ESPN Classic I believe. Win for either team or a tie means that each nation is in. I think this game is going to be a tie, but the US is fortunate that Blanco is out for today.

Go US! Both countries are going to make WC'06, but it's always nice to beat Mexico!

Unfortunetly the USSF is a bunch of morons, they put it up against Boise St. v. Georgia and USC v. Hawaii. :(

Dos a Cero, AGAIN!

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

We're off to Germany baby!

So a win means were the best country on the continent right? ;)

That was a fun game. I was switching back and forth between it and college football. The atmosphere looked great and it seemed like our defense dominated. Onyewu, I've heard, was amazing and deserved Man of the Match. Reyna was good, Beasley was very good.

Very nice indeed.

Big win for the US. I know the FIFA rankings are pretty worthless but the US should move up to 5th when they are released. This has to be helpful for what group the US gets placed in next year as well.

Now how exactly does the Mexico coach come away from this talking smack?
I may not understand everything about soccer, but ... damn.

He gets away with it because the US media seemingly doesn't give a damn about soccer, while the Mexican media does.

hope the game was good. ESPN2 is replaying it at like 2am, and since I missed the whole thing the first time around I plan to stay up and watch, since i don't hafta work tomorrow or anything.

It was alright, but not a barn burner or anything.

so should i not stay up to watch it then? Ah well, i guess i'll be up for at least part of it, so there's no harm in deciding while i'm watching it if i want to stay up.

so should i not stay up to watch it then? Ah well, i guess i'll be up for at least part of it, so there's no harm in deciding while i'm watching it if i want to stay up.
You'll decide no.

The first half will put you to sleep.

Got a VCR or a DVR? Tape it ;).

still up, so i'll watch. Aaaah Keller. Balboa is a boob, but I gotta gree, Keller is the finest keeper the US has ever produced.

I once heard one of the announcers toss out some goofy joke like "2/3 of the Earth's surface is covered by water. The other third is covered by Keller and Friedel." And it's true.

Discuss: why the US has produced comparatively more top-flight keepers than other positions over the years...

Because most of our sports stress hands: American football, baseball, basketball, etc.

In soccer mad countries, they play, soccer... so they get better position players.

interesting. i had never thought of it that way, but i suppose it's true. less emphasis on foot-skills and more on hand-eye coordination and gross motor skills as opposed to fine motor skills.

Unfortunetly the USSF is a bunch of morons, they put it up against Boise St. v. Georgia and USC v. Hawaii. :(Actually, a combination of FIFA and CONCACAF selected the day, and the options earlier in the day were much worse (particularly if you take it as a given that the USSF will want to put a USA-MEX quallie in Crew Stadium -- then you're competing with tOSU for fans!).

Big win for the US. I know the FIFA rankings are pretty worthless but the US should move up to 5th when they are released. This has to be helpful for what group the US gets placed in next year as well.Most likely, it won't make a difference.

* Only eight teams are "seeded" in the World Cup; the remainder of the draw is grouped geographically by federation. In the last two World Cups, CONCACAF has been grouped with Africa (with three CONCACAF teams adding to five CAF teams to make a full pot of eight to draw from). With Mexico getting a seed this time around (assuming no FIFA chicanery), it's less certain whether we'll be grouped with CAF or Asia, and the decision may be influenced by whether the fourth-place CONCACAF squad (most likely either Trinidad&Tobago or Guatemala) wins their series with the fifth-place AFC squad (either Bahrain or Uzbekistan).

* The eight seeded teams are selected objectively. The home team (Germany) will be seeded, the remainder are selected using a formula that is 50% performance in the past three world cups (those weighted on a 3-2-1 scale) and 50% performance in snapshots of FIFA rankings from the three years up to and including the draw (Dec. 2003, Dec. 2004, and Nov. 2005, each weighted equally). So as you can see, 5/6 of the formula is set.

* The practical upshot of the previous point is that all but one of the seeds is fixed mathematically, with Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, England, Spain, Italy, and France in line to join Germany as seeded teams and only France having any danger of slipping out (the Netherlands has a slight chance of catching them). The more likely route to a change is one of the above failing to qualify -- France and Spain are both in jeopardy. Then it comes down to the U.S. and the Netherlands, with the latter holding an advantage.

The last point is where FIFA rankings could help... gain enough positions in the rankings relative to the Netherlands, and we could move ahead of them in line for the last seed. The benefit of being seeded is that the U.S. would be guaranteed not to be drawn with any of the other seeds.

