3rd in the Americas

[unam_mx]

This has been inspired by a few people who do not consider Mexico a TOP 5 team in the America, going as far as saying that they might not even be as good as Venezuela.

So I'd like to get some neutral and worldwide opinions on this...After Brasil and Argentina, who is the strongest team in the Americas (north and south)?

[arcturus rex]

Forums are not the place to get neutral opinions. On the contrary, most opinions one reads in these soccer forums are biased to the extent that it is hard to distinguished when a member is honestly trying no to be.

[Zlatan]

Israel. That's in America, right?

[mrdeeds]

I would have said Mexico, but right now, I think it is the US has edged (read EDGED) past in recent times. My heart is still with Mexico though and I think with a strong showing in WC 2006, they can turn it around.

[5timeschamp]

This has been inspired by a few people who do not consider Mexico a TOP 5 team in the America, going as far as saying that they might not even be as good as Venezuela.

So I'd like to get some neutral and worldwide opinions on this...After Brasil and Argentina, who is the strongest team in the Americas (north and south)?
Mexico in my opinion come in 5th or 6th

Brazil
Argentina
Paraguay
Uruguay
USA
Mexico
Ecuador( Untill they prove themselves away from high elevation they can't be considered a top 5 team

[unam_mx]

Mexico in my opinion come in 5th or 6th

Brazil
Argentina
Paraguay
Uruguay
USA
Mexico
Ecuador( Untill they prove themselves away from high elevation they can't be considered a top 5 team

Paraguay, just cause they qualify 4th in a 'tough' region theyre better?When was the last time they had a good showing internationally rather then just in the qualifiers?Like in tournaments or notable friendlies.

Uruguay, they lost to Australia...quite possibly the worst team at the world cup.Nuff said.

USA, I guess u could make a case for them but I would still put them slightly behind Mexico...they always seem to raise their level when they play us and come down to earth against everyone else.Example, they beat us 2-0 in the qualifiers then the next game they go and lose to Guatemala.They havent shown the capability of surprising the big teams like Mexico has.

[chacal7]

3- US
4- Paraguay
5- Mexico

[chuncho_azul]

mexico.

last in south america? chile

im from chile

[Ronni]

mexico.

last in south america? chile

im from chile
4 years ago Chile really managed to be the last in South America.
And still they could beat the (then) current World Champions France and the (then) next World Champions Brazil exactely in the moment as they were so weak.
Now it will be difficult for anyone to take this place from Bolivia.

Regarding the 3rd in the Americas ... I wrote real essays about this in the other thread (have a look, chuncho! :) )and was bombed by some south americans from all directions.
If it isn't Mexico, it's the US. At the moment there's no "medium" south american that can be considered this. Paraguay, Colombia and Uruguay are not far though.

[Ese_Guy]

I'd say Mexico & the US are neck & neck.
The U-17 teams from both countries will settle this next week.

[ricoo9]

Ah thread started thanks to moi? I feel flattered :rolleyes: u guys should read my posts in "about Mexicos soccer history" thread.....I give u all the reasons Mexico isnt 3rd or 4th or 5th, they cant even beat USA and USA isnt a power,USA get better results than mexico and go farther in WC but they r not better than other South American teams...i would say they r only better than bolivia and ecuador and after that we would have to see ;)

[ricoo9]

:deadhorse


Uruguay, they lost to Australia...quite possibly the worst team at the world cup.Nuff said.



Australia the weakest team in WC??? r u nuts? did u see UAE-Brazil? Brazil won 8-0, that is a weak team.Or what about Trinidad? Just cuz they can beat MExico doesnt mean they r good. In case u didnt know most of Australias players play for Big teams in the Premier League like Liverpool etc. and with a great choach like Hiddink i think they can give anybody competition. They r not the same easy Australia from long time ago, they have good players......again i'm prayin Australia-Mexico WC'06 :):deadhorse

[SE7E]

1- Brazil
2- Argentina
3- USA
4- Mexico
5- Paraguay

[ricoo9]

1.Brasil
2. Argentina
3.Paragay
4.Urugay
5.Colombia
6.Peru
7.USA
8.Chile
9.Venezuela
10.Mexico
11.Ecuador
12.Bolivia

[Yañez]

Peru in front of Chile??? anyway who voted for Peru 3rd in the americas or did he means 3rd from the bottom because that i would i agree, Peru, Venenzuela, Bolivia last 3. Anyway 3rd in Americas i think its Paraguay then Mexico or USA.

[chuncho_azul]

1.Brasil
2. Argentina
3.Paragay
4.Urugay
5.Colombia
6.Peru
7.USA
8.Chile
9.Venezuela
10.Mexico
11.Ecuador
12.Bolivia

peru in front USA, chile, mexico?

a big fat NO

[ricoo9]

Peru in front of Chile??? anyway who voted for Peru 3rd in the americas or did he means 3rd from the bottom because that i would i agree, Peru, Venenzuela, Bolivia last 3. Anyway 3rd in Americas i think its Paraguay then Mexico or USA.

Out of the last 3 games played How many times has chile beat peru?? i think none :D but true i just didnt know who to pick and i certainly wasnt gonna pick chile or mexico

[chuncho_azul]

Out of the last 3 games played How many times has chile beat peru?? i think none :D but true i just didnt know who to pick and i certainly wasnt gonna pick chile or mexico

certainly not peru either

[Yañez]

Out of the last 3 games played How many times has chile beat peru?? i think none :D but true i just didnt know who to pick and i certainly wasnt gonna pick chile or mexico

Chile beat Peru like 2 games ago......................

[juanca]

1.Brasil
2. Argentina
3.Paragay
4.Urugay
5.Colombia
6.Peru
7.USA
8.Chile
9.Venezuela
10.Mexico
11.Ecuador
12.Bolivia


i agree with chuncho azul.....

just NO.........NO

i have no trouble saying paraguay and uruguay (allthough they allways under achieve, but thats another thread) are 3rd and 4th, BUT....

colombia and peru ahead of mexico and even my Ecuador? lol!

look, lets face it....colombia WAS a strong team back in the mid 90's and blada blada blada, but they suck now. they need to re-structure, end of story.

and about Peru...........PUH-lease......


venezuela have improved but are now where near the top.

[chuncho_azul]

i agree with chuncho azul.....

just NO.........NO

i have no trouble saying paraguay and uruguay (allthough they allways under achieve, but thats another thread) are 3rd and 4th, BUT....

colombia and peru ahead of mexico and even my Ecuador? lol!

look, lets face it....colombia WAS a strong team back in the mid 90's and blada blada blada, but they suck now. they need to re-structure, end of story.

and about Peru...........PUH-lease......


venezuela have improved but are now where near the top.


:lol: i didnt notice he had put venezuela in front of mexico and ecuador. what a joke

[ricoo9]

i agree with chuncho azul.....

colombia and peru ahead of mexico and even my Ecuador? lol!

venezuela have improved but are now where near the top.

First of, I didnt put venezuela in the top, they r in the bottom if u didnt notice and second of, ecuador wasnt even able to beat peru in The super high elevation of Quito, they tied 0-0 and they tied in lima by luck so u cant say ecuador is on top of peru or anything cuz they only win at home, and they recently lost to poland 3-0 in guayaqil, not playing in quito makes a big difference huh? :sorry:

[PunkguyEG]

USA, I guess u could make a case for them but I would still put them slightly behind Mexico...they always seem to raise their level when they play us and come down to earth against everyone else.Example, they beat us 2-0 in the qualifiers then the next game they go and lose to Guatemala.They havent shown the capability of surprising the big teams like Mexico has.

USA is way better than mexico, they lost to guatemala the next game because they didn't care and where playing all with substitudes! they were already in the WC by beating mexico. Mexico had to wait cuz they coudln't beat USA.

[Soccer Roo]

Peru- Pizarro, Solano and Mendoza= guns

It would have to be Mexico, Ecuador or Paraguay seeing as they qualified. I'll take the Mexicans.

You can put a line through the US. The game their is farcical. I expected more from their "stars"- Donovan and Reyna, neither has fired on.

Uruguay rely on a crestfallen superstar- Recoba. Who hasn't been 100% fit and in form for about 6yrs. Take out the ageing Montero and you have a nothing team.

Colombia has been rebuilding for an eternity and Venezuela are overrated.

In all seriousness, Peru can defeat any of these teams on a good day.

[Gremio]

I also say paraguay

3.paraguay
4.USA
5.Mexico
6.Uruguay
7.Ecuador


i realize most punished Uruguay cause they didnt qualify, but then againn, they didnt get to play half of their qualifier games in mountain elevation. on fair ground and overall, i think uruguay is better than ecuador.

[Ronni]

this thread was originated by discussions on another thread under "Copa America", and in order not to give Mexico the 3rd place in America some people were considering the miserable historic records of Mexico during the less recent World Cups. The ones defending this place for Mexico were considering their results in the recent World Cups as well as other recent tournaments. So we were discussing the situation of Mexico on some sort of "where they are located currently as a football power in the region".

It's very difficult to say who's the strongest team now, since there are imo many candidates - I would say Mexico, USA, Uruguay and Paraguay, with Colombia, Chile and Ecuador perhaps one small step behind. But this is a different question.
Discussing the "trend" - which team currently occupies the place of "third force" in America, I would give it to Mexico.

This has been unquestionably Uruguay till the 70's, than Peru got it (for perhaps more than just one generation), and then there was a period without a clear third before Colombia became the 3rd. I wouldn't consider Colombia being the third force in the 90's as just a product of one generation - I would still locate them in front of any other south american now in terms of "force". In my opinion however, considering also Concacaf, now Mexico is consistently stronger than Colombia, and this I could consider a general trend.

In terms of just "football powers" in Americas, I would consider:
1. Brazil
2. Argentina
3. Mexico
4. Colombia / USA
6. Chile / Paraguay / Uruguay / Peru
9. Ecuador / Bolivia / Venezuela / Costa Rica

[ricoo9]

this thread was originated by discussions on another thread under "Copa America", and in order not to give Mexico the 3rd place in America some people were considering the miserable historic records of Mexico during the less recent World Cups. The ones defending this place for Mexico were considering their results in the recent World Cups as well as other recent tournaments. So we were discussing the situation of Mexico on some sort of "where they are located currently as a football power in the region".

It's very difficult to say who's the strongest team now, since there are imo many candidates - I would say Mexico, USA, Uruguay and Paraguay, with Colombia, Chile and Ecuador perhaps one small step behind. But this is a different question.
Discussing the "trend" - which team currently occupies the place of "third force" in America, I would give it to Mexico.

This has been unquestionably Uruguay till the 70's, than Peru got it (for perhaps more than just one generation), and then there was a period without a clear third before Colombia became the 3rd. I wouldn't consider Colombia being the third force in the 90's as just a product of one generation - I would still locate them in front of any other south american now in terms of "force". In my opinion however, considering also Concacaf, now Mexico is consistently stronger than Colombia, and this I could consider a general trend.

In terms of just "football powers" in Americas, I would consider:
1. Brazil
2. Argentina
3. Mexico
4. Colombia / USA
6. Chile / Paraguay / Uruguay / Peru
9. Ecuador / Bolivia / Venezuela / Costa Rica

u made make more sense if mexico was in that 9 spot

[Ronni]

u made make more sense if mexico was in that 9 spot
well ... against this opinion you keep on mentioning and backing with your arguments, I mentioned many reasons in the old thread, but once again have a look on the last 3 World Cups (the period as I would say Mexico was getting the 3rd place from Colombia).

You know that Mexico could in all off these 3 world cups qualify to the second phase of the World Cup. This excludes the "easy Concacaf argument" - their achievement was already at world level.
Do you know which other teams achieved the same?
Brazil, Germany and Italy. Don't you think that Mexico has got good company? I would never say Mexico belongs to a "big 4", but ...

Ok, let's consider that many teams (like Holland) couldn't qualify to the WC since they had a more difficult tournament than Mexico (which is obviously true). So, let's just take the teams that were present at at least 2 of these 3 tournaments, and in both got to the second phase, like Mexico did. Indeed our list gets much bigger. Together with Brazil, Germany and Italy we will have:
Holland, England, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Romania and Paraguay.

Don't you think this is enough to give them "at least" the chance of sharing your 3rd place with Paraguay?

[PunkguyEG]

I agree with Ronni, I think mexico is doing better now than in the past. But that gives them no reason to believe they are 3rd in america. In my opinion this is what's going on:

1. Brazil
2. Argentina
3. Paraguay/ Uruguay/ Colombia /Chile / Peru / USA / Mexico <---Any of these counrties can take this place.
5. Ecuador / Venezuela
6. Bolivia / Costa Rica
7. Rest of concaf.

As you can see, I didn't want to give specific places to the contries in the same number. I think they are pretty much at the same level. I belive that if any of this countries were to play together with their full team on a neutral place, it would be a pretty even match in which it will be pretty hard to predict the winner.

[zann]

should be Mexico in my mind...
however, the strength of USA and Paraguay cannot be underestimated~

[ricoo9]

well ... against this opinion you keep on mentioning and backing with your arguments, I mentioned many reasons in the old thread, but once again have a look on the last 3 World Cups (the period as I would say Mexico was getting the 3rd place from Colombia).

You know that Mexico could in all off these 3 world cups qualify to the second phase of the World Cup. This excludes the "easy Concacaf argument" - their achievement was already at world level.
Do you know which other teams achieved the same?
Brazil, Germany and Italy. Don't you think that Mexico has got good company? I would never say Mexico belongs to a "big 4", but ...

Ok, let's consider that many teams (like Holland) couldn't qualify to the WC since they had a more difficult tournament than Mexico (which is obviously true). So, let's just take the teams that were present at at least 2 of these 3 tournaments, and in both got to the second phase, like Mexico did. Indeed our list gets much bigger. Together with Brazil, Germany and Italy we will have:
Holland, England, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Romania and Paraguay.

Don't you think this is enough to give them "at least" the chance of sharing your 3rd place with Paraguay?


Now let’s see Mexico’s recent History against South American Squads and others:

12-oct-2005 Mexico 1-2 T&T --Qualifying match WC 06
Mexico Lost to one of the weakest teams in this coming WC and yet Mexico should be able to beat Australia, Uruguay, and Venezuela??

3-sept-2005 Mexico 0 – 2 USA Qualifying match WC06
Mexico is so great and they are the third power in America yet they lost to USA by a difference of 2 goals even though they are 1, 2, 3 I don’t know how many steps ahead of every other team in America.

17-July-2005 Mexico 1-2 Colombia Gold Cup
Mexico’s “subs” lost to Colombia’s “C” team. If Mexico is so great they should be able to beat Colombia’s bench. Their bench should show superiority to Colombias.

27-mar-2005 Mexico 2-1 USA – Qualifying match WC 06
Mexico with that great home advantage in Azteca barely wins 2-1. If this was another cup Mexico would have been eliminated by the difference of goals, USA having 1 more to their advantage.

23-feb-2005 Mexico 1-1 Colombia Carlos González, Sinaloa, Mexico
Mexico ties in Mexico to Colombia 1-1.

26-jan-2005 Mexico 0 – 0 Sweden Petko Park, San Diego
Mexico ties to mediocre Sweden, played in San Diego, Mexico is the local team.

7-July-2004 Mexico 2-2 Uruguay Copa America
The powerhouse Mexico was not able to beat Uruguay in a real International tournament.

18-feb-2004 Mexico 1-1 Chile Home Depot Center de Carson, California
Again Mexico tied as the “local” team to a South American side.

15-Oct-2003 Mexico 0 – 2 Uruguay Soldier Field de Chicago
The “3rd” best team in America loses to Uruguay.

20-Aug-2003 Mexico 1- 3 Peru Giant Stadium, Nueva Jersey
“Great” Mexico with their full squad at the time were down 3-0 in the first half, didn’t score their lonely goal till the 2nd half.

6-july-2003 Mexico 1 -2 El Salvador
Mexico can’t even take care of concacaaf teams and you are saying Mexico 3rd best?

26-march-2003 Mexico 1-1 Paraguay Qualcomm de San Diego
Not even with Rafa Marquez and both teams playing full squad, was Mexico able to beat Paraguay in a place with the majority of the population being Mexican.

