WC Qualifiers

Don't really see the relevance of Mexico winning a game in the US (while Clinton was still in the Whitehouse) when it comes to the argument about who is the better team today. Both teams will qualify for the WC, both will have a chance to progress to the knockout stages, and both teams will lose if they are lucky enough to get there.

Speaking of Azteca, going on a long trip to Mexico next month and will be in Mexico City for a day or two. While not planning on seeing a game there (will be seeing a Chivas match in Guadalajara) I'm curious to see what a stadium that seats 115k looks like.

 

I live in America. I can't just stop listening when almost every american idiot knows about that win. Geez, I've even heard about that win in political debates. It was like the only game Americans watched that tournament.


Here's how you know who is better. Mexico got out of their group in 2006 AND nearly won against Argentina. The US gained a WHOLE point. Not only that, but they got dominated in 2 games and could've lost to the Italians. You can bring up all the head to head matchups all you lot want, but until you've won in Mexico City or anywhere in Mexico and until you've proven that 2002 wasn't a fluke, then you can't say you're better. we know Mexico will be in the knockout phase in every World Cup, can we say the same about the US? Absolutely not.

 

Keep in mind I'm the proverbial kid who can't help but hit the hornet's next with a stick for fun but...24, Not sure what match you were watching, but Ghana hardly dominated that match, they had the better of it in the first half, but the pk call against Gooch was beyond horrendous. In a 2-1 game they went defensive in the second half w/the US hitting the post (McBride) and totally dominating the play in the final 30-35 minutes.

 

and #3 no one is even worthy of playing on the same court as North Carolina.

 

If you go to any football forums, you will hear about that match. I once had an argument about immigration and it was brought up. You must not talk about football much outside of this site because if you do and have a Mexican and an American at the same table, it will be brought up.

 

We are all now idiots too. I'm so proud.

 

Did Ghana not deserve anything from that game? I think they did and I watched the entire game and do think that PK call was bullshit. And if they did, then the US still wouldn't of went anywhere.


Mexico has shown to be better in international tournaments. They proved that in the last world cup. In fact they made it out of the last 3 world cup group stages. The US was last in 98,5th in 2002 and nearly last in 2006.

 

Context is everything.

NO team has a winning record against Mexico in Azteca Stadium. Argentina and Brazil don't like their chances playing against Mexico in that stadium. It's not just the altitude, it's also the poor air quality (smog) and the ultra hostile and overly large crowd.

At this point, I *would* say the US team is better than Mexico. We hardly have a "home crowd" when we play them in the USA, but they still can't beat us here.

They didn't qualify for the Olympics; we did.

They struggled to beat a Belize team ranked 201st, in Houston (where there were far more Mexico fans than Belize fans); we demoslished a Barbados side ranked 142nd.

In our only recent WC head-to-head, we beat them.

Yes, they performed better in the 2006 WC than we did; so what? We performed better than they did in 2002.

Head to head, we beat them in neutral venues.

Against the same competition, we do better. Argentina beat Mexico 4-1...and then we fought that same Argentine team to a 0-0 tie with only one fewer shot on goal than the South Americans.

Perhaps SGE will take Mexico to the next level; until that happens, though, while they have more talented players, we have the better team right now.

 

24, I do enjoy the give and take, but go back and read the posts. YOU initially said Ghana dominated the game, I took umbridge, because frankly they didn't. Did they deserve to get something out the game? I never said they didn't. With the Italy/Czech Rep. match going their way they played for the draw (which probably should have been the proper result) and were fortunate the US didn't cash in on multitude of chances.

I apologize to everyone who was expecting to read the pros and cons about calling up Kenny Cooper on a thread devoted to the 2010 Qualifying Campaign.

 

So friendlies mean something? I don't think so. So throw the Argentina crap outta the window.



That was the OLYMPICS! This is the SENIOR national team. Olympics don't mean anything.


Thanks for pointing out that Azteca stuff. So it appears that they have the best home crowd in the world and can't be beat. That's great. The US doesn't have anything like it.


Did they beat Belize? Did you watch the game? They had loads of chances and just didn't finish. Also once you get a certain ranking, FIFA rankings don't mean shit.

Again, that was 2002. Poland is better than the US if that's the argument. And the US is better than Portugal.



They have the better players, better manager and better history in ACTUAL competition. The Gold Cup means NOTHING. They perform on a much better level in the world cup.

 

Sounds divisive. Let's get rid of 'em

 

Doesn't sound like a bad idea. Get rid of national teams. Good job.

 

I think he just wants Kenny Cooper to be called - US Soccer hasnt said anything yet. I want Buddle called and you want Robie Rogers. Lets see who wins

 

If Buddle isn't called then he should switch to Jamaica. That would be like the umteenth million time he hasn't been called when he's deserved it.

 

I read that his injuries are primarily what has kept him from being called - dont know how true it is.