It doesn't mean every other team has stayed how they were 10 years ago. The USA may have improved but then so has the quality of many other teams which is why even though the team may be better they have slipped in the rankings.

Progress is relative.

I am being told that the world rankings are definitive and if that is the case you cannot be deemed to be making progress if you are slipping down them.

A lot of truth in that. It's generally considered that standards have risen across the board over the last 10 years or so and that the gap between best and worst is much smaller - even teams like Estonia and Iceland have improved no end (both of them made play offs in recent times).

And there is clear evidence of those countries improving as they have made qualifying progress to play offs improving their rankings.

The USA are doing nothing particularly different in recent times for the same point to apply.

Their FIFA ranking of #13 is still excellent though and they were ahead of teams like the Netherlands, France and Croatia heading into this tournament.

Their ranking at the back end of 2002 was 10.

Their current ranking is 13.
So what progress has been made and what do other countries rankings have to do with it?

Well they're much better than England now for a start....although it's debatable whether that should be seen as progress

England are irrelevant to the point being made. You might as well say they are better than the Virgin Islands.

You seem to have a massive problem with the USA football team. They had a great World Cup, exceeded expectations and won a lot of new fans along the way

What's your issue

There's not much difference though between 10 and 13 and the rankings fluctuate from month to month....they certainly haven't gone backwards from where they were in 2002 anyway, it's not as if they've slipped from 10 to 45 or something.

You have to remember too that they're coming from a starting point where soccer was very much a minority sport and a novelty, so it's obviously going to take time for the sport to grow and grow

No issue at all. If you want my honest opinion on them then they were a bit lucky to beat Ghana, a bit unlucky not to see off Portugal, the Germany game was a dead one and there is little doubt that the Belgium result reflected rather better on them than their performance deserved. Noone seems to realise how dominant Belgium were.

They got to the second round and its the fourth time in the last six attempts that they have got out of the group. The idea this team has got into some uncharted territory is nothing but a fallacy.


I am not claiming they have fallen far. It isn't even my claim that the world rankings are fact. However my point is that you wouldn't regard a move from 10 to 13 as progress if the world rankings are to be passed off as fact, nor would it be progress to reach the same stage of a World Cup that you have reached several times before, not even achieving their best ever modern day finish. Don't really understand what is so complex or controversial about that.

He's making the quite reasonable point that why should it be seen as a 'great World Cup' for them to be runners up in their group and knocked out in the 2nd round when their previous World Cups have been:

2010 - Group Winners, knocked out in 2nd Round
2006 - Knocked out in Group Stages
2002 - Knocked out in the Quarter Finals
1998 - Knocked out in Group Stages
1994 - Knocked out in 2nd Round

It's hardly unprecedented success. Others are, reasonably, pointing out that the reception back in the US has been bigger than at previous World Cups which is a separate point.

So they have continued to impress by competing well against nations with higher reputation players. That seems praiseworthy enough.



Perhaps there are other variables to consider. Maybe some people feel that although they have progressed further in the past that this has been their best modern performance it terms of style? Maybe people are saying it's the best spirit ever amongst the national team? Maybe they are just regarding progress as being in terms of public interest rather than results? I don't know. You'd need to ask each individual what he means by progress.

There's more things in football than cold hard results. You can find crumbs of comfort in many things. Does anyone think football in the US and for their national team is in a worse place now than it was pre-tournament? If not, then it's been a good tournament for them.

I think Alan is just giving an honest point of view. Bosox on the other hand made some posts a couple of days ago where you could see he really does have an issue with the US.

They may have been a bit flattered by their #10 placing especially as the World Cup in 2002 was considered a pretty sub-standard one (the German team that reached the final was no great shakes for example).

If they had made 'progress' from that and were now in the FIFA top 5, that would indicate they were serious contenders to win the thing.

The argument isn't whether it is praiseworthy or not, but even if it is, I don't exactly see Algeria, Costa Rica etc being lauded the same for their results. This World Cup confirms progress by those nations. It doesn't confirm it for the USA if as I believe is the case such progress is to be judged by results.

I've been saying this for days and no one listened.

Don't forget they even got to the SEMI FINALS in 1930.

You cant have it both ways.

In other words, you cannot stand by watching others argue about the world rankings being matters of fact to suit one point and then discredit the USAs earlier rankings by labelling the tournament from which they partly derived as substandard.

The rankings are either relevant or they aren't.

Yes, but a team that was #10 in 2002 could be considerably inferior to a team that is ranked #10 now (or vice versa).

Personally I don't think the team has progressed a huge amount in pure footballing terms in the last 12 years but they haven't gone backwards either. What has definitely changed though is level of interest back home : around 20 million viewers per game for the last three matches and signs that the audience are becoming increasingly knowledgeable and sophisticated.

I basically agree with the second part of your post.

However I cannot agree with the first part. The tenth best team is still the tenth best regardless of anything; if the wider standard is better then it gives no reason to single out one team for their supposed progress given a lot of other teams would also have improved when assessed by the same barometer.

As I said earlier though, there is a lot of fluctuation in the rankings. A 4-0 defeat at home to an inferior team can see a country fall several places.

The USA were ranked 36 by FIFA in July 2012 (their lowest ever placing), so they've clearly had a good two year period.

The natural cycle of international football should involve ranking teams after World Cups, given that is where all confederations come together for the world's biggest football tournament.

To take your point of them being at a low of no 36 its quite easy for me to point out that in April 2006 they reached no 4 and it would promote debate on the dreadful period they must have had through to their low point. That is if I am taking the rankings as gospel.

The theme now is I keep making points and getting replies which suggest I've said something else.

If I say the strength of an opponent is a matter of opinion then I'm told the rankings are fact, regardless of who is playing.

If I say their performance is no better than before there is a bigger context that "goes beyond results".

If I say their ranking has dropped as well apparently I've got a problem with the team.

If I say they are getting more credit than they deserve its because they were in a group of death.

If I say Belgium hammered them and but for poor finishing the score would have confirmed so it simply gets sidestepped.

When their fall in the rankings is pointed out the rankings which I was previously told are a matter of fact are now "subject to fluctuation". This totally ignores the fact that between 2002 and 2006 there was no point at which their ranking was lower than is now currently the case.

I realise the thread is about US interest in the national team but the fact is that had the MLS had the profile in 2010 that it has now, this side would be regarded by their country as a disappointment despite their running round like headless chickens for the last 15 minutes against the Belgians which nearly got them what would have been a very fortuitous draw.

All this rankings talk

England 10
USA 13
France 17
Mexico 20

Can't see what people want from the USA?

Top 5?

Without having looked, I would expect the 2014 rankings for Germany, Portugal, and Ghana to be higher than the 2010 rankings for England, Algeria, and Slovenia.

Therefore, getting out of the group was harder for the USA this time round than last time round, and in doing so - the USA have made progress since the last World Cup.

We must read different media. I've seen a lot of praise for Algeria, Costa Rica (and Iran for that matter). How much praise is just right and how much is too much (patronising) or not enough (disrespectful)? I think everyone would judge that differently.