About the recent Confederations Cup :
“Winning freindlies and games in first round freindly tournaments that does not make a team great.
The point is that even though Mexico beat Brazil in first round, the players still had to sit at home and watch them win the cup.”

The few Mexican players that are playing abroad, which I can count with 1 hand like Borgetti is not even getting recognition, has he even scored a goal in Bolton? Compared to Forlan or Farfan top scorers for their leagues. He just as Blanco, cannot handle Higher level competition, If he is so great he would be scoring goals like crazy and would be recognized internationally. The most recognized player today in Mexico is Marquez and he is an expendable player, meaning he can be replaced anytime if Barca feels like it.

Mexico is so great yet they need to nationalize players from Brazil, Argentina? Why can’t you guys play with just Mexicans? Are they not good enough? South Am. Squads don’t do that. Tell me when was the last time Colombia, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, or any other south American team nationalized players to play for them? Pathetic!!!

Mexico lost to many of the low level concacaf teams in many recent occasions playing official games trying to qualify for the 2002 WC in Korea. They lost to USA, Honduras, and tied with T & T. They even lost in the Azteca against Costa Rica. Now, tell me that Mexico deserves to be 3rd place in America.


Now lets compare Mexico to Uruguay:
URUGUAY-
Fabián Carini;
Carlos Diogo, Diego Lugano, Paolo Montero, Darío Rodríguez;
Gustavo Varela, Pablo García; Alvaro Recoba, Marcelo Zalayeta
Diego Forlán y Chevanton

Carini- 25yrs and loads of experience, better than wheres waldo
Forlan- leading scorer of Spanish League ahead of Eto'o, ronaldo, etc..
Chevanton- way better than any mexican player
Zalayeta-plays for Juventus, I dont see borgetti playing there or any mexican
Garcia-Starter for Real Madrid, benched graveson.... marquez watch out!
Diogo- another Real Madrid player
Alvaro Recoba - INter, way better than any mexican striker
Montero-has alot of experience and plays for the big teams

If u compare the rest r still better than any Mexican player out there.
And dont say Oh but Urugay didnt qualify, cuz remember who Mexico had to beat to qualify and who Urugay had.
Like I said before, if mexicos side would play any S.A. team without bench players Mexico would lose, who knows it might be a tough game but i'm sure Mexico would lose

oH and I forgott, their all national players, theres no Brazilian or Argentinan in urugay or any of those teams HA

Here are some other results in the last Conmebol qualifying WC matches against brazil and argentina playing with their full teams:

Bolivia 0 - 0 Argentina
Paraguay 1 - 0 Argentina
Colombia 1 - 1 Argentina
Chile 2 - 2 Argentina
Uruguay 1 - 0 Argentina
Ecuador 2- 0 Argentina
Peru 1 - 1 Brazil
Uruguay 3 - 3 Brazil
Paraguay 0 - 0 Brazil
Chile 1 - 1 Brazil
Colombia 0 - 0 Brazil
Uruguay 1 - 1 Brazil
Bolivia 1 - 1 Brasil
Ecuador 1 - 0 Brazil

Mexico isnt the only team that ties or beats brazil & arg everynow and then, all the teams from conmebol do it, and in more important games as a matter of fact! just cuz u guys tie or beat them once in ur life doesnt mean that u guys r great or 3rd in America, these teams do it Too and in more important games like qualifying games were its win or win situations not some friendly tournaments which proves mexico isnt any better than these teams, and after all so much hype in the WC and at the end they lose to USA 2-0, not 1-0 but by a difference of 2 goals which shows USA supperiority, i think if USA can beat mexico than mexico shouldnt be considered 3rd they might be at around the same level of other conmebol teams (ecuador&venezuela) but not better

[unam_mx]

Since u seem to try to sneak past my responses cause they devalidate ur points, Ill tell u them again in less time-consuming post (since u'll probably run away from it anyway)...

1.Some of those games were from the first stage of the Lavolpe Era, where he was still evaluating players...and had no idea who deserved what spots.Some players that played in 03' and 04' are nowhere near the NT now.If u wanna go by that go ahead, but keep in mind that it is not the same team.

2.You're a hypocrite...u say Mexico only advances far in Copa Americas because South American teams use "B and C teams" yet completely ignore when Mexico uses subs.In the Copa De Oro they had mostly subs and in the game against T&T the only starter they had was like the goalie.And like I said in my previous point, the games from 03'-04' are essentially with alot of subs cause players like Palencia, Bofo, Perez, Davino, and Medina who were starters are now not only bench players but not on the NT at all.So if you used ur own logic then most if not all of those games of "shameful" defeats would mean nothing.

3.Uruguay is not better then Mexico...they lost to Australia who recently got killed in the Confederations Cup and who hadnt accomplished absolutely nothing since they last qualified to a WC (like 40 yrs ago).I dont care how many big stars they have, names dont make a good team it has to be shown on the field and losing to Australia is pathetic.Theyre not that good, theyre the biggest underachievers in the world.

4.European players...Mexico gives out big cash, thats why alot of foreigners come to play.Mexicans can often make more here then they would in Europe, they wouldnt have been stars but alot of them couldve played during their prime and been solid if they had gotten the chance--Carmona, Palencia, Pardo, Hermosillo, Zague, Pelaez, the list goes on.Not so much cause theyre not good enough, more like because of the pay.And look at the guy I have in my sig, remember him too cause u'll be in awe when u see him play for BARCA's 1st team...dont forget Arsenal's Carlos Vela either and about 5 other U-17 Champs that got deals from Spain (Ever Guzman being the most notable).

5.We have two naturlized players, Sinha wont make it and Franco has an outside chance of grabbing one of the last spots...we might have one player on our team for the WC, and hes going to be riding the bench.Big Deal.There's teams like the USA, Portugal, Japan, Germany, and other big countries who have naturlized players as well...some that are starters.

6.Yes, Mexico isnt the only one that beats giants like Bra. and Arg...but u also cant compare it to South American teams.They get multiple chances to play those two teams, Mexico only gets a couple.When u have as many chances as South American teams, theyre bound to win sometime so it isnt as big of a deal.When u win with many fewer opportunities it takes more importance.

[ricoo9]

Since u seem to try to sneak past my responses cause they devalidate ur points, Ill tell u them again in less time-consuming post (since u'll probably run away from it anyway)...

1.Some of those games were from the first stage of the Lavolpe Era, where he was still evaluating players...and had no idea who deserved what spots.Some players that played in 03' and 04' are nowhere near the NT now.If u wanna go by that go ahead, but keep in mind that it is not the same team.

2.You're a hypocrite...u say Mexico only advances far in Copa Americas because South American teams use "B and C teams" yet completely ignore when Mexico uses subs.In the Copa De Oro they had mostly subs and in the game against T&T the only starter they had was like the goalie.And like I said in my previous point, the games from 03'-04' are essentially with alot of subs cause players like Palencia, Bofo, Perez, Davino, and Medina who were starters are now not only bench players but not on the NT at all.So if you used ur own logic then most if not all of those games of "shameful" defeats would mean nothing.

3.Uruguay is not better then Mexico...they lost to Australia who recently got killed in the Confederations Cup and who hadnt accomplished absolutely nothing since they last qualified to a WC (like 40 yrs ago).I dont care how many big stars they have, names dont make a good team it has to be shown on the field and losing to Australia is pathetic.Theyre not that good, theyre the biggest underachievers in the world.


4.Yes, Mexico isnt the only one that beats giants like Bra. and Arg...but u also cant compare it to South American teams.They get multiple chances to play those two teams, Mexico only gets a couple.When u have as many chances as South American teams, theyre bound to win sometime so it isnt as big of a deal.When u win with many fewer opportunities it takes more importance.


First of i already made a list of top 9 teams, its in the 3rd in americas thread, in case u hadnt noticed. Second, I will go by that la volpe team, cuz its the same team they have now, Rafa marquez,Sanchez, etc....the same players, the same coach, the only exception is that u guys didnt have the two foreigner players before...unless they r actauly the heart and creators of ur team which would change things.
Out of all the recent games played with other conmebol teams u guys win some and loss some, but its not like u kick our asses, its not a defenetive thing which supports my case for mexico not being 3rd. Either team could win its not like Mexico is a favorite,they probably only favorites against Bolivia and Ecuador but its the same for any team in conmebol. Only Brazil and argentina r favorites against other conmebol teams, Mexico isnt...u see what im tryin to say??

Ok, the truth is that T&T really suck, they arent good at all, any bench team in conmebol could beat T&t...so for mexico to lose is pretty pathetic, even if they arent starters, they all play in ur mexican league and to be 3rd in america should be a decent team and another thing that even though those players in the "shameful defeat" list might of been bench players, u guys played mostly as the "HOME" team and to still lose and tie is still pathetic, most teams win at home but u guys dont against conmebol teams, at least not most of the time

SAying Uruguay isnt better than MExico is not a fact, its ur opinion, U use uruguays loss to australia but I keep tellin u Trinidad beat Mexico so i dont think thats a good example and Australia has many good players they shouldnt be looked as an easy team, all they need is experience cuz they have good enough players to give competition to any conmebol or concacaaf team, their not the joke they used to be a couple of years ago.

[Ronni]

1.Some of those games were from the first stage of the Lavolpe Era, where he was still evaluating players...and had no idea who deserved what spots.Some players that played in 03' and 04' are nowhere near the NT now.If u wanna go by that go ahead, but keep in mind that it is not the same team.
I don't consider this a valid argument. Many teams change coaches after big tournaments or time enough before a big tournament. And no coach is stupid enough to start from scratch. Actually it's even not possible - at least not in a country like Mexico, where you can't say you have too many excellent options for each position.



2.u say Mexico only advances far in Copa Americas because South American teams use "B and C teams" yet completely ignore when Mexico uses subs.In the Copa De Oro they had mostly subs and in the game against T&T the only starter they had was like the goalie.And like I said in my previous point, the games from 03'-04' are essentially with alot of subs cause players like Palencia, Bofo, Perez, Davino, and Medina who were starters are now not only bench players but not on the NT at all.So if you used ur own logic then most if not all of those games of "shameful" defeats would mean nothing.
I agree that Mexico uses every now and then their subs, but it's a fact that Mexico makes it less often than other teams, since they have less problems with players living abroad and playing in more "severe" teams.



3.Uruguay is not better then Mexico...they lost to Australia who recently got killed in the Confederations Cup and who hadnt accomplished absolutely nothing since they last qualified to a WC (like 40 yrs ago).I dont care how many big stars they have, names dont make a good team it has to be shown on the field and losing to Australia is pathetic.Theyre not that good, theyre the biggest underachievers in the world.
I agree. Uruguay has excellent players, but they haven't been able in the last times to make a really strong team out of it.



4.European players...Mexico gives out big cash, thats why alot of foreigners come to play.Mexicans can often make more here then they would in Europe, they wouldnt have been stars but alot of them couldve played during their prime and been solid if they had gotten the chance--Carmona, Palencia, Pardo, Hermosillo, Zague, Pelaez, the list goes on.Not so much cause theyre not good enough, more like because of the pay.And look at the guy I have in my sig, remember him too cause u'll be in awe when u see him play for BARCA's 1st team...dont forget Arsenal's Carlos Vela either and about 5 other U-17 Champs that got deals from Spain (Ever Guzman being the most notable).
As I stated in the other thread, this is a simple market rule. In Mexico there aren't good players in abundance like in Brazil or Argentina, so with a poorer offer the values of the existing players are higher. When these players are evaluated in other markets, like the european, brazilian or argentine one, they are much less valuable. So they stay in Mexico. Or they go from other markets to Mexico, since their value there is much higher. Of course you don't have "world stars" in Mexico, since there's no abundance of world stars anywhere, so they're ok for all markets - and finish in one of the 3 richest leagues in the world (England / Spain / Italy).
This is the same reason why countries in the oil states are able to take some good medium players. They have no representative offer, the demand is much higher, and at the end they get even mediocre players from everywhere. There are brazilian players acting in places like Albania, Kazachstan, Faroe Islands - does this make the football of these places valuable, or at least their NT better? No. It just shows they have no internal offer. This is the same with Mexico, of course keeping the proportions.

Again, if there aren't (many) mexican players in Europe, it's neither because they're not good enough for Europe nor because the mexican league is able to keep valuable players. It's just because the mexican market is different, and players are sort of "overvalued" there.



5.We have two naturlized players, Sinha wont make it and Franco has an outside chance of grabbing one of the last spots...we might have one player on our team for the WC, and hes going to be riding the bench.Big Deal.There's teams like the USA, Portugal, Japan, Germany, and other big countries who have naturlized players as well...some that are starters.

This is right. The main reason for a player to be naturalized and play for the new NT is knowing he has more chances of success on the new NT than on his original one. Actually when it comes to a choice between the two NTs, they use the "heart". That's for example why Germany isn't able to use some turkish players who were born and always lived and played there - they know they can play for the turkish NT, and they feel like being turks, not germans. I don't have to say that players from Brazil or Argentina finish by playing for the "host" just because they know they'd have no chance in their "original" NT. This is the point where Mexico is lucky, like other "medium" countries - they get in their leagues mediocre players from other countries, who know they'd have no chance in their home NT, and so they try their chance in the host country.
This is definately a sign that the NT level isn't as high as the clubs - but this isn't new. Spain is another example. The difference is that Spain get "superstars" in the league, that still have a chance in their home NT.
This is indeed a lucky situation for Mexico. But it's legitimate. Any NT being able to do this take this advantage.



6.Yes, Mexico isnt the only one that beats giants like Bra. and Arg...but u also cant compare it to South American teams.They get multiple chances to play those two teams, Mexico only gets a couple.When u have as many chances as South American teams, theyre bound to win sometime so it isnt as big of a deal.When u win with many fewer opportunities it takes more importance.
This is correct. Mexico has actually good records against top teams recently.

[barcaguy002]

Mexico has been doin good recent againsts top teams?? how recent? like 3 games ago or something? MExico sucks..... I think only their league is decent but thats cuz they dont sell anyone, if south americans didnt sell all their best and decent players, mexican clubs wouldnt make it that far, Mexicos national team pretty much sux too, they get pretty lucky sometimes but when its time for real play the choke

[RealMadrilismo]

the mexicans

[mEXICAN4LIFE22]

Well, to be honest, I dont agree that Mexico is a bad team like these guys r saying but I would have to agree that we still arent on the same level as them. S.A. has a lot of history and soccer culture, I'm tired of us getting our hopes up for nothing, Its true we talk too much about our team and stuff but alot of teams do that! U have to admit that Mexico as a national team is very unpredictable but I dont think we are above any of these teams, at least not Paraguay,Uruguay and colombia. We havent really been able to beat these teams in recent games played, its been more of a balanced game.

This would be my list

1.Brasil
2.Argentina
3.Paraguay
4.Mexico/Uruguay/Colombia/USA

[mexicosux100%]

I am tired of all this mexico's being the best shit. ***k you all! MEXICO SUCKS 100%!!!!

[ricoo9]

Well, to be honest, I dont agree that Mexico is a bad team like these guys r saying but I would have to agree that we still arent on the same level as them. S.A. has a lot of history and soccer culture, I'm tired of us getting our hopes up for nothing, Its true we talk too much about our team and stuff but alot of teams do that! U have to admit that Mexico as a national team is very unpredictable but I dont think we are above any of these teams, at least not Paraguay,Uruguay and colombia. We havent really been able to beat these teams in recent games played, its been more of a balanced game.

This would be my list

1.Brasil
2.Argentina
3.Paraguay
4.Mexico/Uruguay/Colombia/USA

:amen:
Finally someone with common sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BOLIVIANOGUY]

1This is how i believe it should be:

1.Brasil
2.Argentina
3.Paraguay
4.chile/Uruguay/Colombia/USA/peru/Bolivia
5.Mexico/venezuela/costarica

[ricoo9]

1This is how i believe it should be:

1.Brasil
2.Argentina
3.Paraguay
4.chile/Uruguay/Colombia/USA/peru/Bolivia
5.Mexico/venezuela/costarica


RIGHT ON!!!!! :lol:

[unam_mx]

Is it just me or did someone with utter hatred towards Mexico register as like 10 different users, then voted against Mexico and followed up by agreeing with them (actually himself)...wow this dude really hates us with a passion.

