World Ranking

[Stuttgart88]

Did they get the dates wrong when they went to Windsor Park then?

[youngirish]

PS - Having watched the two recent matches of both USA (on ESPN2) and Ireland (via Setanta delayed broadcasts), USA has looked the better team, mainly because Landon Donovan has been on fire. I'd love to see a friendly between the two though.

USA don't or ever have had the calibre of players we have had though with our current management setup you might be right in your assumption that they may have looked better in recent years.

We should still beat them comfortably though in a game on neutral territory (we might struggle in the USA). The Czechs walked all over the USA at the World Cup and I'd rank them as similar to us at the moment (they are possibly slightly a better team overall though we IMO have better players to choose from).

I wouldn't consider the USA to be too much better than Wales though their ranking might indicate otherwise (mainly because they generally only play against very poor opposition in ranked matches). If the USA joined UEFA tomorrow and had to play in the Euro qualifiers they wouldn't qualify for any finals and would float far down the rankings (harsh but true).

[citizenerased]

in fairness we have a far better team than USA, Yet the USA always preform well in tournaments, and generally well as a team.

[eirebhoy]

I wouldn't consider the USA to be too much better than Wales though their ranking might indicate otherwise (mainly because they generally only play against very poor opposition in ranked matches).

I think that's a bit unfair. USA get the exact same amount of points for beating 52nd placed Costa Rica in a qualifier as we'd get for beating Wales or Austria (74/75th). A win for them against Canada would be the equivalent of a win for us against Estonia or Malta.

Even a win for USA against Mexico will get them the same amount of points as a win for us over Finland.

[DmanDmythDledge]

When FIFA changed the ranking calculation were all matches in the 4 year period before that changed to reflect the new system or did it only count for games from then on?

[eirebhoy]

When FIFA changed the ranking calculation were all matches in the 4 year period before that changed to reflect the new system or did it only count for games from then on?

Yeah all previous matches were used.

[Cymro]

Do they really though, the only good result they have had recently that springs to mind is the victory over France. Other than that they have had very little.

Still, they are near the top of their group and were top until last month after which they have fallen. The new rankings system tends to give priority to more recent results and Scotland have done well this campaign. 19th does not seem wrong to me, especially when you consider where England are.

I wouldn't consider the USA to be too much better than Wales though their ranking might indicate otherwise (mainly because they generally only play against very poor opposition in ranked matches). If the USA joined UEFA tomorrow and had to play in the Euro qualifiers they wouldn't qualify for any finals and would float far down the rankings (harsh but true).

USA really gave us a thrashing last time we played them. Admittedly we were under strength that day (when aren't we?) but I think they are often underrated. They weren't under-rated by the old rankings that had them in 4th though, rather the opposite.

We should still beat them comfortably though in a game on neutral territory (we might struggle in the USA). The Czechs walked all over the USA at the World Cup and I'd rank them as similar to us at the moment (they are possibly slightly a better team overall though we IMO have better players to choose from).

Also, you say this but the Czechs are a much different side since the World Cup and even now I'd have them as a better side than you. The side that beat USA 3-0 in the World Cup was in much better form and Jan Koller was fully fit, a key player for them.

[kingdom hoop]

GAA intercounty players only get expenses.They aren't 'paid'.They are amateur-for now

Saying around my way that there's no such thing as a poor Kerry footballer!

Oh, and that's poor financially, though it rings true for sport too of course!

[EalingGreen]

Did they get the dates wrong when they went to Windsor Park then?

Well that might explain what went wrong on their previous visit to Ireland (Lansdowne, 01/03/06 ), but I doubt whether the Swedes would make the same mistake twice!

[Qwerty]

in fairness we have a far better team than USA, Yet the USA always preform well in tournaments, and generally well as a team.

Well they finished 32 out of 32 teams in WC2002 having gone into the tourney as 'dark horses'. They got to the semis of a Copa America but that tournament is up and down. They also have done OK in the Gold Cup but really haven't shone in the WC. Player for player we are better but they are good athletes and have an excellent attitude as you would expect. They continue to improve.

