Which top hockey nation has the best football team?

[Suiteness]

Winning a euro is a lot more than the other nations we're discussing have accomplished. The ancient swiss team was probably the strongest relative to the teams of their time, but that euro crown goes a long way for russia; especially when paired with their 3 other finals appearances where they fell short...2 of which came not long after that triumph in 1960.

Czechoslovakia must be added to the mix then. Won the Euro in 1976 (and 3rd place finishes in 1960 and 1980) and they also lost in the final of the WC in 1962.

 

[Ivan13]

And I disagree with that.

In what world has the USA been better than all of the teams listed in any period of time?

 

[cgf]

Czechoslovakia must be added to the mix then. Won the Euro in 1976 (and 3rd place finishes in 1960 and 1980) and they also lost in the final of the WC in 1962.

I'm in full agreement, a combined Czechoslovakia absolutely deserves to be in the top 3 with Switzerland and Russia/USSR on the historical chart of these nations.

...even if that 76 win is still ******** that never should've happened if our FA hadn't chased Netzer & Gerd out of the team...

 

[Suiteness]

...even if that 76 win is still ******** that never should've happened if our FA hadn't chased Netzer & Gerd out of the team...

Now now, that game also gave birth to the 'Panenka' surely a sacrficie you are willing to make!

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

In what world has the USA been better than all of the teams listed in any period of time?

Since 2000, who's been better than the USA?

 

[cgf]

Now now, that game also gave birth to the 'Panenka' surely a sacrficie you are willing to make!

It also denied us becoming the first nation to win 3 straight major tourneys, so f*** that noise.

 

[cgf]

Since 2000, who's been better than the USA?

The Czechs, Swiss, Russians, and Slovaks have all had stronger peaks than the USA since the turn of the century.

 

[Ivan13]

The Czechs, Swiss, Russians, and Slovaks have all had stronger peaks than the USA since the turn of the century.

Yep.

 

[Moncherry]

It's USA. they are the only teams that go deep in both sports. Switzerland is getting better at hockey but I think the distance between USA and SUI in soccer is closer than USA and SUI in hockey. Also the Swiss soccer team on it is largely built on non-Swiss transplants which I feel hurts them here as well.

This is rich.

 

[cgf]

This is rich.

I'm glad someone else enjoyed that.

 

[Jonimaus]

USA has a massive advantage not having to go through UEFA qualifying. They wouldn't be qualifying for every World Cup/Euro if they were in UEFA.

This. USA would be one of the teams that has a fairly decent chance to qualify if they get a good group, but are far from guaranteed a spot in the worldcup if they came through UEFA.

In 10 games, I'd pick Russia, Slovakia and Switzerland above USA for sure.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Since 2000, who's been better than the USA?

At specific points, in that range, I pick others that have a better peak. Over that time period, USA has been more consistent. It ultimately comes down to how you evaluate it. In pure historical sense, the US will have to win a Copa or finish in the top 4 of the World Cup to be in consideration. USA has been very consistent, but it will be interesting to see how the new age takes over. They will either stay mediocre or get back to where they were when Donovan, Dempsey, and others were in their prime.

The Swiss are currently better, and the Czech were definitely better in the earlier parts of that range.

 

[cgf]

I'm curious to see if the czechs can rise again, as I really like Darida a lot. They don't have enough talent around him atm; but they teach their kids to play a cohesive style that gives me hope if some more big talents pop up.

The US desperately needs an elegant midfielder like Darida to give their possession game some cohesion. Will be interesting to see whether Pulisic grows into such a player under Tuchel or if he stays further forward.

At specific points, in that range, I pick others that have a better peak. Over that time period, USA has been more consistent.

The Swiss are better, and the Czech were definitely better in the earlier parts of the range of that.

Have they though? Those teams have had highs & lows, but their lows haven't exactly been far from the level the US is consistently at; and the US has never been one of the top teams in this group, or been genuinely pushing for that spot. In the first decade of this century they were far from the level of the Czechs & Russians. Now they're significantly behind the Swiss & Hamsik-Slovaks, with the Russians & Czechs being right there as well in the conversation for 3rd.

The only advantage in consistency the US has is in showing up at WCs; which has a lot more to do with not qualifying through UEFA, than it does the class of the teams in question.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I'm curious to see if the czechs can rise again, as I really like Darida a lot. They don't have enough talent around him atm; but they teach their kids to play a cohesive style that gives me hope if some more big talents pop up.