[unam_mx]

I don't consider this a valid argument. Many teams change coaches after big tournaments or time enough before a big tournament. And no coach is stupid enough to start from scratch. Actually it's even not possible - at least not in a country like Mexico, where you can't say you have too many excellent options for each position.


I agree that Mexico uses every now and then their subs, but it's a fact that Mexico makes it less often than other teams, since they have less problems with players living abroad and playing in more "severe" teams.


You may have misunderstood me, I didnt say it was from scratch...my point was that the personnel was still more of Aguirre's team (former coach) then it was his.I gave 5 players who are no longer on the NT (some not even close to it) of the top of the head, and here are a few more:

Altamirano, Suarez, Briceno, Oteo, I. Lopez, "Chiquis" Garcia, Valdez.That 7 plus the 5 I initially gave out...12 in total.I think its safe to say that this isnt the same team.

As far as the sub arguement, I was just trying to make a point...either he's going to give Mexico a break and not count those defeats against them (like he does with S.A. teams using subs), or criticize them for losing but also giving them respect for beating teams in the Copa America.Basically to be the same way with Mexico as he is with the South American teams and not have a double-standard.

One point that I want to make though, yes Mexico has most of its NT playing in Mexico but the first team isnt brought up as often as u think...in the friendlies there are a few starters and the rest are bench guys/new call-ups.The qualifiers (until theyre qualified), the WC, and at times in some big tournaments are the times when they bring the "A" team...its not as often as u may think.

[chuncho_azul]

1This is how i believe it should be:

1.Brasil
2.Argentina
3.Paraguay
4.chile/Uruguay/Colombia/USA/peru/Bolivia
5.Mexico/venezuela/costarica

please..

[ricoo9]

I'm not even gonna include concacaaf, they suck too much only mexico is in my list

My list again

1.Brazil
2.Argentina
3.Paragay
4.URugay
5.Colombia
6.Peru
7.USA
8.Chile
9.Venezuela/Ecuador
10.Mexico

[RojINeGrO5051]

no llores rico mexico ya manda aqui :evil:

just look at the people who voted mexico and we have good moderators from different forums who support us :lol:

[ricoo9]

no llores rico mexico ya manda aqui :evil:

just look at the people who voted mexico and we have good moderators from different forums who support us :lol:


yeah all the mexicans voted for mexico..... big deal

[RojINeGrO5051]

r u sure bout that

[Ronni]

Is it just me or did someone with utter hatred towards Mexico register as like 10 different users, then voted against Mexico and followed up by agreeing with them (actually himself)...wow this dude really hates us with a passion.
really strange. But ok, let's just follow if all resist time enough.

[Ronni]

You may have misunderstood me, I didnt say it was from scratch...my point was that the personnel was still more of Aguirre's team (former coach) then it was his.I gave 5 players who are no longer on the NT (some not even close to it) of the top of the head, and here are a few more:

Altamirano, Suarez, Briceno, Oteo, I. Lopez, "Chiquis" Garcia, Valdez.That 7 plus the 5 I initially gave out...12 in total.I think its safe to say that this isnt the same team.
Ok. I just say that these players now didn't come "from nothing". They were already there, and if Aguirre didn't consider them, he had a reason for that according to his tactics, style, etc. Or simple a generation change, what doesn't mean much. The "old" team is as much Mexico as the "new" one, and what I consider the "3rd force in Latin America" as being Mexico - followed not far by some others - doesn't change if this team is better than the other one or not. Neither would I consider that the first negative results of La Volpe could be booked only to a change. We are not talking about clubs!




As far as the sub arguement, I was just trying to make a point...either he's going to give Mexico a break and not count those defeats against them (like he does with S.A. teams using subs), or criticize them for losing but also giving them respect for beating teams in the Copa America.Basically to be the same way with Mexico as he is with the South American teams and not have a double-standard.
Don't take him that much for serious. I'm sure he doesn't consider Mexico the 11th of America even himself. He just doesn't like Mexico, and he would like Mexico to be that low.
It is sort of double standard if you consider that the only team that really sent a complete "B" team to the Copa America was Brazil (if you see Juan and Adriano there, you must remember that exactely their performance in that tournament brought them to the "A" team), and perhaps Mexico is the only team that sent a complete "A" team, besides Argentina (it was of course Bielsa's team, and not Pekerman's - so unfortunately no Riquelme) . Actually I'm not sure about it - I just missed some important players in some teams, but many were there. Definately the only "subs" team was Brazil.



One point that I want to make though, yes Mexico has most of its NT playing in Mexico but the first team isnt brought up as often as u think...in the friendlies there are a few starters and the rest are bench guys/new call-ups.The qualifiers (until theyre qualified), the WC, and at times in some big tournaments are the times when they bring the "A" team...its not as often as u may think.
Ok, you must be right. I'm not that much informed about the Mexican NT and league. My information come from the tournaments I have the opportunity of following.

[PunkguyEG]

that guy ROnni is making UNAM-mx look real stupid! and i think he is right

[RojINeGrO5051]

just face it man mexico is 3rd :sad:

[unam_mx]

that guy ROnni is making UNAM-mx look real stupid! and i think he is right

You're a freakin' idiot, for like the 2 millionth time...read the posts!

Seriously what the hell are u talking about?Ronni for the most part agrees with me, there's a few small details here and there where we may have slightly different opinions but other then that we see eye to eye...especially in the biggest question of it all.Just in case u havent noticed he too thinks that Mexico is 3rd.So if u think he's right then u must have changed ur mind huh?You must finally see the light and consider Mexico 3rd.Or are u going to backstep and after u find out that he thinks Mexico is 3rd, not agree with him anymore :rolleyes:

[Calif]

Mexico 3rd

[Orgulho Judeu]

look at the numbers....Paraguay is third...

[ricoo9]

U guys r crazy, mexico 3rd is like saying ur better than all the teams of south america (except Bra&Arg). They r not better, face it.

[ricoo9]

just face it man mexico is 3rd :sad:

even if a million ppl vote for mexico doesnt make them better, their not gonna win a prize cuz all the mexicans in this thread voted for mexico so w/e with the poll, it dont mean squat :boo:

[unam_mx]

even if a million ppl vote for mexico doesnt make them better, their not gonna win a prize cuz all the mexicans in this thread voted for mexico so w/e with the poll, it dont mean squat :boo:

Yeah it shouldnt...cause if u hadnt registered/signed-up as new users to come on here and agree with urself then Mexico would be 1st by more then a few votes.Dude u aint fooling noone, u signed up as barcaguy, bolivian, mexicosucks100%, and mexico4life and voted against Mexico because they had such a commanding lead in the poll.I also find it ironic that all those guys go to the "Peru or Chile" thread and vote for ur beloved Peru.

I bet if a mod or something had access to IP adresses they could see that they are all the same for u and those other users that just signed up.

[ricoo9]

Yeah it shouldnt...cause if u hadnt registered/signed-up as new users to come on here and agree with urself then Mexico would be 1st by more then a few votes.Dude u aint fooling noone, u signed up as barcaguy, bolivian, mexicosucks100%, and mexico4life and voted against Mexico because they had such a commanding lead in the poll.I also find it ironic that all those guys go to the "Peru or Chile" thread and vote for ur beloved Peru.

I bet if a mod or something had access to IP adresses they could see that they are all the same for u and those other users that just signed up.


Dude, ur so pathetic, ur just upset cuz ppl (non mexican)voted against mexico. well its not my fault ppl (not mexican) know better... OK so i'm punkguyeg and im bboytreblle also right? what r u gonna say next? Pathetic!!
I wonder what ur gonna come up with next...... and lets see if pumas actually wins the sudamericana u guys will probably say that mexico will win the world cup also! theres never an end to ur talking, ok man Mexico r the champions then! :rolleyes: Mexico world champs 2006!!! WOOOH MEXICO!!!! their the best team in history!!!! :lol: YAYHH!! MEXICO!!!! tTHE CHAMPIONS!!! VIVA MEXICO!!! THE BEST!!!! THE BEST LEAGUE!!!! WOOOHHH!!! :lol:

[RojINeGrO5051]

Mexico ya manda aqui :ronaldo:

[BOLIVIANOGUY]

viva bolivia we are bette then mexico!

[Orgulho Judeu]

wtf...of course yo uthink that look at your name...

[Orgulho Judeu]

and paraguay is better you...so goes the cycle of life

[RojINeGrO5051]

bolivia??? futbol=towards the bottom hey man i but still have love bolivianos they supply me with that yay if u know what i mean :yuck: =me on coke

[ricoo9]

Mexico ya manda aqui :ronaldo:


Opinions r opinions and facts r facts...

[Orgulho Judeu]

Opinions r opinions and facts r facts...
i concur...

[ricoo9]

viva bolivia we are bette then mexico!

I dont think u even believe that urself! :lol: u must be on the stuff u givin rojiblanco

[BOLIVIANOGUY]

at least we are not shit talker like other people around here :D :p

[RojINeGrO5051]

well ask anybody and they will more than likely think my opinion is complete bullshit ask please

[ricoo9]

at least we are not shit talker like other people around here :D :p


GOOD POINT!! :)

[Orgulho Judeu]

at least we are not shit talker like other people around here :D :p

look...im not trying to be rude...but you dont really have any shit to talk...anyway if you did...thanks for keeping it on the dl...

[RojINeGrO5051]

I dont think u even believe that urself! :lol: u must be on the stuff u givin rojiblanco


nah i dont do that stuff while im on the internet

then if i do il probely go fishing lol

[BOLIVIANOGUY]

at least we are not shit talkers!!!!

[chuncho_azul]

Dude, ur so pathetic, ur just upset cuz ppl (non mexican)voted against mexico. well its not my fault ppl (not mexican) know better... OK so i'm punkguyeg and im bboytreblle also right? what r u gonna say next? Pathetic!!
I wonder what ur gonna come up with next...... and lets see if pumas actually wins the sudamericana u guys will probably say that mexico will win the world cup also! theres never an end to ur talking, ok man Mexico r the champions then! :rolleyes: Mexico world champs 2006!!! WOOOH MEXICO!!!! their the best team in history!!!! :lol: YAYHH!! MEXICO!!!! tTHE CHAMPIONS!!! VIVA MEXICO!!! THE BEST!!!! THE BEST LEAGUE!!!! WOOOHHH!!! :lol:

peru world champs!!!!!!!!!

oh wait..they didnt make it to the WC :(

[ricoo9]

peru world champs!!!!!!!!!

oh wait..they didnt make it to the WC :(


CHile THe best!!! world champions of the world!!!! oh wait they didnt make it to the world cup neither :D

[Orgulho Judeu]

at least we are not shit talkers!!!!
okay okay point taken...wait a minute isnt saying Bolivia is way better then Mexico shit talking... :rolleyes: ...whatever...Paraguay is still better.

[BOLIVIANOGUY]

If bolivia were in concacaf we would have qualified to all the world cups like mexico did. I think we could have done a better job than mexico has done in the previous WC.

[chuncho_azul]

CHile THe best!!! world champions of the world!!!! oh wait they didnt make it to the world cup neither :D

never said chile was 3rd dumbass :lol:

go back a few pages. i said chile was last

you claim your peru is on top

at least im realistic

[Yañez]

If bolivia were in concacaf we would have qualified to all the world cups like mexico did. I think we could have done a better job than mexico has done in the previous WC.


AMEN

[chuncho_azul]

ricco..just because chile is an overall superior country than your shit peru (ie. quality of life) doesnt me you have to hate on us.
yes, lets say peru is better in soccer. good for you. i hope at least that makes you proud because in other aspects, peru has nothing to be proud of.

oh..and thank us for taking all those illegal peruvians coming to chile and giving them jobs.

;)

[chuncho_azul]

lol..you gotta love this stupid discussions :D

[RojINeGrO5051]

lol..you gotta love this stupid discussions :D

especially bout how mexico is not 3rd best in latin america :blabla:

[BOLIVIANOGUY]

especially bout how mexico is not 3rd best in latin america :blabla:

yea really stupid :D

[RaulMadrid7]

Mexico is the 3rd strongest IMO. USA is all hype and politics, but Mexico isa solid and strong team that has alot of potential where they recently showed in the Confeds Cup when beating Brazil 1-0.

[ricoo9]

ricco..just because chile is an overall superior country than your shit peru (ie. quality of life) doesnt me you have to hate on us.
yes, lets say peru is better in soccer. good for you. i hope at least that makes you proud because in other aspects, peru has nothing to be proud of.

oh..and thank us for taking all those illegal peruvians coming to chile and giving them jobs.

;)


First of I never said peru is the best or that they r 3rd in america, I just said they r better than Chile and its a fact, U guys should try beating us once in a while. As for politics and economy stuff i sugesst u go to another forum or go back to chile since its so great.... loser :boo: and chile why dont u guys go give argentina some more land .....pussies :kiss:

[ricoo9]

Mexico is the 3rd strongest IMO. USA is all hype and politics, but Mexico isa solid and strong team that has alot of potential where they recently showed in the Confeds Cup when beating Brazil 1-0.


Have u heard of teams like Paraguay or Uruguay?? Uruguay has 2 players in Madrid and basically the whole team plays in the best clubs in the world....just incase u didnt know

[ricoo9]

never said chile was 3rd dumbass :lol:

go back a few pages. i said chile was last

you claim your peru is on top

at least im realistic


WTF????? so basically ur saying Chile is last but wouldnt that mean that Peru is better than them?? what an idiot

[chuncho_azul]

First of I never said peru is the best or that they r 3rd in america, I just said they r better than Chile and its a fact, U guys should try beating us once in a while. As for politics and economy stuff i sugesst u go to another forum or go back to chile since its so great.... loser :boo: and chile why dont u guys go give argentina some more land .....pussies :kiss:

loser? how? oh you know me personally now? :lol:

i do have the money to go back to chile 3 times a year. i love it there,its too bad i have to stop in lima for two hours. that shithole airport you guys have :lol:

as for politics and economics, at least you are not denying we are far superior ;)

as for land? know your history.we never gave argentina shit.we are stronger than them.as for peru,yeah sorry we took some land..pussies :kiss: ;)

just be glad your parents ended up in miami, coz if you were in peru you wouldnt even have internet access :)

[chuncho_azul]

WTF????? so basically ur saying Chile is last but wouldnt that mean that Peru is better than them?? what an idiot

yeah.keep insulting me. that should get you more respect ;)

[chuncho_azul]

Have u heard of teams like Paraguay or Uruguay?? Uruguay has 2 players in Madrid and basically the whole team plays in the best clubs in the world....just incase u didnt know

thanks, i didnt know.

oh, peru still sucks ;)

[ricoo9]

thanks, i didnt know.

oh, peru still sucks ;)


I thought i was the 12 year old? but anyway in case u didnt know u guys gave argentina some land so they wouldnt get involved with guera del pacifico... who r the pussies now?? learn some history from ur own country dork :shocked:

and i'm glad to see u got so much money yet u cant afford a one stop to chile that u got to stop in peru all the time, what an idiot u r. :worried:

Thats a link to all the history of the war and how u pussies gave ur land to argentina, u might finally learn som history about ur country
http://www.bolivianstudies.org/eng1/journal/2001_07.htm

R we gonna start talking soccer again? or am i gonna have to answer to idiots like these all day? :boo:

[ricoo9]

loser? how? oh you know me personally now? :lol:

i do have the money to go back to chile 3 times a year. i love it there,its too bad i have to stop in lima for two hours. that shithole airport you guys have :lol:

as for politics and economics, at least you are not denying we are far superior ;)

as for land? know your history.we never gave argentina shit.we are stronger than them.as for peru,yeah sorry we took some land..pussies :kiss: ;)

just be glad your parents ended up in miami, coz if you were in peru you wouldnt even have internet access :)

Yeah chile is superior from the lands they stole from bolivia...... haha should i even consider u chilean? u r probably bolivian......great job though! all the wealth u guys got r from bolivias lands cuz chile doesnt have shit.... :lol:

[unam_mx]

Dude, ur so pathetic, ur just upset cuz ppl (non mexican)voted against mexico. well its not my fault ppl (not mexican) know better... OK so i'm punkguyeg and im bboytreblle also right? what r u gonna say next? Pathetic!!
I wonder what ur gonna come up with next...... and lets see if pumas actually wins the sudamericana u guys will probably say that mexico will win the world cup also! theres never an end to ur talking, ok man Mexico r the champions then! :rolleyes: Mexico world champs 2006!!! WOOOH MEXICO!!!! their the best team in history!!!! :lol: YAYHH!! MEXICO!!!! tTHE CHAMPIONS!!! VIVA MEXICO!!! THE BEST!!!! THE BEST LEAGUE!!!! WOOOHHH!!! :lol:

Yeah, try ur best to cover it up man...keep on trying.Like u say facts are facts dude, and these new users signed up when Mexico had a good lead and voted against Mexico.Then proceeded to go to the other thread and vote for ur beloved Peru.And have also gone to other threads to bash Mexico, threads that u have been a part of.Coincidence? :twitch:

Anyways, yeah ur right nothing but Mexicans voted for Mexico...as we all know Mexico has a huge Empire that stretches all the way to Spain, Italy, and even Japan so I guess those guys are indeed Mexican. :rolleyes:

Seriously man, Im through with u...ur nothing more then a hater who's pissed cause his Peruvian NT is crap.You find all these defects for Mexico and other teams yet ignores that yours is even worse.Hey, whatever makes u feel better man.

