of the large country. How much time are you on a plane? It must have an effect even more on American domestics.

[Obinna]

Wait, and you're telling me that a player from Seattle traveling to Orlando wouldn't have an effect on fatigue? Oh and since when does WCQ happen when they're out of season? Maybe they're out of season for 1 month, but they would be training with the NT, so there aren't any disadvantages. Those things are true for domestic players in the US too because of the large country. How much time are you on a plane? It must have an effect even more on American domestics.

 

Well, for starters MLS players are in the Western Hemisphere. Flights to South America are much shorter with far less jet lag.

 

Secondly, European based players just coming off a long season are more prone to injury. Don't believe me? Look at all the pre-world cup injuries. Yaya Toure, Frank Ribery, Christiano Ronaldo, Steven Gerrard etc. Nigeria and USA played a friendly Saturday. Nigeria (who's squad is largely European based, had several injury concerns and could not name a first choice squad. The USA? No injury concerns whatsoever. Coincidence? Maybe...maybe not.

 

The USA will be one of the fresher teams in Brazil this summer.

 

I know your probably thinking - well USA domestics will also go through the same phase when fall comes around and the season begins to wind down. Well consider the large number of European based Americans who would now be just picking up a rhythm. The US can call on these in addition to any MLS based players who have not fallen victim to injury. Best of both worlds if you ask me.

 

Nonetheless these are all small details, the main reason why the US would be competitive is simply due to the quality in their squad, which I addressed in the previous post. I would like to hear your counter on that, it would be far more interesting.

[Blackdude]

Nonetheless these are all small details, the main reason why the US would be competitive is simply due to the quality in their squad, which I addressed in the previous post. I would like to hear your counter on that, it would be far more interesting.

 

They would be competitive, but not competitive to make more World Cups than they would miss. You're giving some names, but XI to XI, I still believe that the US in inferior to most teams in CONMEBOL. Could they qualify? Yes, but it would take a good amount of luck for them to be there. I didn't mention Guzan for the simple reason that you can't start Howard and Guzan at the same time. Still, you're comparing Brooks to a wish we had a guy like him. It doesn't really matter to mention Canada to make a point like that. I still think that the US lack the top end talent that other countries in CONMEBOL have. They have some good bits, but still lack top players that other countries do have. I see that people here overrate the US like we have overrated Canada before the SF Group.

[Obinna]

They would be competitive, but not competitive to make more World Cups than they would miss. You're giving some names, but XI to XI, I still believe that the US in inferior to most teams in CONMEBOL. Could they qualify? Yes, but it would take a good amount of luck for them to be there. I didn't mention Guzan for the simple reason that you can't start Howard and Guzan at the same time. Still, you're comparing Brooks to a wish we had a guy like him. It doesn't really matter to mention Canada to make a point like that. I still think that the US lack the top end talent that other countries in CONMEBOL have. They have some good bits, but still lack top players that other countries do have. I see that people here overrate the US like we have overrated Canada before the SF Group.

 

I purposely chose to describe Brooks in that way. It was just for affect but clearly it was a distraction....

 

To clarify my point - Brooks might be an average Bundesliga player right now, but has tremendous upside. How many South American teams would snub a 20 year old center back getting decent minutes in the Bundesliga? Not many.

 

Fair enough about Guzan - as long as you acknowledge having a backup keeper of that quality is not insignificant.

 

So you are of the opinion that the USA is inferior to most teams XI to XI? That is interesting and certainly debatable. Certainly they lack a player who has top end talent. Howard is probably the only one who could be considered world class - but that is a stretch. 

 

Chile have Sanchez and Vidal (arguably Claudio Bravo). Colombia has Falcao (arguably Jackson Martinez/James Rodriguez). I will exclude Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil for obvious reasons, but tell me, are there any other countries that have the top end talent the USA lacks?

 

Venezuela - Arrango/Rondon? No.

Ecuador - Valencia? No.

Paraguay - Cardozo? No.

Peru - ?

Bolivia - ?

 

It is not that these teams don't have some quality players, they do - but so do the US. A quick look through the player pools will show that your opinion is based on perception. The Americans can field a very respectable XI but don't garner much respect because they are - American.