[ifk101]

I'm not sure about this, but I have a feeling Sweden play a number of friendlies "out of season" i.e. featuring their domestic (Summer) players, where the teams selected are weaker (hence less successful?) than the teams they pick for competitive matches, where they include their stars who play outside of Sweden.

Yes - this is correct. Basically every January/February an international team made up of exclusively Scandinavian-based players is sent to places such as the Middle East or, most recently, Ecuador to play a few friendly matches. However and even when Sweden plays friendlies with "a full squad" - they're not up to much. This is because Sweden tries to experiment in their friendly matches - with varying degrees of success. When it comes to competitive matches, there is absolutely no experimenting. It's always a cautious 4-4-2 formation, one central midfielder sitting in front of the back four, and an attacking play based on countering. You'll never see a Sweden side force the pace of a game - simply because they're not capable of doing so. And anytime they try to do so, see friendly matches, they are a very ordinary side.

[youngirish]

Also, you say this but the Czechs are a much different side since the World Cup and even now I'd have them as a better side than you. The side that beat USA 3-0 in the World Cup was in much better form and Jan Koller was fully fit, a key player for them.

The Czechs were not particularly brilliant in the World Cup in fairness either. They lost their other two games so I wouldn't consider them any different than the team we played a few months later and should really have beaten. I agree they are better than us but only slightly.

The only player they really miss would be Nedved though he's getting on a bit anyway.

The USA are a pretty average to poor team IMO. I'd still say we should beat them comfortably though under Stan any result is possible. They have a terrible record in the World Cup also bar 2002 when they did well in any easy group (the easiest in the tournament, only Portugal were much cop though they did beat them).

[Cymro]

I think Koller got injured in that game against the USA actually, which shows how important he is to them.

[kingdom hoop]

Well they finished 32 out of 32 teams in WC2002 having gone into the tourney as 'dark horses'.

The US got to the quarter-finals in 2002

[kingdom hoop]

They have a terrible record in the World Cup also bar 2002 when they did well in any easy group (the easiest in the tournament, only Portugal were much cop though they did beat them).

South Korea were in that group as well by the way, knocking out the so-called Golden Generation of Portuguese football

Last years WC handed them a very tough group - Czechs, Italy and Ghana - where they probably under-performed though did manage a tempestuous draw against ultimate victors Italy.

I wouldn't say they've a terrible record in the WC, just a bit hit and miss, which is never a good thing in a WC

[youngirish]

South Korea were in that group as well by the way, knocking out the so-called Golden Generation of Portuguese football

Yeah it was lucky they had the ref and the two linesmen playing for them all through the tournament. The poorest team to ever reach the semi finals of a World Cup in living memory. I thought they were rubbish. The didn't look too hot without home advantage and the ref last time around.

[carloz]

Yeah it was lucky they had the ref and the two linesmen playing for them all through the tournament. The poorest team to ever reach the semi finals of a World Cup in living memory. .

They were very poor alright and seemed to get every bad referee's decision their way...having said that Turkey also got to that semi final, and then failed to qulaify for the nest major championship, Croatia got to the semi in France 98, and with a little help from us, failed to qualify for the next majopr tournament, and in USA 94 a rather average Bulgaria side made it to the semi and done very little afterwards. An average team always seems to make it to the semi's somehow. If one thinks back in Japan and Korea in 2002, had we won our group, we would have had quite an easy route to the final

[Qwerty]

The US got to the quarter-finals in 2002

Sorry I meant '98, the years whizz by.

[danonion]

I think Koller got injured in that game against the USA actually, which shows how important he is to them.

Pity we can't give him the Stephen Hunt treatment and put him out of commisionh

[Metrostars]

The USA are somewhere in between how well they did in 2002 and how badly they fared in 2006. In 2002, they got some lucky breaks e.g. S Korea beating Portugal with a late goal, shocking Portugal in their initial game and meeting the one side they knew they could beat in the second round, Mexico. In 2006, they were unlucky e.g. Reyna hitting the post just after Koller scored, questionable sending off against Italy and a dodgy penalty given against them against Ghana.

I watch a lot of both teams and I'd say USA and Ireland are comparable in terms of standard. The US do have an easier qualification route to the World Cup but they can only beat the teams put in front of them which they always do. And we do not.