Why do people say CONCACAF is crap?

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by special_k, Dec 18, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Country:
    United States
    It's not the qualifying records that people are pointing to. It's world cup results, something Concacaf teams (and that's not just Mexico and the US, btw) get with much greater regularity than CAF or AFC teams. How can you argue with world cup results? Isn't that what it's all about?


  2. ScoringChance

    ScoringChance New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Location:
    Montreal, QC, CA
    I prefer dvandyke's original formula. Yes, there would be blowout games, but there are huge underdogs in Europe also (San Marino, Luxembourg, Andorra, for example) and they still make a difference when they pull a miracle tie or win against a tough opponent (Cyprus, Malta and Iceland are pretty good spoilers every now and then). Could you imagine a team like Colombia, Paraguay or Uruguay missing the WC because of a final game tie against Barbados or Canada? The USA eliminated because of a loss in Venezuela? You can't be absolutely certain that the top teams would just win out every game, there would be upsets and some might be costly.

    The lower teams would improve by playing the best and this would make it more and more interesting very quickly. Also, in your formula, the best teams would only play six games to qualify. In dvandyke's formula, they play 10.
  3. spencercs

    spencercs New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    London
    So what your saying is that the USA and mexico have done better in world cups than teams like paraguay and chile etc. So what they're ******** too. People say concacaf is ******** because there are no quality sides in it, yeah concacaf teams may have a better world cup record than the likes of paraguay etc but three south american teams have won the world cup, how many concacaf teams?

    While there is undoubetedly some not so great teams in caf, if the USA had to qualify there it would struggle.
  4. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Country:
    United States
    Why do people like you constantly confuse difficultly of qualifying with quality of play? They are completely different things with no corrolation. Just because qualification out of Concacaf is easy for the big teams doesn't mean those teams suck. In fact, the results contradict that, consistantly. Just bacause it is difficult to qualify out of the CAF doesn't mean that CAF teams are good. In fact, the results contradict that.

    BTW, Paraguay and Chile are both in Conmebol, which is a superior confederation to Concacaf. I said absolutely nothing about Conmebol or it's teams, so don't put words in my mouth. The qualifiers from Conmebol are consistently strong and competitive in the World Cup, almost as strong as the UEFA teams.

    What I am saying is that the teams that represent Concacaf in the World Cup have acheived superior results, on average, than their CAF and AFC counterparts. Period. End of story.

    What does the fact that the African qualification system is fundamentally broken have to do with the US or Mexico? Seems to me you should tell the CAF to fix the stupid system and stop using the issue to take unrelated pot shots at teams you obviously have a vendetta against.


  5. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Country:
    United States
    You know what? You're totally right. This system rewards consistency over a couple of big results and is more likely to put the truly best teams on the field in the WC. 10 games is a better number of games than 6 (or 18, conmebol!). And the more I look at those theoretical 6 team draws, the more I like them.

    Now who do we call about getting this done? :D
  6. spencercs

    spencercs New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    London
    USA are not a good enough team for me, an england fan to have a vendetta against, however what does agitate me is americans overrating their national team, on a poll here about 150 americans voted for the usa to win the wc, its just ridiculous, more people voted for the USA than for portugal or the czech republic, maybe in the future the USA can become but for now the US are like the rest of concacaf, crap.
  7. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Country:
    United States
    You do me and other open-minded, intelligent American soccer fans a great disservice by lumping us all into the same category. Look through my previous posts. If I state an opinion, I back it up. I didn't see a whole lot of that out of you in your previous posts. Fortunately, I don't think all English soccer fans are just like you. That would be pretty sad.

    Allow me to end this conversation by quoting one of my first posts here at Big Soccer:

    Now go hate on someone else.
  8. Gold is the Colour

    Gold is the Colour Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Location:
    Perth Australia
    Club:
    Perth Glory
    Country:
    Australia
    If you combined Concacaf with any other group they would have had less teams at the world cup.

    With Europe: USA and Mexico, even to good chance, Costa Rica Small Chance, T&T no chance

    With Africa: USA and Mexico Very good chance, Costa Rica Evens, T&T No Chance

    With SA: USA and Mexico Good Chance, Costa Rica reasonable Chance, T&T No chance

    With Asia: the same as it turned out, with Bahrain and T&T going for the final spot

    People don't think Concacaf is crap because of USA, Mexico or Costa Rica, they are all good teams, Concacaf is crap because of the teams coming after them
  9. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Country:
    United States
    Absolutely true. This was definitely a qualification campaign without a viable 4th team. But I would disagree that Concacaf is the only confederation with this problem. African teams consistently disappoint once they leave continental qualifying and step onto a World Cup pitch. One or more Asian teams more often than not are competing for the wooden spoon. Concacaf earned that .5 spot by bringing at least 2, if not 3, genuinely competitive teams to the World Cup more than once. And in 4 years, I certainly hope to see several teams worth a shot on the world stage fighting for that 4th spot for Concacaf.
  10. JColcci [SPFC]

    JColcci [SPFC] New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Rio de Janeiro, BRA
    I may disagree about what some people said about african teams that did not make a good hole in the past WCs... I think it's really interesting to have an african team in quarters every world cup, it's a good campaign.