The US desperately needs an elegant midfielder like Darida to give their possession game some cohesion. Will be interesting to see whether Pulisic grows into such a player under Tuchel or if he stays further forward.



Have they though? Those teams have had highs & lows, but their lows haven't exactly been far from the level the US is consistently at; and the US has never been one of the top teams in this group, or been genuinely pushing for that spot. In the first decade of this century they were far from the level of the Czechs & Russians. Now they're significantly behind the Swiss & Hamsik-Slovaks, with the Russians & Czechs being right there as well in the conversation for 3rd.

The only advantage in consistency the US has is in showing up at WCs; which has a lot more to do with not qualifying through UEFA, than it does the class of the teams in question.

I think you are significantly over-exaggerating the current difference among the teams.

I'm not huge on FIFA rankings, but they give a decent general idea. http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/ranking-tools/compare-teams.html#dataform=true&t1=USA&t2=SUI&t3=CZE&t4=SVK&timeRange=last4years&fromDate=2012-08-07&toDate=2016-08-10

USA is consistently average-above average. They play to what their talent level is. Unfortunately, the athletic talent in the US goes to many other sports before soccer, where in the other "hockey" countries, soccer is 2 or close to 2.

The other countries occasionally get true superstars which propel them above the US. That's why they are typically never the best at any given time among this group, but they don't fluctuate as much.

 

[ViD]

Do you mean the Arshavin era? The USSR teams never really amounted to much (They won a Euro in the 60's I think).

As for Switzerland, I don't think they ever fielded anything remotely close to the Czech teams of the late 90's-2004 era.

Not sure if serious - the USSR team reached the euro final game a few times after their win in 1960, then they reached the World Cup semi final and they won the Olympics in 1988

 

[Live in the Now]

I'm curious to see if the czechs can rise again, as I really like Darida a lot. They don't have enough talent around him atm; but they teach their kids to play a cohesive style that gives me hope if some more big talents pop up.

The US desperately needs an elegant midfielder like Darida to give their possession game some cohesion. Will be interesting to see whether Pulisic grows into such a player under Tuchel or if he stays further forward.

It feels a lot like Pulisic's game is being modeled after Eden Hazard. Lots of similarities in terms of ball carriage there, but he's not going to get the playing time Hazard got at 17-18. Would be nice for him to score a couple goals with what he gets, though.

Emerson Hyndman might be that player for us in the future, I hope he gets some minutes at Bournemouth this season. I assume he will or he wouldn't have signed there. It's strange that the US appears to lack many central midfielders with potential right now given that it's one of the positions we've had an easier time developing players in during our limited footballing history. I wonder if Weston McKennie will be any good.

 

[Dr Pepper]

I'd say Germany....their soccer team more than makes up for their failings on the ice, IMO.

I guess the same could be said for Canada, though.....both countries are at opposite ends of the spectrum, with Canada seemingly atop the hockey world, and Germany (for the purposes of this exercise) holding the top spot in soccer.

Turn those tables, though, and Canada's definitely at the bottom of the soccer standings, while Germany is near the bottom in hockey.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Is 3rd place in the Euros better than QF's in the World Cup? I don't know if thats a better peak.

Also, we've been by far the most consistent. We've been to the Round of 16 at the WC in 3 of 4 WC's and got second place at Confed Cup, along with winning 4 of 9 Gold Cups since then.

 

[cgf]

It feels a lot like Pulisic's game is being modeled after Eden Hazard. Lots of similarities in terms of ball carriage there, but he's not going to get the playing time Hazard got at 17-18. Would be nice for him to score a couple goals with what he gets, though.

Emerson Hyndman might be that player for us in the future, I hope he gets some minutes at Bournemouth this season. I assume he will or he wouldn't have signed there. It's strange that the US appears to lack many central midfielders with potential right now given that it's one of the positions we've had an easier time developing players in during our limited footballing history. I wonder if Weston McKennie will be any good.

I'm not sure that's what BVB have planned though. If Guerreiro doesn't partner Weigl; I expect to see all three of Gotze, Pulisic, and Kagawa getting used deeper to link their possessions into the attacking line.

Most american midfielders of days gone past have been more of the practical variety than the elegant/creative class that now reigns, no?

Is 3rd place in the Euros better than QF's in the World Cup? I don't know if thats a better peak.

Also, we've been by far the most consistent. We've been to the Round of 16 at the WC in 3 of 4 WC's and got second place at Confed Cup, along with winning 4 of 9 Gold Cups since then.