 

So I invite you to point out any flaws in my analysis. Unless you can name any players I have overlooked, there is no reason to suggest an American XI on paper isn't comparable to Venezuela's/Peru's/Ecuador's/Paraguay's/Boliva's. Thus, the USA should qualify at least as regularly as these teams (in theory).

 

Aside from top end talent, I think equally or more important is having a deep squad. This is where the USA is ahead of all the teams mentioned in the last paragraph - and the gap will only become wider as MLS continues to improve.

 

WCQ is a grind and sometimes you need to call on many different players. Mexico and USA can do that which negates their lack of a superstar. In comparison, Uruguay has decided to focus on a very shallow player pool, and struggled to qualify in the last two cycles, despite having several world class players in their best XI. This could explain their struggles - at least in part.

[Blackdude]

Well, let's agree to disagree. I just don't think the US is as good as the other teams. Still,you don't know for sure the answer, and I don't know for sure the answer. My opinion is that the US would struggle to qualify, and that they would understand what it is to play in CONMEBOL. I think they would be in the 8th-10th range in CONCACAF which shouldn't be good enough to qualify regularly.

[Obinna]

Well, let's agree to disagree. I just don't think the US is as good as the other teams. Still,you don't know for sure the answer, and I don't know for sure the answer. My opinion is that the US would struggle to qualify, and that they would understand what it is to play in CONMEBOL. I think they would be in the 8th-10th range in CONCACAF which shouldn't be good enough to qualify regularly.

Haha fair enough, i'm down with that.

 

How do you like their chances for the Centenario then, considering they are hosts?

[Grizzly]

 I see that people here overrate the US like we have overrated Canada before the SF Group.

 

I think it is you who is overrating the quality of good but not exceptional South American sides. The only sides that are consistently good (though even they struggle occasionally) are Brazil and Argentina. The rest are good teams of varying levels that go through cycles of having a good generation or being lucky just like many of the European teams below the traditional powers. Uruguay, for example, is not a constant powerhouse team but rather a team that is on a good generation after being pretty mediocre through much of the 2 preceding decades. Rather similar to Belgium in Europe.

 

Yes Mexico and the US have it easy in CONCAFCAF because they are a level above the other teams (though Mexico struggled in this qualification and had to play the qualifier against the OFC team which they won quite easily). Of course it would be harder for them to qualify in CONMEBOL because with more quality teams they would be facing more competition at or near their level in almost every game which is not the case in CONCACAF. On the other hand that is why CONMEBOL has so many places and half of the teams qualify. Mexico and the USA would both be around the better of the the good teams in CONMEBOL below Brazil and Argentina such like Chile or Colombia. And Chile and Colombia don't always qualify for the World Cup either but I doubt you are going to post a similar critique of all their flaws such as you posted about the US.

[Blackdude]

Yes Mexico and the US have it easy in CONCAFCAF because they are a level above the other teams (though Mexico struggled in this qualification and had to play the qualifier against the OFC team which they won quite easily). Of course it would be harder for them to qualify in CONMEBOL because with more quality teams they would be facing more competition at or near their level in almost every game which is not the case in CONCACAF. On the other hand that is why CONMEBOL has so many places and half of the teams qualify. Mexico and the USA would both be around the better of the the good teams in CONMEBOL below Brazil and Argentina such like Chile or Colombia. And Chile and Colombia don't always qualify for the World Cup either but I doubt you are going to post a similar critique of all their flaws such as you posted about the US.

 

Yes, they have flaws, but it's that way for any team not named Brazil or Argentina. If it was on a neutral pitch, the US have no problem  against the other teams, but the biggest X-factor is the away match. I do think that the US would be a great team if it was only about neutral pitch Copa America and stuff like that. So, I would think that they'll make the QF of a Copa America or even better depending of who they get in that matchup. I admit that other countires have their flaws because they don't produce as many playres and their domestic leagues are not worth a lot. (Then again, you see a MLS club "Discover" a "Special" player who won promotion with a Uruguayan second division) I think that WCQ is a different animal. My massive question is how would they hold on when playing in South America every FIFA date. Every away match is different, and I wonder how hard it would be for them to play those crazy away games.

