I mean, if the Tier 3 European teams (which is what I'm calling those Euro teams in the 15-20 range) are so clearly better than the likes of the US, then clearly they should dominate teams like the US when it comes to actual competitions, correct?

I'm neither Euro or American and can name ~20 countries I wouldn't have to think about taking over USA on neutral ground and several others where it's close.

The Euro posters are much closer to reality than 95% of the USA posters imo, even if they are underrating USA a bit.

Dwetzel you can't be serious with this 5 tournament sample size that barely even supports your argument.

I imagine you're also ignoring other factors such as seeding etc, but I'm not positive and can't be bothered to look it up.

but they won their group proving themselves better than England..... Someone actually posted that USA having better goal difference between the two countries was evidence that USA had the better attack as we'll.

Yea but some of them have done, as I pointed out Greece, which is not 15-20 at the moment, has won a major competition. Smaller Euro teams rise and fall all the time.

Its a meaningless way of looking at things, before Spain became the goat, they had done almost nothing in world football.

my favorite part:

lol england

marty, what makes you think your vote matters?

Greece wasn't 15-20 when they won the tournament either AFAIK.

But again, you're comparing teams within regions, which as you've already stated is a ****ty way of doing things because we can't really compare across regions. I mean, SOMEONE has to win the thing.

I mean, for instance, Russia's clearly better. Why are their results then "out in the first round because they lost to Japan, DNQ, DNQ because they got beat by a team that ended up in the US group and the US advanced ahead of them" then? And yes, LOL I'm quoting stuff from 12 years ago, and LOL sample size or something. Is Russia clearly that much better than those teams (if so, why)? Was Russia just really, really unlucky to not advance from the easiest WC group and then DNQ twice? Is the US clearly worse than their teams over that time (if so, why)?

Am I supposed to be impressed by Russia beating up Israel, Azerbijan, Northern Ireland, and Luxembourg? (In before some Eurotard says Azerbijan > USA)

If they're a good team, why don't they play good?

To think people accuse me of moving goal posts.

The funny thing about this is that I don't even really care what some rando thinks about the US team except 'MURICA. I just can't wait until either the US qualifies for R16 and random Eurotard says it's lol sample size, again or they don't and random Eurotard says lol US clearly sucks.

the psychic powers are strong. lottery numbers for tomorrow please.

Wouldn't it depend how it happens? If US has a significant creation advantage and GD in getting to R16 that's different than wimming against Slovenia and Algeria (and England).

Produce better players and I will be happy to boost my personal ranking of USA.

Its funny and precious that you think I am applying some standard to USA that I dont apply to every other team.

lol

how do you post this three minutes after writing off sample size as an argument itself

how many ways do you want it?

To some degree, but if those teams like Slovenia (who are like exactly the 2010 version of these teams we're debating about) are better, why don't they get better results? Why can't they beat inferior teams like the US, or at least have significant creation advantages against them?

muricas bulk stats in WCs since 94 are actually pretty dreadful, lot worse than i expected

4 wins, 5 draws and 10 losses. -9 GD. if that's run hot then lol

I just want to know in advance if winning and losing games against other relevant teams is going to count as a relevant data point worth looking at, rather than have random Eurotard decide after they see the results.

pretty good bringing in results from when the entire US roster was in grade school there, slappy, I assume you're trolling

i mean you're citing results from '94 and 2002 as if they show some long term pattern of overachievement relative to roster strength, and then introducing concepts like wim and team chemistry to explain it. if 4-5-10 is overachievement then america is much more lol than anyone could have reasonably expected.

You admitted yourself you can't even name who half the US players play for. Which I assume means that you haven't actually watched them play. I would have thought that part of your extensive research would have involved, you know, actually watching the players play games. You know, since statistics are irrelevant.

Or is your extensive research "some other people who may have seen them play once said they kinda suck, and I'm taking their word for it"?

Boom, headshot

I am pretty sure I never brought up 1994, for the record.

BAIDS, do you think the 2014 US team is better or worse, roster wise, than the 2010 US team?

He has zero, since he is a coward.