Yes. The Euros used to be a much tougher tournament than the WC to move forward in if you didn't bring a stacked team.

Now erase 1-2 of those WC runs if you had had to qualify through UEFA and come back to me with this consistency talk.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Is 3rd place in the Euros better than QF's in the World Cup? I don't know if thats a better peak.

Also, we've been by far the most consistent. We've been to the Round of 16 at the WC in 3 of 4 WC's and got second place at Confed Cup, along with winning 4 of 9 Gold Cups since then.

The previous version of the Euros is more impressive than the new expanded format, and I believe the old Euros were more difficult than the WC. The WC get bogged down with teams from regions with not much talent, it's why the Gold Cup is meaningless. The Copa at times is arguably more impressive than Euros as well.

Gold Cups are meaningless, it's ultimately should be a USA vs Mexico showdown and an utter failure if we don't make the finals.

Confederations Cup is completely meaningless.

While the UEFA qualifying argument mostly makes no sense as an argument against he US, it does have validity if you use qualifying for the WC as an argument for why the US has been better. While if you flip the countries, the results would flip as well based on situations, but if we magically put the US in UEFA, do they also get the talent allocation that the UEFA countries get or does the US still see a lot of the athletic talent go to baseball, basketball, football, etc.? I mean if we magically can move a country to another continent/region, then surely we can reallocate their talent pool based on the region they move to.

A 4th place finish at Copa with competitive loses against Colombia while being in what we consider a "down" time is a good result. We are vastly inferior to Argentina, but proved we are just a tier below Colombia.

 

[Ivan13]

I think you are significantly over-exaggerating the current difference among the teams.

I'm not huge on FIFA rankings, but they give a decent general idea. http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/ranking-tools/compare-teams.html#dataform=true&t1=USA&t2=SUI&t3=CZE&t4=SVK&timeRange=last4years&fromDate=2012-08-07&toDate=2016-08-10

USA is consistently average-above average. They play to what their talent level is. Unfortunately, the athletic talent in the US goes to many other sports before soccer, where in the other "hockey" countries, soccer is 2 or close to 2.

The other countries occasionally get true superstars which propel them above the US. That's why they are typically never the best at any given time among this group, but they don't fluctuate as much.

They are borderline useless.

Is 3rd place in the Euros better than QF's in the World Cup? I don't know if thats a better peak.

Also, we've been by far the most consistent. We've been to the Round of 16 at the WC in 3 of 4 WC's and got second place at Confed Cup, along with winning 4 of 9 Gold Cups since then.

Of course it is, it's by far more impressive.

 

[bleedblue1223]

They are borderline useless.

Pre-2006 they were, the revamped rankings are much better, especially when you start looking at specific years that go into the 4-year formula.

 

[YNWA14]

I think you are significantly over-exaggerating the current difference among the teams.

I'm not huge on FIFA rankings, but they give a decent general idea. http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/ranking-tools/compare-teams.html#dataform=true&t1=USA&t2=SUI&t3=CZE&t4=SVK&timeRange=last4years&fromDate=2012-08-07&toDate=2016-08-10

USA is consistently average-above average. They play to what their talent level is. Unfortunately, the athletic talent in the US goes to many other sports before soccer, where in the other "hockey" countries, soccer is 2 or close to 2.

The other countries occasionally get true superstars which propel them above the US. That's why they are typically never the best at any given time among this group, but they don't fluctuate as much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings

This is a better measure. I wouldn't put the US top of this list by any measure, historical, average or current level.

 

[Ivan13]

Pre-2006 they were, the revamped rankings are much better, especially when you start looking at specific years that go into the 4-year formula.

Sure they are. Now you're going to tell me Wales is better than Croatia. They are useless, and anyone using them to prove a point is reaching at straws.

 

[bleedblue1223]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings

This is a better measure. I wouldn't put the US top of this list by any measure, historical, average or current level.

I don't think any reasonable/realistic fans would make that case either. The problem is when some people act like we are vastly inferior to the other nations, especially over the past 15 or so years. On average over the past 15 or so years, we are mostly on par with those nations. Our highs and lows just aren't as extreme. US world ranking ball-parked over the years is in the 20-40ish range, even right now in a down time, we would reasonably be ranked in the 20-30 range. The other nations in that group over a similar period would be anywhere from 10-50ish IMO.

Consistently competing in Copa would do a lot to prove what the US can do on the world stage.