[ricoo9]

Yeah, try ur best to cover it up man...keep on trying.Like u say facts are facts dude, and these new users signed up when Mexico had a good lead and voted against Mexico.Then proceeded to go to the other thread and vote for ur beloved Peru.And have also gone to other threads to bash Mexico, threads that u have been a part of.Coincidence? :twitch:

Anyways, yeah ur right nothing but Mexicans voted for Mexico...as we all know Mexico has a huge Empire that stretches all the way to Spain, Italy, and even Japan so I guess those guys are indeed Mexican. :rolleyes:

Seriously man, Im through with u...ur nothing more then a hater who's pissed cause his Peruvian NT is crap.You find all these defects for Mexico and other teams yet ignores that yours is even worse.Hey, whatever makes u feel better man.


ur putting words in my mouth, I for the record am gonna say this again! Peru is not the best or 3rd best in america, but! but! but!! MExico doesnt have the players or the capacity to be 3rd niether, u guys will always fail to south american teams just like ur doing now(copa America) (libertadores) etc.. and yeah wow a japanese guy is gonna know whos better in americas :sick: or how bout a italian? :sick: Ur asking the wrong ppl, i suggest next time u ask regular ppl and not ur friends to vote for the poll.
As for me making up names, is just ur excuse cuz USA has 1 more vote now,
ITs not my fault ppl think the same as me... if not then i'm everybody that wrote against mexico is what ur trying to say? think about what ur saying and open ur eyes :smoking:

OH and if MExico is so much better than they should try beating peru or colombia one day ;)

[chuncho_azul]

I thought i was the 12 year old? but anyway in case u didnt know u guys gave argentina some land so they wouldnt get involved with guera del pacifico... who r the pussies now?? learn some history from ur own country dork :shocked:

and i'm glad to see u got so much money yet u cant afford a one stop to chile that u got to stop in peru all the time, what an idiot u r. :worried:

Thats a link to all the history of the war and how u pussies gave ur land to argentina, u might finally learn som history about ur country
http://www.bolivianstudies.org/eng1/journal/2001_07.htm

R we gonna start talking soccer again? or am i gonna have to answer to idiots like these all day? :boo:

do you travel? not much i see. lan chile, the best plane to take to chile, has a must stop in peru. why? because the main airline company in peru is lan peru, owned by a chilean company.
chile may be pussy. but guess who is accepting illegal immigrants to work as nannies and non-skilled jobs. say thanks for that. oh.i had the pleasure of having 4 peruvian nannies while in chile. great people, nothing like your dumbass.
wars? well, we've beaten peru, and bring it..we can beat you guys anytime.
argentina? chile is a stronger country. we are richer than argentina. no hard feelings here.

talk about soccer? oh come on.we failed at that.

go..right now and thank your parents you dont have to cross the border and work in chile like all your compatriotas. yeah..take your time..go talk to them..they saved your life.

[chuncho_azul]

Yeah, try ur best to cover it up man...keep on trying.Like u say facts are facts dude, and these new users signed up when Mexico had a good lead and voted against Mexico.Then proceeded to go to the other thread and vote for ur beloved Peru.And have also gone to other threads to bash Mexico, threads that u have been a part of.Coincidence? :twitch:

Anyways, yeah ur right nothing but Mexicans voted for Mexico...as we all know Mexico has a huge Empire that stretches all the way to Spain, Italy, and even Japan so I guess those guys are indeed Mexican. :rolleyes:

Seriously man, Im through with u...ur nothing more then a hater who's pissed cause his Peruvian NT is crap.You find all these defects for Mexico and other teams yet ignores that yours is even worse.Hey, whatever makes u feel better man.

:lol: i gave up talking about soccer with this fanboy.

so i just make fun of his country :D

[chuncho_azul]

Yeah chile is superior from the lands they stole from bolivia...... haha should i even consider u chilean? u r probably bolivian......great job though! all the wealth u guys got r from bolivias lands cuz chile doesnt have shit.... :lol:

well. all in all. chile is superior than both bolivia and peru combined :lol:

[ricoo9]

well. all in all. chile is superior than both bolivia and peru combined :lol:


ur funny ok peru isnt great! chile is way better, lets see if u guys start a war with poor ol peru again cuz ur runnin out of resources
and who cares if chile is superior in economy to argentina, then dont be pussies and dont give em land next time u have a war......as for peruvians goin to chile thats great i bet their goin to ex peruvian land anyways idiot and if u didnt take imigrants it would be ***ked up anyways...but if chile is so great for livin then why did u come here? u should just stay in chile where u can live like the queen u always wanted to be :D

[chuncho_azul]

ur funny ok peru isnt great! chile is way better, lets see if u guys start a war with poor ol peru again cuz ur runnin out of resources
and who cares if chile is superior in economy to argentina, then dont be pussies and dont give em land next time u have a war......as for peruvians goin to chile thats great i bet their goin to ex peruvian land anyways idiot and if u didnt take imigrants it would be ***ked up anyways...but if chile is so great for livin then why did u come here? u should just stay in chile where u can live like the queen u always wanted to be :D

you are truly pathetic. :D

it was fun while it lasted.

[ricoo9]

I dont got a problem with u or any chilean, one of my best friends is from chile, so i suggest u chill, i was talkin soccer not politics, unless of course u got nothing to argue about chiles soccer team suckin more than peru? in that case i understand why u would have to change the subject so drastically from soccer to politics :shocked:

[chuncho_azul]

im out boys.

have a great discussion :D

[unam_mx]

ur putting words in my mouth, I for the record am gonna say this again! Peru is not the best or 3rd best in america, but! but! but!! MExico doesnt have the players or the capacity to be 3rd niether, u guys will always fail to south american teams just like ur doing now(copa America) (libertadores) etc.. and yeah wow a japanese guy is gonna know whos better in americas :sick: or how bout a italian? :sick: Ur asking the wrong ppl, i suggest next time u ask regular ppl and not ur friends to vote for the poll.
As for me making up names, is just ur excuse cuz USA has 1 more vote now,
ITs not my fault ppl think the same as me... if not then i'm everybody that wrote against mexico is what ur trying to say? think about what ur saying and open ur eyes :smoking:

OH and if MExico is so much better than they should try beating peru or colombia one day ;)


Yeah, lets look at Copa America and the Libertadores where Mexico has only recently started participating...whatever man you are an idiot.And who cares if u dont have Peru 3rd, u still have them higher then they should be.You also have Mexico 10th, behind Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, and others.Again, you are an idiot.

A worldwide opinion is much better then an opinion from a hater like u...and if they follow soccer they should know a few things about soccer from all over the world not just from Japan, Spain, or Italy.Their opinion definitely has more value then yours, even though ur supposedly an "expert" in Americas futbol.And Im not sure if a moderator would be willing to disclose this information, but again I'd like to see one of them look at IP addresses and see if they are the same...that ought to expose ur Mexican-hater ass.

One day?You act like theyve never beaten them before...and quit making such a big deal of Peru being "undefeated" against Mexico in the last 5 yrs.Theyve played a whopping 2 times since then, a two game unbeaten streak--big deal.Hey guess what, we're undefeated against Brasil in 2005!I guess that makes us better then them :bounce:

The bottom line is, Peru sucks...and even though u find all those defeats and defects for Mexico, ur crap team is even worse.When was the last time they made a WC anyways?And followed it up by getting out of the group stage?I hear all this crap about them just having an easy road in the Concacaf, but hey Mexico does well in the WCs as well...they get out of the group stage all the time and despite losing in the 2nd round always leave a good impression.Yeah we choke and blah blah blah blah, but atleast we're there and putting on good shows rather then being at home.

[ricoo9]

Yeah, lets look at Copa America and the Libertadores where Mexico has only recently started participating...whatever man you are an idiot.And who cares if u dont have Peru 3rd, u still have them higher then they should be.You also have Mexico 10th, behind Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, and others.Again, you are an idiot.

A worldwide opinion is much better then an opinion from a hater like u...and if they follow soccer they should know a few things about soccer from all over the world not just from Japan, Spain, or Italy.Their opinion definitely has more value then yours, even though ur supposedly an "expert" in Americas futbol.And Im not sure if a moderator would be willing to disclose this information, but again I'd like to see one of them look at IP addresses and see if they are the same...that ought to expose ur Mexican-hater ass.

One day?You act like theyve never beaten them before...and quit making such a big deal of Peru being "undefeated" against Mexico in the last 5 yrs.Theyve played a whopping 2 times since then, a two game unbeaten streak--big deal.Hey guess what, we're undefeated against Brasil in 2005!I guess that makes us better then them :bounce:

The bottom line is, Peru sucks...and even though u find all those defeats and defects for Mexico, ur crap team is even worse.When was the last time they made a WC anyways?And followed it up by getting out of the group stage?I hear all this crap about them just having an easy road in the Concacaf, but hey Mexico does well in the WCs as well...they get out of the group stage all the time and despite losing in the 2nd round always leave a good impression.Yeah we choke and blah blah blah blah, but atleast we're there and putting on good shows rather then being at home.


I agree with u, peru sux, but cuz peru sux doesnt mean mexico is 3rd and i wouldnt say 2 games if u go further back to 98 then we have played 4 times and u guys only won once and it was in penalties...too bad it doesnt show the 3rd place superiority u were lookin for, or how about trying to beat colombia for a change, instead of them woopin ur ass all the time. :D and its funny u guys beat brazil once and ur using it as an example woahh!! u won 1 game out of 30 against brazil and u think u can use it as an example, ur funny man :ronaldo: and dont say when was the last time peru made it to a WC cuz even if venezuela was in concacaaf they would make it to the WC.

And yeah MExico does so great in WC that they lose to teams like USA in the 2nd round. Atleast if it would of been URugay or Paragay they would of beaten US

[unam_mx]

I agree with u, peru sux, but cuz peru sux doesnt mean mexico is 3rd and i wouldnt say 2 games if u go further back to 98 then we have played 4 times and u guys only won once and it was in penalties...too bad it doesnt show the 3rd place superiority u were lookin for, or how about trying to beat colombia for a change, instead of them woopin ur ass all the time. :D and its funny u guys beat brazil once and ur using it as an example woahh!! u won 1 game out of 30 against brazil and u think u can use it as an example, ur funny man :ronaldo: and dont say when was the last time peru made it to a WC cuz even if venezuela was in concacaaf they would make it to the WC.

And yeah MExico does so great in WC that they lose to teams like USA in the 2nd round. Atleast if it would of been URugay or Paragay they would of beaten US

You admit that Peru sucks, yet u think they are better then Mexico...still not making sense bro.And yeah its funny when I use the Brasil example but not when u do--Colombia since like 2001 has only played us two times one was a tie and the other was in the recent Copa de Oro where we lost 2-1.Then they followed it up by losing to a 'crap' Concacaf team (Panama).Again big deal, that doesnt make them better.

Im sick of the 'they play in a weak region region arguement'...dude if Mexico qualified then proceeded to get destroyed in the WC then cool u have a point.But they dont, they always put on a good showing--they have recently finished first or tied for first in their groups which included the likes of Italy (94', 02'), Holland (98') and Croatia (02')...I know that they cant seem to get out of the 2nd rd but other then that they show they can hang with the most teams there.As far as losing to the US, maybe Uruguay should first of all get to the WC and secondly get out of the group stage before we start speaking of them beating a team in the 2nd rd...not since Italia 90' I believe have they even reached the 2nd rd.Paraguay is the same as Mexico so they cant talk either, theyre the "lla-meritos" as well--they do well in the group stage and get knocked out in the 2nd rd.Yeah it seems bad that we lose over and over again in the 2nd rd, but then again how many team in South America (other then Bra & Arg) would love to first of all be there and then follow it up by going past the group stage...all of them man, including ur sorry ass Peruvian team.

[ricoo9]

Ur point in that post was?? did u watch france 98? Paraguay lost 1-0 to france in overtime btw, they didnt lose to USA 2-0 Now that is pathetic..... I dont see ur sense... I'm not saying Peru is better than anybody, I'm just trying to prove that mexico isnt 3rd, IF they were 3rd or 4th they should be able to beat "easy" teams like peru or colombia, but u guys dont, u actually lose to them in copa america,gold cup, at home, etc... and u want me to stop sayin that concacaaf is a weak region? well isnt it? I want u to tell me that Concacaaf isnt a weak region so i can have a few more laughs.....

[unam_mx]

Ur point in that post was?? did u watch france 98? Paraguay lost 1-0 to france in overtime btw, they didnt lose to USA 2-0 Now that is pathetic..... I dont see ur sense... I'm not saying Peru is better than anybody, I'm just trying to prove that mexico isnt 3rd, IF they were 3rd or 4th they should be able to beat "easy" teams like peru or colombia, but u guys dont, u actually lose to them in copa america,gold cup, at home, etc... and u want me to stop sayin that concacaaf is a weak region? well isnt it? I want u to tell me that Concacaaf isnt a weak region.....

Its is a weak region but that doesnt make Mexico weak...10th in the Americas?The only teams that can reasonably be considered better then Mexico are Paraguay and the USA (even though I dont agree), Mexico shouldnt not be out of the TOP 5.I want u to tell me that Mexico is worse then Ecuador, Venezuela, and Peru and that they are 10th...

And Paraguay playing France in 98', that team was so dull...nothing but defense, they had like a 10-0-0 formation and if it wasnt for Chilavert who knows if they wouldnt have even gone to overtime.They only scored in one game out of the four.Its a gooood accomplishment and everything but nothing to rave about, playing like that is wrong.I do agree that losing to the U.S. was pathetic but other then that u cant say anything about Mexico's performance and u cant deny that all S.A. teams below the first two would love to do what Mexico does and lose over and over again in the 2nd rd.

As far as ur 'Mexico should be able to beat teams if theyre third', that is so weak man...doesnt the team u consider 3rd (Paraguay) lose to those teams as well?Why is the best team in the world (Brasil) losing to a team who u consider 10th in just the Americas?If theyre so good shouldnt they never lose to us?...see how ridiculous ur dumb logic is?

[ricoo9]

And Paraguay playing France in 98', that team was so dull...nothing but defense, they had like a 10-0-0 formation and if it wasnt for Chilavert who knows if they wouldnt have even gone to overtime.They only scored in one game out of the four.Its a gooood accomplishment and everything but nothing to rave about, playing like that is wrong.I do agree that losing to the U.S. was pathetic but other then that u cant say anything about Mexico's performance and u cant deny that all S.A. teams below the first two would love to do what Mexico does and lose over and over again in the 2nd rd.