Now how exactly does the Mexico coach come away from this talking smack?
I may not understand everything about soccer, but ... damn.I think it's probably got something to do with every soccer fan in Mexico calling for his head right about now. The folks in green where chanting for his replacement during the game. :eek:

Most likely, it won't make a difference.

* Only eight teams are "seeded" in the World Cup; the remainder of the draw is grouped geographically by federation. In the last two World Cups, CONCACAF has been grouped with Africa (with three CONCACAF teams adding to five CAF teams to make a full pot of eight to draw from). With Mexico getting a seed this time around (assuming no FIFA chicanery), it's less certain whether we'll be grouped with CAF or Asia, and the decision may be influenced by whether the fourth-place CONCACAF squad (most likely either Trinidad&Tobago or Guatemala) wins their series with the fifth-place AFC squad (either Bahrain or Uzbekistan).

* The eight seeded teams are selected objectively. The home team (Germany) will be seeded, the remainder are selected using a formula that is 50% performance in the past three world cups (those weighted on a 3-2-1 scale) and 50% performance in snapshots of FIFA rankings from the three years up to and including the draw (Dec. 2003, Dec. 2004, and Nov. 2005, each weighted equally). So as you can see, 5/6 of the formula is set.

* The practical upshot of the previous point is that all but one of the seeds is fixed mathematically, with Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, England, Spain, Italy, and France in line to join Germany as seeded teams and only France having any danger of slipping out (the Netherlands has a slight chance of catching them). The more likely route to a change is one of the above failing to qualify -- France and Spain are both in jeopardy. Then it comes down to the U.S. and the Netherlands, with the latter holding an advantage.

The last point is where FIFA rankings could help... gain enough positions in the rankings relative to the Netherlands, and we could move ahead of them in line for the last seed. The benefit of being seeded is that the U.S. would be guaranteed not to be drawn with any of the other seeds.
curious, why would you say that Mexico would be getting a seed this time? based on their performance in the last 2 wc's?? or based on the snapshot of their FIFA rankings? What exactly is it that makes them more likely to be seeded than the US?

The atmosphere in the stadium for the game was incredible. There were rather more people in green shirts than I would have liked, but I suppose that was inevitable. The ones around my section were at least very well-behaved, not taking their frustrations with the direction the game took out on us. Oguchi Onyewu played out of his skull, he absolutely pwned Borgetti.

curious, why would you say that Mexico would be getting a seed this time? based on their performance in the last 2 wc's?? or based on the snapshot of their FIFA rankings? What exactly is it that makes them more likely to be seeded than the US?What it amounts to is, they've consistently been to and done well in the World Cup, and they've been hanging out in the top ten of the FIFA rankings for the last three years; that pretty much guarantees you a seed. The Netherlands is on the outside looking in because they didn't make it last time around.

We've got a modest edge on them in the 2002 World Cup (but only modest as we were last-ranked out of the quarterfinalists on points and goal differential) and a deficit in the 1998 World Cup (which doesn't go in as badly as we produced, all of the 4th-place-in-group teams are scored equally). The big difference is FIFA rankings... we were in the low teens up to tenth/eleventh in 2003 and 2004 and are only making a big push farther up now.

Most likely, it won't make a difference.

* Only eight teams are "seeded" in the World Cup; the remainder of the draw is grouped geographically by federation.

This I knew.

* The eight seeded teams are selected objectively. The home team (Germany) will be seeded, the remainder are selected using a formula that is 50% performance in the past three world cups (those weighted on a 3-2-1 scale) and 50% performance in snapshots of FIFA rankings from the three years up to and including the draw (Dec. 2003, Dec. 2004, and Nov. 2005, each weighted equally). So as you can see, 5/6 of the formula is set.


This is didn't know. I was just hoping that the US could get into one of those seeds but it doesn't look real good. Hopefully they will get a decent draw again without getting seeded. Thanks for the info.

I should also make the probably-obvious note that if there is some kind of chicanery from FIFA, it's unlikely to work to our benefit -- if we haven't earned a seed, they have no incentive to do anything on our behalf, and in the unlikely event that we do earn a seed, then UEFA might express concern about two seeds from CONCACAF and the result might be that either we or Mexico (or even both) lose the seed, either from FIFA gaming the formula or from tossing it out altogether.

I should also make the probably-obvious note that if there is some kind of chicanery from FIFA, it's unlikely to work to our benefit -- if we haven't earned a seed, they have no incentive to do anything on our behalf, and in the unlikely event that we do earn a seed, then UEFA might express concern about two seeds from CONCACAF and the result might be that either we or Mexico (or even both) lose the seed, either from FIFA gaming the formula or from tossing it out altogether.

You just wanted another chance to use the word "chicanery". :)