 

Anyways, the point is moot, because it's not like the US or Mexico would play in a CONMEBOL style WCQ. 

[Grizzly]

Yes, they have flaws, but it's that way for any team not named Brazil or Argentina. If it was on a neutral pitch, the US have no problem  against the other teams, but the biggest X-factor is the away match. I do think that the US would be a great team if it was only about neutral pitch Copa America and stuff like that. So, I would think that they'll make the QF of a Copa America or even better depending of who they get in that matchup. I admit that other countires have their flaws because they don't produce as many playres and their domestic leagues are not worth a lot. (Then again, you see a MLS club "Discover" a "Special" player who won promotion with a Uruguayan second division) I think that WCQ is a different animal. My massive question is how would they hold on when playing in South America every FIFA date. Every away match is different, and I wonder how hard it would be for them to play those crazy away games.

 

Anyways, the point is moot, because it's not like the US or Mexico would play in a CONMEBOL style WCQ. 

 

I think this argument has even less merit than your argument on player ability. Every difficulty of playing away in CONMEBOL we have here in CONCACAF, crazy intimidating fans, unstable dangerous countries, high altitude stadiums. We even have a few extra difficulties like stadiums with bad pitches and really terrible and unpredictable reffing (and I am not claiming that CONMEBOL reffing is great but it is definitely a lot better than CONCACAF reffing). Sure Le Paz is higher than Mexico City and Equador and Colombia also have high stadiums but then Mexico City's altitude is compounded by the bad air quality due to pollution. And even teams like Brazil and Argentina struggle in the high altitude stadiums and complain that it is unfair which is why FIFA tried to ban WCQ games in them before backing down. And travel would be a difficulty but that is why teams don't play in other conferences. That is like saying Japan would have a hard time qualifying in CONCACAF if their players were jetlagged because they had to fly to North America. In the end the only valid comparison is how the teams would stack up to each other in a neutral venue which is exactly why the World Cup is held in one country where the conditions are relatively the same for every team.

 

And I am not sure what your point is about MLS discovering players in the Uruguayan 2nd division. The MLS has brought in a lot of South American players and some have been good and some have been poor. There has been the occasional player from a lower league that has done well but I think there are far more examples of players who were in good South American teams and leagues who did not live up to expectations. And teams all over the world sometimes find players who don't have the greatest pedigree and then break out. Bundesliga clubs find obscure guys all the time who turn into better players than expected and no one denigrates the Bundesliga for that or claims that wherever the guy came from is a super high level. If you are referring to the Impact's Uruguayan 2nd division finding from what I have seen of him I am not convinced he is of NASL calibre let alone a MLS player. And for all the vaulted South American technical ability he controls the ball poorly, can't pass and is positionally poor. Speed seems to be his main skill. I have read reports of guys attending the U23 games that Academie product Jackson-Hamel is outperforming him in reserve games. That is what happens when you have a guy who has a poor eye for talent and who believes if a player is from South America he must be good as the team manager.

[Blackdude]

I think this argument has even less merit than your argument on player ability. Every difficulty of playing away in CONMEBOL we have here in CONCACAF, crazy intimidating fans, unstable dangerous countries, high altitude stadiums.

 

I just think that the US would do better in a Copa America than in a WCQ against CONMEBOL, A bit like Canada usually does better at Gold Cup than in WCQ right now. It's also that the quality of opponents, I think it's fair to say that every team in CONMEBOL aside from maybe Bolivia is better than Honduras. (Elo Ratings say so) It's about the difference of talent between those teams and the Honduras, that will make it harder.

[Grizzly]

I just think that the US would do better in a Copa America than in a WCQ against CONMEBOL, A bit like Canada usually does better at Gold Cup than in WCQ right now. It's also that the quality of opponents, I think it's fair to say that every team in CONMEBOL aside from maybe Bolivia is better than Honduras. (Elo Ratings say so) It's about the difference of talent between those teams and the Honduras, that will make it harder.

 

Yeah I can agree with that but that is a lot milder opinion then most of what you have previously said in this thread.