What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

World Soccer XXX: We Have Men Too!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spartanforlife4 said:
Was looking at the Women's Olympic qualifiers this morning and there were a couple interesting items.

The first is that Great Britain will have a team. It looks like on the women's side, the Home Nations came to an agreement that the highest ranked Home Nation squad would be able to compete as Great Britain in the Olympics, provided they qualify for the tournament in the first place. Since the World Cup doubles as UEFA's Olympic qualifying tournament, England's fourth place finish put them as the #3 UEFA team for Tokyo. Interestingly, the agreement stipulates that it is the highest ranked team entering the tournament, not which team finished the best at the tournament. This meant Scotland was already ineligible for the Olympics even if they had won.

The other is that 11 of the 12 teams are ranked in the Top 37. In fact, the nine teams in the first three pots are ranked 14th or better. And then there's Zambia, winners of the CAF qualifier. Rankings got a little out of whack during Covid due to teams not playing, but they're ranked 104th for the drawing on Wednesday.

Since there are only three groups, and there cannot be more than one confederation per group, the USA's possible plays are pretty easy to list out.

USA (1)
Sweden (5) or Great Britain (6)
Australia (9) or China (14)
New Zealand (22), Chile (37), or Zambia (104)
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t worry too much about the Olympic draw, not when you can advance as a third place team. It would take multiple upsets to keep the USWNT out of the quarterfinals.

I really only see Japan, Canada, and Sweden as the teams that can beat the US.
 
Jimjamesak said:
I wouldn’t worry too much about the Olympic draw, not when you can advance as a third place team. It would take multiple upsets to keep the USWNT out of the quarterfinals.

I really only see Japan, Canada, and Sweden as the teams that can beat the US.
Click to expand...

I would add GBR/England to that list as well. They've struggled post WC, but the 2019 semi was a close one.

But you're right, USA will be fine. It would be quite a collapse to go from 38 unbeaten to not making it out of the group stage. The rankings were more to show just how much of an outlier Zambia is compared to the other squads. They're 12th in Africa. The 12th team in CONCACAF is Puerto Rico, coincidentally ranked one behind Zambia at 105th, and it's been over 20 years since they qualified for any major CONCACAF tournament.
 
Spartanforlife4 said:
I would add GBR/England to that list as well. They've struggled post WC, but the 2019 semi was a close one.
Click to expand...
I’m not sold on any of the Euro teams outside of Sweden, because Sweden is the only one to recognize they can’t go toe to toe and drop 10 players behind the ball and force the US to try to beat them on technical ability. England, France and the others try to do the en vogue press and win the ball upfield, which is dumb as fuck against a team with superior athletes that can just boot a ball to the wing (exactly what happened in USvEngland at the WWC). If those countries had coaches that didn’t view coaching the women as punishment they’d actually have a shot.

Spartanforlife4 said:
But you're right, USA will be fine. It would be quite a collapse to go from 38 unbeaten to not making it out of the group stage. The rankings were more to show just how much of an outlier Zambia is compared to the other squads. They're 12th in Africa. The 12th team in CONCACAF is Puerto Rico, coincidentally ranked one behind Zambia at 105th, and it's been over 20 years since they qualified for any major CONCACAF tournament.
Click to expand...
True, but Africa is just weird for soccer in general. Countries that have no business qualifying will qualify for tournaments all the time.
 
UEFA plays the society card.

UEFA and English, Spanish and Italian football authorities announced on Sunday that any clubs who take part in a so-called European Super League would be banned from all other domestic and continental competitions.

European football's governing body (UEFA) said it had learned that some English, Spanish and Italian clubs might announce a breakaway competition.

"The clubs concerned will be banned from playing in any other competition at domestic, European or world level, and their players could be denied the opportunity to represent their national teams," UEFA said in a statement.

Media reports on Sunday suggested that an announcement on plans to create a Super League could be made later in the day.

Sky Sports reported that Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea were among six Premier League teams set to be part of the plans.

"If this were to happen, we wish to reiterate that we -- UEFA, the English FA, RFEF, FIGC, the Premier League, La Liga, Lega Serie A, but also FIFA and all our member associations -- will remain united in our efforts to stop this cynical project, a project that is founded on the self-interest of a few clubs at a time when society needs solidarity more than ever," read the statement.
Click to expand...

I am an aficionado of sublime corporate bullsh-t and I do believe that, leaving the GOP aside, that statement takes the cake for mendacity to cover a purely greedy agenda.
 
All the clubs who joined the ‘super league’ can go **** themselves. One of the most shameful days in the history of sports.
 
All the clubs involved are lightyears beyond even the bottom half of their domestic leagues. Why not form this "Super League" and print their own money by doing so?

Why should they give in? They have nothing to lose here. If their players are banned from international play, well no more International Breaks, so just play your league games as normal. That will generate way more cash than any friendly that is played in the March, November, and January windows. And then the FIFA "majors" are all Summer tournaments, so no loss there as they are not competing for cash at that point in the year.
 
RaceBoarder said:
All the clubs involved are lightyears beyond even the bottom half of their domestic leagues. Why not form this "Super League" and print their own money by doing so?

Why should they give in? They have nothing to lose here. If their players are banned from international play, well no more International Breaks, so just play your league games as normal. That will generate way more cash than any friendly that is played in the March, November, and January windows. And then the FIFA "majors" are all Summer tournaments, so no loss there as they are not competing for cash at that point in the year.
Click to expand...

You haven’t looked at a premier league table in awhile have you? Arsenal couldn’t even beat Fulham today. It’s a complete joke trying to be in a league you can’t get relegated from and goes against everything football is about.
 
RaceBoarder said:
All the clubs involved are lightyears beyond even the bottom half of their domestic leagues. Why not form this "Super League" and print their own money by doing so?

Why should they give in? They have nothing to lose here. If their players are banned from international play, well no more International Breaks, so just play your league games as normal. That will generate way more cash than any friendly that is played in the March, November, and January windows. And then the FIFA "majors" are all Summer tournaments, so no loss there as they are not competing for cash at that point in the year.
Click to expand...

And what do they do when they’re banned domestically? Play a 6x round robin?
 
Jimjamesak said:
Everyone acting like this is the first time this has happened....

Lol
Click to expand...

Has it gotten this far before? Spurs posted an official announcement. Seems a lot more real than simple threats for tv money. Especially when UEFA is expected to go with the weighted system that would already benefit the clubs leaving.
 
These 12 are just the "founding members". Other major Euro clubs will pull an SCSU/Western MI once the heat dies down and they realize this league will print money. Once they get 20+ teams, there is no need for anything else. They will have an "American style" league where they just play each other and that will print money.
 
Spartanforlife4 said:
Has it gotten this far before? Spurs posted an official announcement. Seems a lot more real than simple threats for tv money. Especially when UEFA is expected to go with the weighted system that would already benefit the clubs leaving.
Click to expand...
It’s been openly discussed before but not officiallly “official” announced
 
RaceBoarder said:
These 12 are just the "founding members". Other major Euro clubs will pull an SCSU/Western MI once the heat dies down and they realize this league will print money. Once they get 20+ teams, there is no need for anything else. They will have an "American style" league where they just play each other and that will print money.
Click to expand...
Yup, and with the players banned from National Team duty they can play through international breaks and go head to head on TV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top