    And, after all, I may agree that the goods of Concacaf are Mexico and USA. Costa Rica is not so bad, but I wonder if they could beat Venezuela (the worst in South America) without problems. I can't imagine, also, USA beating Ecuador at Quito, or Bolivia, at La Paz, where the highness is a serious problem... believe me, Conmenbol WCQ is simple.
  11. bert988

    bert988 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    well venezuela has improved a lot,they give problems to everyone now..
  12. kpaulson

    kpaulson New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2000
    Location:
    Washington DC
    The perennial problem of rating confederations is that it has only half about how good the best teams are, and half about how good the rotten teams are.

    Brazil's fine record doesn't really say much about how good Venezuela is. We all know they've improved a good deal, but it's tough to say how much. Likewise, the US and Mexico's decent performance at the last World Cup doesn't really say much about Jamaica and Guatemala (both of which seem to have regressed somewhat since the last cycle). I think CONCACAF has potentially a few passable World Cup teams, but we haven't really seen anything to bear that out yet.

    This is why I was really interested in the Bahrain-Trini game-- it's one of those rare occasions where you get to see middling teams of two confeds lock horns. I wouldn't draw conclusions from just two games, but that's the sort of contest that will actually allow us to judge the relative strengths of confederations.
  13. shinzui

    shinzui New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Location:
    Gulf Shores
    You could do a Asian style qualifying where you have two stages to get 8 World Cup qualifiers from a united CONMEBOL/CONCACAF.

    Stage 1, 8 groups, top 2 advance.
    Pots using FIFA rankings
    Pot 1)Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, USA, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Colombia, Paraguay
    Pot 2)Ecuador, Honduras, Jamaica, Trinidad, Guatemala, Chile, Peru, Venezuela
    Pot 3)Cuba, Panama, Canada, Bolivia, Haiti, Barbados, El Salvador, St. Lucia
    Pot 4)21 remaining Caribbean teams unseeded.

    Stage 2, 4 groups, top 2 qualify for World Cup.
    Pot 1)Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, USA
    Pot 2)Uruguay, Costa Rica, Colombia, Paraguay
    Pot 3)Ecuador, Honduras, Jamaica, Trinidad
    Pot 4)Guatemala, Chile, Peru, Venezuela

    I would still favor the USA's chances of finishing top 2 in any combination of groups from that second stage. A potential of USA, Uruguay, Ecuador, Chile would put some pressure on, but the US would still be the favorite to come out of that group.
  14. Latin Pride

    Latin Pride Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    In your house
    Club:
    Olimpia Asuncion
    Country:
    --other--
    and the US has never beaten Bolivia..bottom placed S.A team, Mexico has only beaten Paraguay once in 9 official games, with 3 games in Mexico, twice in the US(2nd home to Mexico), twice in Paraguay, and twice in neutral ground, and the USA has only played a full strenght Paraguay team in 1930 so that doesnt really show anything. Colombia has a superiour record to both the US and Mex and they havent qualified out of Conmebol since 98, Mexico also mostly always brings a full strenght team to the Copa America while the others use mostly sub teams..so why shouldnt they get far? Copa America and qualifiers competition are completly different, Mexico and the USA would qualify out of Conmebol but not every time.. CR wouldnt at all, at very best they would clinch 5th place playoff
  15. GreenIsle

    GreenIsle Red Card

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Location:
    Green I/Prt Douglas
    And I think that is doubtful also.The US and MEX would be around the 5th place CONMEBOL team but would still qualify as they would then only have to face New Zealand to get through.Although,having said that,,the US record against NZ is a winning one but by no means a convincing one.
  16. leonidas

    leonidas Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    Country:
    Brazil
    Doing this completely ruins all the rivalries in the confederations. will never happen. it's for this reason that i'm against even changing the qualification process for CONMEBOL, which might happen for 2010. and as others have said here, your US group creates a ton of travelling.
  17. Bob Morocco

    Bob Morocco Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Billings, MT
    And Uruguay has won more world cups than Mexico and the USA so it must be better now.

    Against SA teams other than Brazil and Argentina the US is 6-2-3 in the Bruce Arena era.
  18. Nutty

    Nutty New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2002
    Location:
    NJ
    You're joking right? Obviously US and Mexico are behind Brazil and Argentina but please tell me what other team you would rank ahead of them. As I see it, it's a clear 1-2 Brazil and Argentina (gap) 3-4 US and Mexico (gap) other teams.
  19. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Country:
    United States
    I really wonder if it would mean that much more travel for the bulk of SA sides than the current 18 game (9 away) schedule? The vast, vast majority of countries lie between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn and are a reasonable flight to one another (and from Europe, an important detail). Sure the distances are (sometimes) longer, but there are also 3 fewer away games. The only real travel suckatude happens when you get Chile, Uruguay or Argentina in a group with Canada or the US.
  20. MarioKempes

    MarioKempes Member+

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2000
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Mexico has a little over 100 million, while the US is about 300 million. As you know, in the US soccer, or football, is not terribly popular, and out of that 300 million only about 20-30 million follow the sport.