Paragay almost beat france and let i remind u that france was the host of the WC who went on to beat brazil in the finals 3-0. U say they played 10 defenders...ur such a hypocrite, as i recall confedariations cup mexico played the same against brazil, they only had 1 shot on goal and it was lucky enough to go in, brazil attacked the whole game, so dont try to lower the level of paragay with that stupid argument, when mexico plays any power they do the same, all they do is play defence, atleast u guys got those NONMEXICAN players that might be able to do something now. And hey say w/e u want but Paragay didnt lose to USA 2-0, they lost in overtime buddy :shocked: give me a break! :boo:



Mexico shouldnt not be out of the TOP 5.I want u to tell me that Mexico is worse then Ecuador,

If u read the previous posts, i said mexico is better than ecuador and bolivia. The rest of the teams u will have to prove and u guys haven proven yet, its pretty even competition, u win some u lose some, but my point is u guys dont dominate, u win some u lose some so u cant say they r 3rd or 4th best there is no proof of that, that is just ur opinion

[unam_mx]

Paragay almost beat france and let i remind u that france was the host of the WC who went on to beat brazil in the finals 3-0. U say they played 10 defenders...ur such a hypocrite, as i recall confedariations cup mexico played the same against brazil, they only had 1 shot on goal and it was lucky enough to go in, brazil attacked the whole game, so dont try to lower the level of paragay with that stupid argument, when mexico plays any power they do the same, all they do is play defence, atleast u guys got those NONMEXICAN players that might be able to do something now. And hey say w/e u want but Paragay didnt lose to USA 2-0, they lost in overtime buddy :shocked: give me a break! :boo:

Yeah, playing 10-0-0 doesnt really give the opposition much of a chance to score u know, so it aint that big of a deal that u compare it to Brasil who got beat 3-0...they played right, they didnt just camp in their side of the field all game long.And are u serious about the Conf. Cup?I will tell u that they werent the initiators or that they didnt have the biggest possesion of the ball but dont compare them to that Paraguay team either...that is bull.They still attacked, they drew a penalty and had several other shots on goal other then the goal by Borgetti.Your a freakin' idiot to compare them to that Praguay team, did u even watch that game in the Conf. Cup?




If u read the previous posts, i said mexico is better than ecuador and bolivia. The rest of the teams u will have to prove and u guys haven proven yet, its pretty even competition, u win some u lose some, but my point is u guys dont dominate, u win some u lose some so u cant say they r 3rd or 4th best there is no proof of that, that is just ur opinion

So I guess that means Peru isnt better then Panama, Guatemala, or T&T...like u say they gotta prove it u know, they havent really played each other much. :rolleyes:

Hey bro, there's just some things that u are supposed to f'en know...I know that there's not all these head to head matchups to compare Mexico with the other teams but its still kind of obvious.The way Mexico has done in the WC (which despite what u say is respectable) and in international tournaments, many of those other teams dont compare.

[ricoo9]

Yeah, playing 10-0-0 doesnt really give the opposition much of a chance to score u know, so it aint that big of a deal that u compare it to Brasil who got beat 3-0...they played right, they didnt just camp in their side of the field all game long.And are u serious about the Conf. Cup?I will tell u that they werent the initiators or that they didnt have the biggest possesion of the ball but dont compare them to that Paraguay team either...that is bull.They still attacked, they drew a penalty and had several other shots on goal other then the goal by Borgetti.Your a freakin' idiot to compare them to that Praguay team, did u even watch that game in the Conf. Cup?


I think ur the one that didnt watch the game, mexico might of had 2 shots max, brazil had like 30 shots on goal and u guys got lucky they were havin a bad day cuz none went in, ask anybody besides me if mexico didnt just defend the whole entire game.



So I guess that means Peru isnt better then Panama, Guatemala, or T&T...like u say they gotta prove it u know, they havent really played each other much. :rolleyes:


Last time peru played a concacaaf team (honduras) peru won 5-1 so guess what they have proved it, they dont lose or tie all the time like mexico does with conmebol teams. please :rolleyes: like u say, somethings u just know but about mexico u just dont

[Ronni]

Sorry ... just repeating what I've just posted on the other thread.

I could grab some statistical info on direct matches Mexico against the south american teams in question for the last 10 years.
Please notice that the first line shows victories for each side and draws, while the second shows the goals for each side (decisions on penalty kicks of course not considered).
Regarding which was the home team, they played many times in places like San Diego or others in south US, which I considered Mexico as being the home team. If it's Chicago, New York or northern US, I considered neutral pitch.


Mexico 0 3 2 Paraguay
Mexico 3 - 5 Paraguay
2 Mexico host
2 neutral
1 Paraguay host

---------------------

Mexico 2 3 3 Colombia
Mexico 8 - 9 Colombia
6 Mexico host
1 neutral
1 Colombia host

---------------------

Mexico 4 1 1 Chile
Mexico 8 - 4 Chile
2 Mexico host
3 neutral
1 Chile host

---------------------

Mexico 2 1 1 Uruguay
Mexico 7 - 6 Uruguay
1 Mexico host
3 neutral
0 Uruguay host

---------------------

Mexico 2 2 2 Peru
Mexico 6 - 7 Peru
4 Mexico host
2 neutral
0 Peru host


Except for against Chile, when the records are clearly in favor of Mexico, and against Paraguay, as they are in favor of Paraguay, all other tree seem to be quite balanced. Of course what counts a lot is that Mexico seldom played as visitors, what makes their results look better.
Adding all these results for the last 10 years we get:

Mexico 10 wins, 10 draws, 9 defeats
32 goals scored, 31 goals taken
Mexico 15 times as hosts, 2 times as visitors, 11 times on neutral soil.

Indeed the direct confrontation statistics in the last 10 years don't show that Mexico has been clearly better than all these other 5 south american teams. And considering the clear home advantage, I would expect that Mexico get even better results.

These statistics don't support my own opinion that Mexico is the third, however I stick to the results during tournaments at world level, when in the last times Mexico has clearly done better than all 5, perhaps with only Paraguay being comparably successful.
Perhaps it would be fair at least to consider Paraguay at the same level of Mexico, as 3rd.

As far as I remember, Mexico should have better records against "bigger" teams. I haven't seen any statistics yet - it's just a feeling.

It's important to say that here I'm considering only "Latin America", since the whole discussion came out of this apparent rivalry between mexicans and "middle"-south americans. This means I'm not considering the US.
Belonging to the same confederation as the US, of course these two teams play each other much more often. And we have to admit that the most recent records are much in favor of the US.
They played already 10 times in the last 5 years, and the dominance of the US is amazing. They won 7 times against only 2 mexican victories, drawing only once. The US score nothing less than 14 times, and Mexico only 3.
Between these two there's no discussion, and in my opinion there are records enough for a clear conclusion that the US has already taken the first place in the Concacaf. As much as I don't like this idea ...

[unam_mx]

Yes, it is very fair to have the USA and even Paraguay with Mexico...hell even Ive said that.But to have teams like Venezuela, Chile, Peru, Uruguay, etc. above them or even as equals is pretty stupid.Your post just proves that Ronni, head-to-head they are pretty even and in world level tournaments its not comparable...Mexico takes it over all those teams.

p.s. with that said, Im still not sure how good of a measuring stick that is...for the frienlies I dont think either of the teams used their best squads (Mexico & the opponent for that day).

[Orgulho Judeu]

1.)Brazil/Argentina
2.)Paraguay
3.)Uruguay
4.)Mexico
229.)UAE
DFL.)USA

[juanca]

no offense, but your peruvians and colombians need to realise it isnt the 60's anymore....

Peru was good about 50 yrs ago and colombia too. they are no longer good, face it.

chile-same thing.

uruguay-they have the talent, but they love to decieve.

[ricoo9]

Yes, it is very fair to have the USA and even Paraguay with Mexico...hell even Ive said that.But to have teams like Venezuela, Chile, Peru, Uruguay, etc. above them or even as equals is pretty stupid.Your post just proves that Ronni, head-to-head they are pretty even and in world level tournaments its not comparable...Mexico takes it over all those teams.

p.s. with that said, Im still not sure how good of a measuring stick that is...for the frienlies I dont think either of the teams used their best squads (Mexico & the opponent for that day).

That argument about mexico playing 2nd round is weak.
Korea and Turkey got to the Semis of the last WC, does that make them better than Italy or Argentina? and anyway they got way further than Mexico.
So i wouldnt make a big deal of Mexico playing ONE more game than urugay or paragay in the world cup. If they played more than 1 maybe u could talk.

As to Mexico being 3rd I think after seeing Ronnis post, and seeing how USA has wooped mexico 7 out of the last 10 games and USA scorin 14 times against 3 from mexico shows without a doubt that they r superior to MExico and therefore leaves MExico away from the 3rd spot. Now seeing as Mexico hasnt been able to beat Paragay either I would think that leaves them from the 4th too? :shocked: All I can tell u for sure is that Mexico is better than Bolivia and Ecuador, About the rest u guys will have to prove it. THANK YOU I rest my case :first:

[ricoo9]

no offense, but your peruvians and colombians need to realise it isnt the 60's anymore....

Peru was good about 50 yrs ago and colombia too. they are no longer good, face it.

chile-same thing.

uruguay-they have the talent, but they love to decieve.

No one is saying they r good(Peru,Colombia,chile), were just trying to prove a point that mexico isnt 3rd.

[PunkguyEG]

No one is saying they r good(Peru,Colombia,chile), were just trying to prove a point that mexico isnt 3rd.

UNAM, I think you started to change you mind a litle bit here. Now you think that Paraguay and USA can be third besides Mexico, and that there's a tiny drop-off towars the rest of the teams?

“Who we consider 3rd(for me its Mexico) may be third but it isnt obvious...again Ive been saying this all along,”
This is not what you have been saying before.

I think now you are realizing that you were wrong. That Mexico is not better than other South Americans teams and that they are all about the same level. You have to admit it man, come on.
Let me refresh your mind by quoting some of the statements you have made in your previous posts:
.
“other then the two giants,they are better then any South American team.”

"Uruguay is not better then Mexico...they lost to Australia"

"Uruguay, they lost to Australia...quite possibly the worst team at the world cup.Nuff said."

“I can assure u one thing...Mexico would NOT have lost to Australia”

"USA, I guess u could make a case for them but I would still put them slightly behind Mexico."

"Paraguay, just cause they qualify 4th in a 'tough' region theyre better?"

"Your a freakin' idiot to compare them to that Praguay team, did u even watch that game in the Conf. Cup?"

"Hey guess what, we're undefeated against Brasil in 2005!I guess that makes us better then them"

"The bottom line is, Peru sucks...and even though u find all those defeats and defects for Mexico, ur crap team is even worse.When was the last time they made a WC anyways"

"Yes, Mexico isnt the only one that beats giants like Bra. and Arg...but u also cant compare it to South American teams."

“Mexico is two steps behind Brasil and Argentina, and one step ahead of everyone else in the Americas.”

“The truth is, that only Brasil and Argentina have anything on us...the rest of the South American countries dont.Which is what we have been saying all along, and u have gotten all worked up because u feel that countries like Peru, Colombia, Uruguay, and Chile (which are all going through a bad moment) are our equals.Then u insult us by saying Venezuela might be as well.You're wrong, but I'll give some ground as well:
Mexico is 2 1/2 steps behind Brasil and Argentina, and between 1/2 and 1 steps (depending on the teams) ahead of the rest of the teams in the Americas.Still the 3rd best though ”

“your 3rd power is even worse. So again I tell u, give me someone else besides the obvious two who is better then Mexico?”

“Also, you guys say that it is a FACT that Mexico 'for sure' isnt 3rd...come on, thats like an insult.”

Anyways, I think there's no 2 steps, 1 step, 1/2 step, or a tiny step of superiority of mexico towards the rest of the teams in south america. Maybe towards bolivia, and maybe venezuela and Ecuador, but nobody else in south america. Mexico hasn't proved this, and the stats for the recent 10 years shows it.
Although this stats are not good for mexico, I think they are about the same level of Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, Chile, Peru, and USA (even though you guys lost 7-3 in the recent years).

[PunkguyEG]

no offense, but your peruvians and colombians need to realise it isnt the 60's anymore....

Peru was good about 50 yrs ago and colombia too. they are no longer good, face it.

chile-same thing.

uruguay-they have the talent, but they love to decieve.

I agree with you. only that the "50 years ago" isn't accurate.
colombia and peru are not as good as they used to be, but they are still better than ecuador. Ecuador has the advantage of the altitude, but how many games did Ecuador win outsite of Quito in the recent WC qualifying games?
Ecduador has definately improved, but they still have a long way to go.

[Ronni]

I agree with you. only that the "50 years ago" isn't accurate.
colombia and peru are not as good as they used to be, but they are still better than ecuador. Ecuador has the advantage of the altitude, but how many games did Ecuador win outsite of Quito in the recent WC qualifying games?
Ecduador has definately improved, but they still have a long way to go.
Colombia, Chile and Uruguay are still sort of football powerhouses. We should remember that these three can give Brazil and Argentina a run for their money (let's just forget that Brazil vs. Chile last September ...). As I stated before, besides Paraguay all three could get one point out of the matches in Brazil and Argentina, and no other. This means Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia in this moment are one step behind.

I don't agree with Janca's argument of "thinking 50 years ago".

For Peru indeed, since that brilliant generation of the 70's is gone, they never brought anything positive again.

Colombia's generation of the 90's has gone, but still they're fighting at a high level. On this qualifying they had an awful start (they were some time the last team on the table!) and still they weren't far from qualifying. That generation from 15 years ago was considered among the best in the world (like Peru in the 70's). They aren't that high any more, but they still have quality (and the same mental problems as always!)

Chile in the last 50 years never had a "world team", but they were always where they are today. Quite consistent. We shouldn't forget that even if they were the last team during the WC '02 qualifying, still they were able to beat in short time both the defending champions (France - at that time they seemed to be unbeatable) and the future champions (Brazil - and they even overplayed Ronaldo & co).

No need to say that Uruguay isn't a shadow of what they were over 50 years ago, but still besides Paraguay they're the opponent Brazil and Argentina fear the most. Differently from Colombia, they seem always to be mentally strong, and this makes a difference.

Regarding Ecuador ... well, they're a consistent but mediocre team. From what I saw so far, they're not at the level of the other 5. And this time they seem to be even weaker than in 2002. I don't think they have a good team at all. We don't have to say that this time they qualified only due to the altitude. I really don't see any other reason for this. Considering the points the teams got as visitors, we get:

11 Brazil
11 Argentina
9 Colombia
8 Chile
8 Paraguay
7 Venezuela
6 Uruguay
5 Ecuador
5 Peru
0 Bolivia

Ok, here we're considering the force as "visitor". If we add the point "altitude", i.e., being visitors but without considering Quito and La Paz, we get the following stats:

10 Brazil
9 Colombia
8 Paraguay
8 Argentina
7 Venezuela
5 Chile
4 Uruguay
4 Peru
2 Ecuador
0 Bolivia

So here we see very clearly in which conditions Ecuador got their 28 points.
Out of 30 points they played at high altitudes, they got 26 - incredible 87% (which other teams in the world could do this in the whole history?), while out of the 24 points they played at normal altitudes, they got only 2 - this makes 8%. Any doubt?

Well ... considering the "altitude" Ecuador is that strong is about 10,000 ft (3,000 m), we can remember that this is exactely the highest altitude they have in Germany - the Mount Zugspitze, in the Alps. But you may imagine there's no football field on this mount, and perhaps the highest city hosting matches during the WC could be Munich. And it's at about 1,700 ft (500m).

At this altitude Ecuador is that 8% team, not the 87% one.

[Ronni]

That argument about mexico playing 2nd round is weak.
It isn't. Mexico made it all last 3 WCs. As I stated before, only Brazil, Germany and Italy were able to do it.



Korea and Turkey got to the Semis of the last WC, does that make them better than Italy or Argentina? and anyway they got way further than Mexico.
no. They did it only once. If they had done it three times - in all last 3 WCs, they would. Considering a fact happening all 3 World Cups in a sequence without exception, we can say it's statistically relevant and representative.
Only one isn't.



So i wouldnt make a big deal of Mexico playing ONE more game than urugay or paragay in the world cup. If they played more than 1 maybe u could talk.
Mexico were the 1st of their group in '94 and in '02 (in both cases they had Italy in their group!).
I can agree for Paraguay - they didn't qualify for '94 because they got in a qualifying group together with Argentina and Colombia: two of the few teams considered among the best in the world at that time, and only 1 qualifying directly (it was Colombia, Argentina won the play-offs against Australia). And both in '98 and '02 they got to the second phase of the WC.
They're the only team with recent WC records comparable to Mexico in Latin America.



All I can tell u for sure is that Mexico is better than Bolivia and Ecuador, About the rest u guys will have to prove it. THANK YOU I rest my case :first:
How do you want anyone to prove it? Don't you consider the WC important?
Don't you think any of the other 5 teams you mention would be happy if they could exchange their records with Mexico? I think they would. And this means Mexico was better.