    The US and Mexico are obviously the class of CONCACAF, but Costa Rica also has the potential to beat any team in the world on any given day. Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guatemala are solid sides, probably as good or better than the average European side. Even Panama is a competitive side. The problem is, outside of those 6 sides, there is very little strength in the region.

    As we saw last WC, the teams that CONCACAF now sends to the global tournament are competitive, even though the region lacks depth. Mexico won their group, finishing ahead of Italy, Croatia, and Ecuador. The US finished 2nd in their group, finishing ahead of Portugal and Poland. Costa Rica finished 3rd, behind Brazil and Turkey, however, they only missed out on goal differential to Turkey. It seems likely that they would have qualified from other groups. Getting grouped with 2 semifinalists was not helpful.
  21. GreenIsle

    GreenIsle Red Card

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Location:
    Green I/Prt Douglas
    Why?

    Well from this region it may have something to do with the continual sniping from Americans over OFC.Australia has a winning record against the top two sides in CONCACAF,and New Zealand would be as good as any of Jamaica, Guatemala,Honduras,Panama and El Salvador.
  22. scarshins

    scarshins Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2000
    Location:
    fcva
    Americans sniping? You must be confused, last we checked there weren't any American soccer fans.

    The problem I see is that so many folks completely unfamiliar with this region say stuff off the top of their head.
    As a big country, here is what you would face in CONCACAF qualifying:

    1. Extreme motivation. As in, the Guatemala players are trying to break our legs, and the ref has swallowed his whistle and won't do anything. OK, low blow, but it was this way- more than you can possibly believe- until this cycle. The teams, led by US and Mexico- cleaned up thier acts. So did the refs, although they can still be very poor.

    2. Some extremely fast and athletic teams- like Jamaica. One of the world's faster teams.

    3. Climate and field variations. From sweltering heat in Central America, to freezing in Canada. Bumpy fields, tall grass (intentional).

    4. If you're the US, a sizable number of fans of the other team even at your own home games. No home games. :)

    Well, it didn't kill us, it made us stronger. Now just to clarify WHO is any good in this region, my rankings of worthwhile teams:
    1. Mexico
    2. USA
    3. Costa Rica
    4. Honduras
    5. Jamaica
    6. Trinidad & Tobago
    7. Guatemala
    8. Panama
    9. Cuba
    10. Canada
    11. Haiti
    12. El Salvador

    That should help the geographically challenged. No, I don't mean the Americans.
  23. almango

    almango Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Location:
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Country:
    Australia
    You have the top two American teams listed ok but it isn't 3 & 4 then a gap as you put it. Mexico and the USA would be in the next group along with Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Colombia. I would still expect them to be amongst the top 8 regularly if there were combined qualifiers, but if you think they are significantly superior to the others I've mentioned then you're dreaming. From my point of view I would much rather play Mexico or USA for a World Cup spot than any of the South Americans I've mentioned.
  24. scarshins

    scarshins Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2000
    Location:
    fcva
    And that, at this point almango, would probably be a big mistake. Honestly. With USA you get a team whose performance for the past 5 years has been quite good, and only getting better, with Mexico you have to play away in Azteca. Forget the #5, I'd play the South America #3 before I'd take either of those. I'm sure Hiddink would also, but he doesn't post on Big Soccer, does he?
  25. Latin Pride

    Latin Pride Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    In your house
    Club:
    Olimpia Asuncion
    Country:
    --other--
    I was saying that because he mentioned that Paraguay never beat the US which is a dumb way to decide whos better so i also brought up the fact that the US never beat Bolivia.

    Why are the US and Mex better then the mid table Conmebol teams? because they beat the Cayman Islands 20-0? :rolleyes: they have the s.hitty Concacaf teams to make them look good.. thats why they are rated so highly.. no direspect to either team but until either team can manage something in an international competition and beat a few powerhouses they arent any better then your average Colombia and Uruguay.

    Put Bolivia and Venezuela in Concacaf and US and Mex in Conmebol and Bolivia and Venezuela would look alot better then anyone too. The fact is that Concacaf is a joke.. the US and Mex could qualify out of there with scab players, a good example is when a desperate Guatemala at home couldnt even beat a sub US team that didnt care.. lets face it, even Asia is more competitive then Concacaf. I dont know why US fans try to make it seem tough when its obvious in anyone's eyes that its not.. atleast Mexicans fans admit that Concacaf sucks.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page