[Ronni]

Again a copy from the other thread ...

I was curious and I did the same research for Paraguay.
This is what I got:

Paraguay 6 1 3 Uruguay
Paraguay 16 10 Uruguay

Paraguay 5 1 2 Chile
Paraguay 10 8 Chile

Paraguay 4 2 3 Peru
Paraguay 14 13 Peru

Paraguay 3 2 4 Colombia
Paraguay 8 12 Colombia


This means Paraguay is clearly dominant towards Uruguay and Chile, but quite tied against Peru and Colombia.
Considering all of them together we see the following records for Paraguay

18 victories (+ 2 against Mexico = 20)
6 draws (+ 3 against Mexico = 9)
12 defeats (+ 0 against Mexico = 12)

I would say Paraguay is clearly one step over the others in South America. Colombia could be the threatening one.
The host / visitor issue doesn't play such a huge role here, since these teams commonly play as often home as away.

Well ... at least on direct matches among these teams - Mexico, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru - Paraguay seems to be the one all the others have to fear the most.

[ricoo9]

How do you want anyone to prove it? Don't you consider the WC important?
Don't you think any of the other 5 teams you mention would be happy if they could exchange their records with Mexico? I think they would. And this means Mexico was better.

My argument was that Mexico hasnt done so well against conmebol teams, yet they are supposed to be better than them? ur stats show it. I dont think that using the WC should be the only determinant when trying to analyze the 3rd place team. I think there are more deciding factors too it. Games played againsts conmebol teams in friendlies & tournaments should count as well, Quality of players should count also.But the main question in determining this should be is mexico better than these conmebol teams. I think it is actually more important when the conmebol teams play Mexico head to head and the results should prove who is the better team and the fact that mexico has tied and lost most games at home against these teams prove my point.

UNAM was trying to say it doesnt matter that they lose to conmebol teams cuz they do better in the WC. But Mexico only plays one more game than the rest or in paraguays case the same as. Yes, I consider the WC important, but that is just one of the points we should focus on, not all. After all, the WC is played every 4 years so it is based a lot on luck as well as skill and power.

At the end, I think we have enough contributing evidence to say that Mexico is not 3rd or 4th.

[ricoo9]

It isn't. Mexico made it all last 3 WCs. As I stated before, only Brazil, Germany and Italy were able to do it.


no. They did it only once. If they had done it three times - in all last 3 WCs, they would. Considering a fact happening all 3 World Cups in a sequence without exception, we can say it's statistically relevant and representative.
Only one isn't.


Argentina and france didnt make it past the 1st round in WC 02, does that mean that Mexico is better than them? Even though u can use that argument as a small determing factor for 3rd place i still think its weak.

[unam_mx]

Exactly who said that losing to Conmebol teams doesnt matter and that all we should look at is the WC?If u havent noticed the head-to-head matchups are pretty even (other then against Par)...so where else can we look?The WC.And who has done the best there?Its also freakin' stupid for u to compare one-time surprises to what Mexico has done...they have done it three times in a row.So just cause Korea and Turkey got to the semis one time doesnt make them better, and vice versa with Argentina--just cause they failed to get outta the group stage in 02' it doesnt make Mexico better.

The only team that can be compared is Par, and Ive told u that I dont have a problem with anyone saying theyre better then Mexico even if I feel differently...its pretty close, it can go either way.I go with Mexico, u might go with Paraguay.

And using the head to head matchups has its flaws as well, neither of the teams (Mexico or the opponent) used their full teams for many of those friendlies.

[ricoo9]

Exactly who said that losing to Conmebol teams doesnt matter and that all we should look at is the WC?If u havent noticed the head-to-head matchups are pretty even (other then against Par)...so where else can we look?The WC.And who has done the best there?Its also freakin' stupid for u to compare one-time surprises to what Mexico has done...they have done it three times in a row.So just cause Korea and Turkey got to the semis one time doesnt make them better, and vice versa with Argentina--just cause they failed to get outta the group stage in 02' it doesnt make Mexico better.

The only team that can be compared is Par, and Ive told u that I dont have a problem with anyone saying theyre better then Mexico even if I feel differently...its pretty close, it can go either way.I go with Mexico, u might go with Paraguay.

And using the head to head matchups has its flaws as well, neither of the teams (Mexico or the opponent) used their full teams for many of those friendlies.

ur forgetting USA but yeah the rest is pretty even. The fact that u guys were the home team majority of times played against conmebol teams proves that u guys arent 3rd or 4th, and paraguay has done just as much. but w/e the facts r there in the previous posts and ur basically only using the wc to determine Mexicos "stat" so if u dont see it i think u should start reading ur own posts.
u just recently (no more than 3 posts ago) started agreeing that Paraguay could be 3rd so dont act like u always said this.
Why dont u answer punkguy or ronni again, i think its pretty much settled, mexico is not the power u thought they were, the only reason u think that is cuz ur mexican. goodluck though in the wc

[Ronni]

Argentina and france didnt make it past the 1st round in WC 02, does that mean that Mexico is better than them? Even though u can use that argument as a small determing factor for 3rd place i still think its weak.
Football is a wonderful game because even some weaker teams can have every now and then their day of glory, and some stronger teams their day of misery. But this happens every now and then.
You can't use just one tournament in order to take any conclusion - you could be using the "day of glory" or the "day of misery" of someone (2002 was the single "day of glory" of Turkey and South Korea and "day of misery" of Argentina and France). Instead, if you consider a longer period, the probability that you're taking the correct conclusions are much higher.

I'm talking about 3 World Cups, with Mexico being able to go further 3 times. They were twice first of the group, being in front of Italy, one of the biggest football nations ever. In '94 they left three europeans behind them (Italy, Norway and Ireland), in '02 two europeans (Italy and Croatia) and one south american (Ecuador). In '98 they were second to Holland, leaving Belgium and South Korea behind them.
These can't be seen as lucky "days of glory" for Mexico. It's called consistency, and it shows clearly that Mexico deserves to be considered one of the top 16 teams of the world. Repeating what I said before, only Brazil, Germany, Italy and Mexico were able to be in all 3 last WCs under the best 16. This doesn't mean that Mexico is in world top 4. But they're in top 16. Besides Brazil and Argentina, which other south american teams are?

Take the last 3 WCs, and so considering that one participation on "top 16" means the "day of glory" and once being out as "day of misery", we should consider the teams that were at least 2 times present on "top 16" really consistent teams, deserving this place (it's a normal statistics procedure to eliminate the best and the worst values for getting more precise results).

As a coincidence or not, we have exactely 16 teams that were present at least twice on the first 16 of the last 3 World Cups. These are:

from Europe (10 teams): Germany, Italy, England, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland and Rumania

from the Americas (5 teams): Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Mexico, USA

from Africa (1 team): Nigeria

Doesn't it seem to be correct? No one-day-flies like South Korea, Turkey or Bulgaria. But all "big guns" in!
These are for me the current "top 16" of the world.

If you see, there are only 5 american teams. Considering that Brazil is unquestionably 1st and Argentina 2nd, you can discuss between Paraguay, USA and Mexico which is 3rd, 4th and 5th. But all others can be left away.

So Mexico is not more than 3rd and not less than 5th.
Any other position anyone gives to Mexico I will consider biased and manipulated.

[unam_mx]

Ronni's post is basically flawless...u cant consider them higher then 3rd but also no lower then 5th.And since u think that I just began to say that, then here's some proof from before Ronni made his post about the results Mexico had against SA teams:


Its is a weak region but that doesnt make Mexico weak...10th in the Americas?The only teams that can reasonably be considered better then Mexico are Paraguay and the USA (even though I dont agree), Mexico shouldnt not be out of the TOP 5.I want u to tell me that Mexico is worse then Ecuador, Venezuela, and Peru and that they are 10th...

[ricoo9]

Ronni's post is basically flawless...u cant consider them higher then 3rd but also no lower then 5th.And since u think that I just began to say that, then here's some proof from before Ronni made his post about the results Mexico had against SA teams:


When did u start saying mexico could be 5th? like 3 posts ago? puhlease , punkguy already posted all the times u said mexico is way better than the other teams.

[PunkguyEG]

Take the last 3 WCs, and so considering that one participation on "top 16" means the "day of glory" and once being out as "day of misery", we should consider the teams that were at least 2 times present on "top 16" really consistent teams, deserving this place (it's a normal statistics procedure to eliminate the best and the worst values for getting more precise results).

As a coincidence or not, we have exactely 16 teams that were present at least twice on the first 16 of the last 3 World Cups. These are:

from Europe (10 teams): Germany, Italy, England, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland and Rumania

from the Americas (5 teams): Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Mexico, USA

from Africa (1 team): Nigeria

Doesn't it seem to be correct? No one-day-flies like South Korea, Turkey or Bulgaria. But all "big guns" in!
These are for me the current "top 16" of the world.

If you see, there are only 5 american teams. Considering that Brazil is unquestionably 1st and Argentina 2nd, you can discuss between Paraguay, USA and Mexico which is 3rd, 4th and 5th. But all others can be left away.

So Mexico is not more than 3rd and not less than 5th.
Any other position anyone gives to Mexico I will consider biased and manipulated.


You little statistical analysis seems pretty interesting. However, I am not sure how precise it is. There is always margin of error as you know. There are unquestionable teams that are for sure among the best in the world, but some in my opinion have not earned that privilege yet, and you know who I am referring to.

Who says that the teams that go to the WC are the best in the World? They are the best teams from each continent, but they are not completely the best in the world. Therefore, ranking Mexico as 16th in that tournament is pretty fair since you have all these other teams that are not real competition at all, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, South Korea, Costa Rica, Trinidad & Tobago, Ecuador, plus all these African teams.

Like Mexico, Many of the South American teams are much stronger than many of this teams that go to the WC, but they don’t simply get a chance to participate. You know why, we have discussed this all along. Unlike Mexico that always goes to the WC for the same reasons we have discussed before.

To consider who is third in America we have to consider all of the teams in America, not only the ones that qualify to the WC for obvious reasons that we have said before. To say Mexico is between 3rd and 5th excluding all other South American teams is your opinion. This is not a fact.

If we would like to measure what team is best, we would have to take a look at the head-to-head matches between these teams. This is the only way because obviously Mexico is always going to qualify to the WC and have more chances than these other teams. So far, Mexico has not proved their superiority.

Considering the Statistics You brought before, Mexico is pretty even with these South American teams although losing more times than winning. So I would say Mexico is not third in America. It could be, but not for sure. This place is not defined yet, therefore there’s no 4th, or 5th place either.

Mexico is a pretty strong team that wins many times, but also loses many other times. Definitely, If Mexico continues to improve, maybe it will become third place in America.

[unam_mx]

When did u start saying mexico could be 5th? like 3 posts ago? puhlease , punkguy already posted all the times u said mexico is way better than the other teams.

Actually much earlier then that, but maybe u just havent been reading posts clearly enough, if at all (something u seem to do alot of).I still think Mexico is 3rd but it is reasonable if u have Par and USA ahead of them...u wont get any crap from me for that, here's more 'proof':

Dec.2

I find it insulting that u say for a FACT they are not third...its almost like saying anyone but them.Hell, Ive never went that far and said that Mexico for a FACT is 3rd--even Im reasonable enough to know that it could go to the USA or maybe even Paraguay.I do think that Mexico is 3rd but if someone else thinks that those two teams are then u could make a good case for them.By the way, u are contradicting urself by saying that Mexico for a FACT isnt 3rd then pointing at that Mexico team along with the rest of the group and saying "either of those could be 3rd".Anyways I guess other then that I wouldnt have much of a problem with ur list, I dont completely agree with it buts its reasonable.

Regarding Punkguy's quotes that I made...he took alot of them out of context.He brought one up where he made it seem like I called u an idiot for comparing Mex to Par, when in reality I was calling u an idiot for saying Mex was as defensive-minded in the Conf Cup as that 98' Par team was in the WC.He quoted me when I said that we're undefeated against Bra this yr, so that makes us better then them...when I was actually just trying to make a point, and not really meaning the last part of the statement.Among a few others, like when I said it would be an insult to say Mex for a fact isnt 3rd--the quote above should explain that.

As for the rest...I still think theyre better then Uru, I still think they wouldnt have lost to Australia, I still think that Peru sucks, I still think that Mex is better then the USA, and last but not least I still think Mexico is 3rd in the Americas.My mind hasnt changed much, I will agree that initially at the very beggining in my first few posts...I did say stuff like theyre one step ahead of everyone else other then Bra and Arg but I backed off of that statement and put Par and the USA with Mex shortly after that, way before Ronni brought up these results that u guys claim to have 'changed my mind'.

[handofgod]

Re: Do You Feel The Fifa Qualifications Are Retarded?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Mexico is seeded? They suck ass, they have never won anything important.
The only reasonthey always go to the WorlD Cup is because the face the kinds of Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republican, should I continue???

Because of this they are always ranked high!!! Thus get a chance to play with the kinds of Argentina, Brazil, Italy in tourneys like the Gold Cup, etc where the super powers show up with their Team C. Of course evey now and then they beat one of those teams filled with subs. Then they make so much out of when their clubs make it far in the Copa Libertadores. Of course!!! All the best players from South America don't play in the Copa Libertadores!! They play in Europe, you f****g retards!!!

This is a fact however not too many people (esp. Mexicans) don't know: You were offered to play the World Cup Qualifiers with all of South America...guess what your response was: No thanks. Of course.

Talk about FIFA being retarded, who the f*** wants to see the same number of countries from the CONCACAF as of CONMEBOL (South America)??!!!!

Why does Australia have to face Uruguay and TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO faces BAHARHIN (f***, can't even spell it!!!)??? WTF!!!!!!!

Why is USA ranked and seeded lower than MEXICO??!!!!! USA has beat their ass several times now, including the lasr World Cup!!!!

Mexico sucks, wait and see in Germany. My prediction: They will beat Iran -my high school team can beat Iran- , will lose against Angola and Portugal. And hopefully this Mexico crap will be addressed by FIFA and next time just like in Europe there should be a Qualifiers for the whole Americas. It is not fair for South American countries to kill each other for 4 places in the WC (when you know Brazil and Argentina will always go) and Mexico has to face Haiti, Cuba, etc

[handofgod]

Unam Mx You Are Full Of S***, When H F*** Has Mexico Won Anything Important, Please Let Me Know When You Graduate And Like Men You Think You Are Play The World Cup Qualifiers With South American Teams!!!! 'til Then Go Back Your F*** Tacos And Burritos!!!

[handofgod]

You are so right. Mexico sucks and should not be labeled as one of the best teams much less to be seed as a head of group. It is a disgrace!!

Re: Do You Feel The Fifa Qualifications Are Retarded?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Mexico is seeded? They suck ass, they have never won anything important.
The only reasonthey always go to the WorlD Cup is because the face the kinds of Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republican, should I continue???

Because of this they are always ranked high!!! Thus get a chance to play with the kinds of Argentina, Brazil, Italy in tourneys like the Gold Cup, etc where the super powers show up with their Team C. Of course evey now and then they beat one of those teams filled with subs. Then they make so much out of when their clubs make it far in the Copa Libertadores. Of course!!! All the best players from South America don't play in the Copa Libertadores!! They play in Europe, you f****g retards!!!

This is a fact however not too many people (esp. Mexicans) don't know: You were offered to play the World Cup Qualifiers with all of South America...guess what your response was: No thanks. Of course.

Talk about FIFA being retarded, who the f*** wants to see the same number of countries from the CONCACAF as of CONMEBOL (South America)??!!!!

Why does Australia have to face Uruguay and TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO faces BAHARHIN (f***, can't even spell it!!!)??? WTF!!!!!!!

Why is USA ranked and seeded lower than MEXICO??!!!!! USA has beat their ass several times now, including the lasr World Cup!!!!

Mexico sucks, wait and see in Germany. My prediction: They will beat Iran -my high school team can beat Iran- , will lose against Angola and Portugal. And hopefully this Mexico crap will be addressed by FIFA and next time just like in Europe there should be a Qualifiers for the whole Americas. It is not fair for South American countries to kill each other for 4 places in the WC (when you know Brazil and Argentina will always go) and Mexico has to face Haiti, Cuba, etc

[Ronni]

Like Mexico, Many of the South American teams are much stronger than many of this teams that go to the WC, but they don’t simply get a chance to participate. You know why, we have discussed this all along. Unlike Mexico that always goes to the WC for the same reasons we have discussed before.

Of course I know that Mexico has virtually one secure place on every World Cup, and the south americans don't. That's why I considered passing the first round. The "qualifying effect" is away, i.e., having beaten Guatemala, Guatehorrible & co doesn't count any more, but beating Belgium, Croatia and others.
I agree if you say that teams like Peru "didn't have the chance to". They didn't directly, but the teams that eliminated them in the qualifying did, and they didn't succeed always. I mean, Conmebol has the best average of reaching the 2nd round of all confederations including UEFA, but still this is not 100%. This means that if a Conmebol team doesn't have the chance of counting on my statistics, at least the one that eliminated them should. This is not the case, so in this point my statistics are ok.

[Ronni]

This is a fact however not too many people (esp. Mexicans) don't know: You were offered to play the World Cup Qualifiers with all of South America...guess what your response was: No thanks. Of course.
I didn't know this. When did this happen?
As far as I know, this "playing the qualifiers" alone isn't allowed by FIFA. What can happen is that a country switches completely to another confederation, like Australia is doing right now. This includes everything that belongs to the confederation, not only the WC qualifying. This means financial and political issues as well.
This has already been an issue for years on the media, but I didn't know that this was really discussed. And I don't think this is a thing of "being offered, accepting or not". This must be considered and accepted by FIFA, by Conmebol and its members, and by Mexico itself. In this way, if there's no consense, I hardly imagine that this kind of question passes through any discussion table. I don't know which of the three is the one that doesn't want it. I always thought Mexico was the part willing it the most - it would be very positive for the development of their football to play the Conmebol teams instead of Concacaf ones. This is also the reason why they are always invited to participate on the Copa America, and this is an invitation Mexico has never declined - they know they can only take advantages from this kind of experience. Anyway they're always "invited to the tournament as a non-member participant" - like the US, Costa Rica and Honduras have already done. This has nothing to do with moving to Conmebol.

[handofgod]

Well, even though most of what you said is true, the fact remains that even when discussed in several forums, Mexicans -of all levels from Board Members and Media- had graciously declined to even begin discussing such possibility.

I agree this will actually further improve their soccer level and pedigree as recently proven in the U-17 WC in Peru where Mexico was brilliant. But the fact remains they still prefer to play the nobodies in their current region since they have a guaranteed place in the WC. This will remain for the next 1-12 years until their upcoming youth can really play against South America, but is it fair to South American countries to wait this time??

I'm American an I'd certainly would prefer to go see Team USA play WC qualifiers against Brazil, Paraguay, Peru, Chile, etc.
Getting a free pass by playing Haiti is moronic. I could certainly understand in ancient times perhaps transportation means could impede countries from all Americas to compete against each other but that is not true anymore.

So let's all be fair and re-structure the WC Qualifiers. I guarantee both Mexico and the US will do fine. They may not always qualify but that's ok too I guess. Go ask France, the Netherlands or others big time teams that have missed once in a while to make it. Why Mexico would refuse?? and why the rest have to wait until they fully develop their players. It's ok to miss the WC every now and then but to ask countries like Chile, Venezuela, Peru, Colombia, etc to wait sometimes 20+ years is ludacrist.

[unam_mx]

Gotta see/hear/read to believe, I aint taking ur word for it especially after that strong anti-Mexico post that u posted like 10 times...I highly doubt that the Conmebol would ask just Mexico to join, that would make the Concacaf even more pathetic then what it already is.Who would be the the representatives if Mexico was gone?USA, Costa Rica, T&T, Guatemla or some other small weak country.The only decent team they would have would be the USA everyone else would just be pathetic.And the whole story would repeat, the USA would be called weak and that they only make it cause they play in such a weak region...and teams from Conmebol who would barely miss qualifying would groan and moan about teams like Guatemala, Jamaica, El Salvador, T&T, etc. making it.

The only real solution is to join...and I like the idea of Concacaf and Conmebol joining alot, give them 8 or 9 spots and let the countries from the Americas fight it out--much fairer and much more entertaining.

[unam_mx]

Also find were I said that Mexico has won anything important...I aint comparing them to Bra, Arg, or any other superpower I know that that is not even a comparison.Read, the title of the thread.That should explain that I am comparing it to the middle-pack Conmebol teams and the Concacaf teams.Sure Mexico hasnt won anything important but which of the teams that I am comparing them to...other then Uru who won their titles in the 30s and who are no longer a powerhouse...have won anything as well?

Mexico has had little success, but that little success is just as much (probably more) then the countries we are comparing them to.

[handofgod]

"unam dude", Peru sucks??? Well, they do; but they served a can of whoop ass to Mexico last time they played, in neutral field in the US -actually advantage Mexico I suppose- Peru 3 Mexico 1. BTW Peru played w/ some subs and was a last minute replacement team when Spain pulled out.

Peru was so much better, they toyed with Mexico A-Team. I bet Mexico could have used Mr. T!!!! A buddy of mine had free tickets and we went to the Meadowlands to see the game. I expected way more from Mexico, at the end Mexico got pissed b/c Peru kicked their ass and began a stupid brawl just like Mexican Wrestling!!! Where was Rey Mysterio!!!!!

BTW, I'm not from Peru, just trying to be fair to your stupid ass comments which explains why a lot of people (not from Mexico) hate the Mexican Team.

Mexico is undeservedly seeded higher than The Netherlands, the US and the Czech Rep but all that would still be ok if people like you would keep their mouth shut and stop bragging.

Like some other dude put it in an analogy: Mexico is like the fat girl that her mom tells her she looks great!! Maybe some day Mexico but 'til then keep taking your diet pills and follow your South Beach Diet and get back to the World when you actually win something!!! (Screw the Fifa rankings)

[Ronni]

Mexico is like the fat girl that her mom tells her she looks great!![/I] Maybe some day Mexico but 'til then keep taking your diet pills and follow your South Beach Diet and get back to the World when you actually win something!!! (Screw the Fifa rankings)
Nice comparison.
But the problem is not the FIFA rankings. If FIFA didn't have this (indeed unreal) ranking, they would need something else for seeding the teams. And this had to be something "objective", so that nobody says they're helping this or that team. The most obvious thing would be the latest world cups. Ok, no matter how you take it - only the last one, the last two ones or the last 3 ones, believe you or not, you will always have Mexico seeded. I imagine this will go back even further with 4, 5 etc, I'm not sure. But isn't it reason enough for seeding them?
What should FIFA do? Say: "well, objectively analyzing, Mexico is in front of Holland, USA and Czech R., but Mexico sucks, so they don't deserve to be seeded". This would be the solution for many of you Mexico-haters.
I'm not mexican, and although I don't dislike Mexico, I support many teams before them. And still I have to admit - they deserve to be seeded!

[ricoo9]

"unam dude", Peru sucks??? Well, they do; but they served a can of whoop ass to Mexico last time they played, in neutral field in the US -actually advantage Mexico I suppose- Peru 3 Mexico 1. BTW Peru played w/ some subs and was a last minute replacement team when Spain pulled out.

Peru was so much better, they toyed with Mexico A-Team. I bet Mexico could have used Mr. T!!!! A buddy of mine had free tickets and we went to the Meadowlands to see the game. I expected way more from Mexico, at the end Mexico got pissed b/c Peru kicked their ass and began a stupid brawl just like Mexican Wrestling!!! Where was Rey Mysterio!!!!!

BTW, I'm not from Peru, just trying to be fair to your stupid ass comments which explains why a lot of people (not from Mexico) hate the Mexican Team.

Mexico is undeservedly seeded higher than The Netherlands, the US and the Czech Rep but all that would still be ok if people like you would keep their mouth shut and stop bragging.

Like some other dude put it in an analogy: Mexico is like the fat girl that her mom tells her she looks great!! Maybe some day Mexico but 'til then keep taking your diet pills and follow your South Beach Diet and get back to the World when you actually win something!!! (Screw the Fifa rankings)


Finally someone besides me and punkguy that talk sense. Mexico isnt better than anybody from conmebol except maybe ecuador and Bolivia
And using Mexico's WC performance is still weak cuz the only reason they got there is for beating teams like dominica and guatemala. :boo:

I really hope that soon conmebol & concaca will play qualifying games together cuz then for sure teams like peru and Uruguay, maybe even venezuela would have a better chance of making it. I'm sure USA would go but Mexico :worried: i dont really know

My prediction WC 06
Iran 2 - Mexico 1
Angola 1- Mexico 0
Portugal 4- Mexico 0

[Ronni]

I'm sure USA would go but Mexico :worried: i dont really know

My prediction WC 06
Iran 2 - Mexico 1
Angola 1- Mexico 0
Portugal 4- Mexico 0
I can accept this is what you wish, but I doubt you even believe yourself that these results can match.

Imo Mexico is much more likely to qualify for the second round than the US. Not because Mexico is better, but because the US got a much more difficult group.
But for both of them the second round should be the last station.
Then you can have your will confirmation that Conmebol is stronger than Concacaf - imo both will be beaten by Conmebol teams (Arg vs. Mex & Bra vs. US)

[ricoo9]

I can accept this is what you wish, but I doubt you even believe yourself that these results can match.

Imo Mexico is much more likely to qualify for the second round than the US. Not because Mexico is better, but because the US got a much more difficult group.
But for both of them the second round should be the last station.
Then you can have your will confirmation that Conmebol is stronger than Concacaf - imo both will be beaten by Conmebol teams (Arg vs. Mex & Bra vs. US)


It will defenitly be the last for mexico, but even though they got the easiest group i still doubt they will make it to the 2nd round. The USA in my opinion is in the group of death but who knows, it could be possible to beat czech and maybe tie to italy, who knows. Football is very unpredictable sometimes

[RojINeGrO5051]

mexico passes to the second round

[PunkguyEG]

This guy UMAN said in various occasions that Uruguay sucked because they lost to Australia recently. He also said, that australia is probably the worst team in the world cup and that losing to them was ridiculous. He also said that comparing Australia to mexico was "like insulting".

I was wondering if Australia and Mexico had ever played. This is what I found:

30-MAY-01 SUWON (Korea Republic) Mexico vs. Australia 0:2
FIFA Confederations Cup Korea/Japan 2001
12-DEC-97 RIYADH (Saudi Arabia) Mexico vs. Australia 1:3
FIFA Confederations Cup Saudi Arabia 1997

According to this site, these are the only 2 times they have ever played. Mexico losing both times. I don't know if this is right or they played in other occasions. Can anyone tell me?

These results are are not that recent. However, I think Australia is way better now. I believe they have a really good team , with all their players playing in Europe. Certainly, they can beat Mexico with greater chances now than before.

[PunkguyEG]

I agree if you say that teams like Peru "didn't have the chance to". They didn't directly, but the teams that eliminated them in the qualifying did, and they didn't succeed always.


The teams that contributed to the elimination of many good south american teams were Brazil and argentina. Brazil won the last WC by the way.
Ecuador we know they are using the altitude as an advantage, and we all know they are not an strong team. They have even beat brazil and argentina in Quito. But ofcourse, when the WC comes they show their real potential. Paraguay qualified in 4th in conmebol place after a really tough competition. They didn't have it as easy as mexico in concacaf. Paraguay I think has done a decent job in the previous WC, but unfortunately they haven't been lucky. I think they are better than mexico.


This means that if a Conmebol team doesn't have the chance of counting on my statistics, at least the one that eliminated them should. This is not the case, so in this point my statistics are ok.

Again, the ones that contributed to the elimination of many possible south american teams were Brazil and argentina. So, this is the case. And i have already told you about Ecuador and Paraguay. So I think your statistics considering only the WC preformances are not so good.

[Ronni]

The teams that contributed to the elimination of many good south american teams were Brazil and argentina. Brazil won the last WC by the way.
...
Again, the ones that contributed to the elimination of many possible south american teams were Brazil and argentina. So, this is the case.
Not at all. We are talking about being eliminated on the group phase - where Mexico has been proving themselves - and on that first phase Brazil and Argentina never play other south american teams.
South American teams are eliminated mostly by europeans and they haven't been able to eliminate Mexico.

I repeat: even considering only the most recent tournaments, Conmebol has the best records on passing the first round of all confederations - including of course UEFA and Concacaf. But still Mexico isolated has better records than Conmebol.

Let's consider the last 5 World Cups.
1986 - all 4 S.American teams passed the group round. Mexico too.
1990 - all 4 S.American teams passed the group round. Mexico wasn't allowed to participate due to illegal behavior of the federation - they weren't eliminated by other Concacaf members (Costa Rica and USA participated)
1994 - 2 out of the 4 S.American teams were eliminated on the group round. Mexico passed the round.
Colombia was eliminated by the Romania, Switzerland and the US
Bolivia was eliminated along with S.Korea by Germany and Spain
Mexico eliminated Norway, and passed together with Italy and Ireland.
1998 - 1 out of the 5 S.American teams was eliminated on the group round.
Mexico passed the round.
Colombia was eliminated along with Tunisia by England and Romania
Mexico eliminated Belgium and S.Korea, and passed together with Holland.
2002 - 3 out of the 5 S.American teams were eliminated on the group round.
Mexico passed the round.
Argentina was eliminated along with Nigeria by England and Sweden.
Uruguay was eliminated along with France by Senegal and Denmark
Ecuador was eliminated along with Croatia by Mexico and Italy
Mexico eliminated Ecuador and Croatia, and passed together with Italy.

So, as you see, the 6 eliminated South Americans were defeated by:
10 europeans
2 concacaf members
1 african
So no Brazil and Argentina.

In the 4 world cups Mexico participated in the 5 last editions, Mexico always passed the group round. On this phase they eliminated the following teams:
3 europeans
1 south american
2 asians

Considering this periond of 5 World Cups, the effectiveness of the confederations on passing the first round is the following:

Conmebol: 73%
UEFA: 69%
Concacaf: 58%
CAF: 29%
AFC: 21%

and if you take Mexico isolated, it's 100%. Only the following teams have this same perfect quote:
with 5 participations: Brazil, Italy and Germany
with 4 participations: Mexico and England
with 3 participations: Paraguay, Holland, Denmark, England and Romania
with 1 participation: Chile, Switzerland, Tchechoslovakia, Turkey and Senegal
These are the quotes of the other south american teams:
Argentina: 80%
Uruguay: 67%
Colombia: 33%
Bolivia and Equador: 0%

Of course I don't have to say that Peru and Venezuela have no records.

You can say that other South American teams didn't have the same chance to show themselves like Mexico because having a more difficult qualifying group, they weren't even able to participate. So you have to consider the teams that eliminated them. All together they had an effectiveness of only 73%, what is already less than Mexico. And they are supposed to be stronger than the non qualified teams. This is my point.

When you're talking about south american teams being eliminated by Brazil and Argentina, you may be considering Uruguay eliminated by Argentina in 1986 and Chile eliminated by Brazil in 1998. This was all in the second phase. I'm not discussing this phase, since neither Mexico nor south american (except for these 2 ones) are able to reach the quarters (Mexico did it as hosts - what south americans also did in the past).

I'm considering the first phase, where already the effects of the easy qualifying group can be excluded.



So I think your statistics considering only the WC preformances are not so good.
Perhaps you don't like my statistics considering only the World Cup because it doesn't support your argument, but mine.
However, perhaps we should take objective results for taking conclusions. Of course there are many of those matches "they played better but lost at the end", but statistically seen, these results should be even up on the long run. So you have to take many matches, or many tournaments.
I have already listed here statistics for the Copa America. Mexico was also one of the teams on the top behind Brazil, but you won't agree with these statistics because "south americans don't take the Copa America for serious as Mexico does". I listed statistics about direct confrontations with south american teams, and it was a very tied situation. You will say "most of the matches were played in Mexico". Yes, I agree with you in both cases, but we have no other matches to consider. And when talking about the WC, all teams play their best, and except for 86 (where Mexico and s.american teams did well in the 1st phase) they were always on neutral ground.

So there are no valid objective statistics you want to consider. You just want to base on the subjective statement that Mexico isn't as good as the other South American teams. Ok, you can say this. But if you say this, there's no basis for any discussion. Since you're considering subjective parameters, they're based on opinions, and each one has the right of having his own opinions.

If you have seen my postings, I'm completely open for any conclusion. Indeed while doing my researching I changed my mind on many points. Believe me, I don't care at all if Mexico is 3rd or 10th, of if anyone says they are the worst team on Earth. But I want to take my own conclusions, when possible I try to take them from objective observations, and I'm sharing my conclusions with you. If you prefer to consider other sources, it's ok.

[Ronni]

30-MAY-01 SUWON (Korea Republic) Mexico vs. Australia 0:2
FIFA Confederations Cup Korea/Japan 2001
12-DEC-97 RIYADH (Saudi Arabia) Mexico vs. Australia 1:3
FIFA Confederations Cup Saudi Arabia 1997

According to this site, these are the only 2 times they have ever played. Mexico losing both times. I don't know if this is right or they played in other occasions. Can anyone tell me?
This is also what FIFA states. I don't know of other matches between both.

[ricoo9]

This is also what FIFA states. I don't know of other matches between both.

yet ur boy UNAM was feeling insulted, when mexico has never beaten Australia

[PunkguyEG]

the statistics don't lie. If you take a sufficiently large sample, you always have reliable results.


Statistics don’t lie? Statistics have always reliable results? Are you telling me that people that use statistics are never incorrect? Let me tell you Ronni. You are wrong. Statistics could be very reliable, but not always precise. You should always be aware of the possibility of errors in statistics.




If Argentina keeps on being eliminated early in the World Cup and don't manage to win anything, of course there's no way of considering them a strong team. But this is something that can not occur that often. 2002 was an "accident", and as I said, "accidents" are cleaned up by significative samples.


To say a team is among the best in the world you have to consider other variables, such as quality of the players, history, many tournaments, luck, place, etc….

A significative sample 3 world cups? Are you kidding? I am sorry but I disagree with you again. If you are talking about something being significant, why don’t you consider a larger sample? Besides, samples are usually taken randomly from the whole population, so every unit remaining in the population has the same chance of being chosen. Then we pick a sample mean which is usually the average of the sample measurements. Obviously, if you look back to Mexico’s previous performances, you are not going to find that great “consistency” you are talking about. Ok, like your friend UNAM you may argue that “we are talking about recent WCs.” Again, if you are going to argue about something using statistics and sampling, you are not doing a good job.
Besides it is not like the players from 1994 are the same players for this comming WC.


But my guess is that Mexico will be one of these teams most of the times reaching the 2nd round. And I'm convinced they will do this next year again, what will reinforce my argument even more.

How can you be so sure of this? If Mexico had showed a real stability or trend for a larger period of time, then I would consider Mexico a very good team, such as Argentina, Brazil, and others that have really demonstrated that they have the capacity and talent to be among the top teams in the World. Even though they happened to be in an easy group for this coming WC, I wouldn’t be so sure that they would qualify for the 2nd round. Obviously Mexico has showed a trend of stability or “consistency” by qualifying to the 2nd round that you use to back up your arguments. However, this doesn’t guarantee that it is going to be the same or it is going to improve in the future. Mexico hasn’t even showed any improvement. So the trend may go up or down. History doesn't favor Mexico that much.
Seriously, Mexico has not proved to be one of the top teams in the world. Besides, to consider only the WC is ridiculous. To say a team is among the best in the world you also have to consider other variables, such as quality of the players, history, other tournaments, luck, place, etc.


France happens to be eliminated again on the group round, YES; I will say that France doesn't belong among the top teams in the world. I will consider that France had one single generation about 1998-2001, like they had one 1980-1986 and thereafter its smoke. They're not consistent like Italy, Germany and some others.

And mexico right?

these are the games Mexico has played Against France in history:

03-JUN-01 ULSAN (Korea Republic) France vs. Mexico 4:0
31-AUG-96 PARIS (France) France vs. Mexico 2:0
13-JUL-66 LONDON (England) France vs. Mexico 1:1
19-JUN-54 GENEVA (Switzerland) France vs. Mexico 3:2
13-JUL-30 MONTEVIDEO (Uruguay) France vs. Mexico 4:1

Do I need to say more? Mexico has never ever beaten France. So I don’t know how you can make those illogical comparisons. I think your arguments are weak. France might be descending in soccer, but that doesn’t mean Mexico has reached them, or are even better. It doesn’t make sense.

Argentina is in a really hard group, so who knows if they can make it to the second round. Like you, I strongly agree they will, but I can’t be so sure.
Of course, they have a lot of more chances than Mexico, even if they are in a tougher group.

Finally, I think there isn’t even a point of comparing Mexico to France and Argentina. Even if they don’t make it to the second round next time. Who knows, maybe in many many years Mexico earns the real privilege to be among the best. Mexico will have to prove that by winning a World Cup maybe twice.

Again, to say a team is among the best in the world you have to consider other variables, such as quality of the players, history, many tournaments, luck, place, etc.

[unam_mx]

You know what, just wait till June...

Its pointless arguing with u guys cause u only want to see and agree with the points that support ur own arguement.I still cannot understand how u guys belittle the WC so much, and how u guys keep on saying and saying that thats the only arguement we're using.When in reality u guys are just ignoring the rest of the points.Keep on hating Mexico cause theyre "taking a WC spot from Peru", keep on saying all this anti-Mexico crap...cause honestly it doesnt matter what u guys think.Coaches, former & current players, and a large portion of the world is giving them the respect they deserve--so who cares about what the hell two haters say.

[ricoo9]

You know what, just wait till June...

Its pointless arguing with u guys cause u only want to see and agree with the points that support ur own arguement.I still cannot understand how u guys belittle the WC so much, and how u guys keep on saying and saying that thats the only arguement we're using.When in reality u guys are just ignoring the rest of the points.Keep on hating Mexico cause theyre "taking a WC spot from Peru", keep on saying all this anti-Mexico crap...cause honestly it doesnt matter what u guys think.Coaches, former & current players, and a large portion of the world is giving them the respect they deserve--so who cares about what the hell two haters say.


I think u r very confused, we have not only used 1 argument like u guys r doing (WC). We have used many, many, many different arguments, not one like u r doing. It would be ok for u to say i only use one argument to my advantage like u r doing but i think we have shown enough proof of mexico sucking. I dont think i need to say more. And why would we hate mexico?? why dont u say i hate argentina or brazil or urugay or paragay? how come there r so many "mexican haters" out there?

[handofgod]

I've tried hard not to keep being negative and sh** but dude, what these idiot Mexicans post in here is insulting, total crap. "unam" and co. keep trying to rely in History to say Mexico deserves to be counted as a great team. C'mon!!!

Fact: Mexico will never win the WC. When they do the World will come to an end.

Mexico has never won anything, and every single time they had advanced to the 2nd round of thw WC (remember we are supposed to be impressed by such fate...please everyone say at once: woooowww we made it to the 2nd round!! epa epa orale!!!!) they had beat crappy teams. They managed once to tie Italy, so what! Italy has always barely made it to the 2nd round. Making it to the 2nd, 3rd round does not mean sh**. When has Mexico gone to the semis or have a decent showing in Quarters. Never.

There is not denying Mexico has taken gianourmous steps as of recently and become a decent team but that does not give'em license to trash the rest. You fu*** idiots talk trash about Australia!!??? Australia as shown above has beat Mexico the 2 times they played, plus they have the balls to go play a playoff with a team from South America unlike you cowards that will always play against the likes of Dom Rep, etc.

Your Fifa ranking does not mean sh**. Of course Mexico and the US (and I'm American but have to admit it) rack points up like crazy playing against weak teams all the time and then play in the kinds of Confed Cud, Gold Cup, Burrito Cup, Taco Bell Cup, that no one gives a rat a** nor care.

Brazil, Arg, etc always send a sub team and even when some stars show up, they do not play as they do during the WC qualifiers where they bleed to get a win.

Mexican players do not make it in Europe b/c they suck. You can not tell me that overall Mexico pays the same. Plus a great player will always try to surround himself with the same kind (see: Freddy Adu, WTF is he still doing here w/Donovan??!! What a waste of talent. They should follow Marcus Beasley and go to Europe, they think by staying here they help US Soccer -wrong!!!) But going back to Mexican players, a very few will make it big. I respect the kinds of Rafa Marquez who actually have the balls to go play in Europe where he has gained class and fluidity he could have never achieved he would have decided to stay in Mexico.

Any good player would play for free in Milan AC instead of getting paid burritos and play in Chivas!!

[RojINeGrO5051]

......... how can u hate us so much :sleepy:

[Orgulho Judeu]

Brazil 1
Argentina 2
Paraguay 3

[handofgod]

Well, you may be right, I'm getting tired of all this bullsh**. No more hating. The fact remains the WC is awesome, regardless who wins it (probably one of the same ol' tams) but who cares.

If Mexico wins, well maybe USA can win it too. At the end it's probably better a newcomer wins.

So more hating, cheers to all and to the best team goes the glory!!!

[Orgulho Judeu]

Well, you may be right, I'm getting tired of all this bullsh**. No more hating. The fact remains the WC is awesome, regardless who wins it (probably one of the same ol' tams) but who cares.

If Mexico wins, well maybe USA can win it too. At the end it's probably better a newcomer wins.

So more hating, cheers to all and to the best team goes the glory!!!
when was i hating???

[ricoo9]

when was i hating???

Nobody is hating on anybody, that is just what the mexicans call it when u bring them back to reality.

[RojINeGrO5051]

ur hating cause u spend ur TIME trying to bring us down but its all good though since ur say ur not hating

[RojINeGrO5051]

[QUOTE=handofgod]
Your Fifa ranking does not mean sh**. Of course Mexico and the US (and I'm American but have to admit it) rack points up like crazy playing against weak teams all the time and then play in the kinds of Confed Cud, Gold Cup, Burrito Cup, Taco Bell Cup, that no one gives a rat a** nor care. QUOTE]


u guys aint hating
we won the burrito cup

[PunkguyEG]

Nobody is hating on anybody, that is just what the mexicans call it when u bring them back to reality.

true.

[Ronni]

Statistics don’t lie? Statistics have always reliable results? Are you telling me that people that use statistics are never incorrect? Let me tell you Ronni. You are wrong. Statistics could be very reliable, but not always precise. You should always be aware of the possibility of errors in statistics.
every affirmation we do are based on statistics, even if we don't see them as such. Football is one of those sports that created an objective way of measuring the strength of the teams. It's called "goal". Actually, if we get into the basis of football, players are trying to prove which team has better abilities on handling the ball with the feet. They could be measured like on figure skating, diving or gymnastics, i.e., with experienced people analyzing them sort of subjectively (actually this isn't 100% the case even in these sports any more), but they invented one thing called "goal". This means that the team that is able to make the ball cross the opponent's back line in a delimited area more often during the determined time is the best team. This was done in order to shrink the evaluation variables to only one.
However this still doesn't work always. Sometimes a team that has better ball abilities with their feet scores less goals than their opponents. They have to be saved by statistics. This is the "necessary evil" we have to assume in order to keep the things clear and objective, i.e., to work with as less variables as possible.

The fact is that in the long run, the best teams finish all on top. Look at the football World Cup. Countries that aren't real strong football nations will every now and then get good results, but if you have a significative sample, their results will disappear.
After the last WC final a german guy told me that Germany would take long time to have again as many WC titles as Brazil, like they were between 1990 and 1994. I told him that that tie situation was just due to the case of insufficient samples. If football forces stay in the next 100 years the way they are today, I'm sure that in the next 25 WCs Germany won't win more titles than Brazil. Effectively Brazil IS a stronger football nation than Germany.
Look at Argentina vs. Uruguay. They're tied in WCs and in Copa Americas. Do you think they can be compared? No. In 100 years Argentina will have more titles.

Statistics are always the best source for taking conclusions there is, however you have to count on a significative sample.



A significative sample 3 world cups? Are you kidding? I am sorry but I disagree with you again. If you are talking about something being significant,


You can tell me that 3 World Cups aren't enough. I agree, it's too few. However we have to consider that the distribution of football forces (on a second stage) changed too much in the last years, and the WC is disputed only once every 4 years.
But the effectiveness of Mexico on getting to the second round is so impressive, that even in the next 20 years they will be on top.
Let's consider we're living in the year 2014, the World Cup in Brazil has just finished, and we decide to discuss the same issue but instead of considering the last 3 World Cups, we consider the last 10 World Cups. And we ask "which countries in America could qualify more often to the second round than Mexico?". I can tell you: they will be Brazil and Argentina for sure. Mathematically the only other teams that will be able to do this are Uruguay, Paraguay and the US. Any of the others have no chance.

So if I'm saying that considering 3 World Cups is ok, it's not because I think that the records on 3 World Cups are enough for taking valuable conclusions. It's because Mexico's records are so consistent comparing to the other south americans that they validate a much wider sample!



To say a team is among the best in the world you have to consider other variables, such as quality of the players, history, many tournaments, luck, place, etc….
I'm not trying to put Mexico in the group of the top 4 in the world. I'm considering them on top 20, what Mexico's haters don't accept. Anyway for being on top 20 you don't need to win anything. It can happen that you always have one of top 4 in front of you. And it's not because the 40th wins once that they are automatically better. This would be "raping the statistics". It's like saying that Greece won once the Euro, while England never played the final, so Greece is a stronger football nation than England. No. In order to look for the place Greece belongs to, you have to compare their consistency with teams of their "size" in reaching a level they are supposed to reach often, so that you have enough samples. Of course one final victory can count perhaps as 2 quarters, but one victory plus no participation in the following 4 tournaments is still much less significative as 5 times reaching the quarters.



why don’t you consider a larger sample?

If I take the last 5 WCs Mexico is still on top, under Brazil, Germany and Italy. I didn't consider those two WCs because on one of them Mexico wasn't allowed to play and on the other Mexico were the hosts, so I would be inserting a positive variable to Mexico.




Besides, samples are usually taken randomly from the whole population, so every unit remaining in the population has the same chance of being chosen. Then we pick a sample mean which is usually the average of the sample measurements. Obviously, if you look back to Mexico’s previous performances, you are not going to find that great “consistency” you are talking about.
We're talking about the current situation. When the time plays a role, you have to consider it on your choice of samples. If we're talking about 2005, we should take some years previous to 2005 and some years after 2005 - but unfortunately my crystal ball is being repaired and I can consider only the past.
If you want to consider the whole period the WC was played, you'll probably come to the conclusion that Hungary is on top 10 such as Uruguay etc.
This is exactely the way you can say statistics don't work.

Review my very first posting in the thread "Mexico historic ..." in the "Copa America" forum, and you'll see what I pointed out - that Mexico is the team with the most defeats in the World Cup, that their records are miserable etc.
But if you want to consider Mexico's records of 30 years ago in order to evaluate their force today, it's really just because you want to see them as low as possible. It's undeniable that Mexico is one of the teams that improved the most in the last decades. Actually the US is another one of these, like some africans, asians ...




Ok, like your friend UNAM you may argue that “we are talking about recent WCs.” Again, if you are going to argue about something using statistics and sampling, you are not doing a good job.
Ok, so take your own conclusions.
For me it's enough.



Besides it is not like the players from 1994 are the same players for this comming WC.
This proves that Mexico is becoming a strong football nation, instead of just having a single brilliant generation.



How can you be so sure of this? If Mexico had showed a real stability or trend for a larger period of time, then I would consider Mexico a very good team, such as Argentina, Brazil, and others that have really demonstrated that they have the capacity and talent to be among the top teams in the World.
I'm talking about consistency on one point where 16 teams can reach every 4 years.
I don't consider Mexico on top 10. For top 10 I would perhas consider the consistency on the quarters - where only 8 teams reach every 4 years. So I would have to come further in the past, also because no team becomes top 10 in just 10 years.

Still Argentina and Brazil are much more consistent than Mexico. Argentina hasn't won anything for a while, but as I stated before, this is not enough to say they aren't a top football nation, since they are consistent. They are one of the 6 teams that reached the quarters at least 3 times in the last 5 WCs, together with Brazil, Germany, Italy, England and Spain. You see? I consider Spain top 10, even if Spain don't even reach the semis in any tournament (differently from Bulgaria, Turkey, S.Korea, Greece). They're consistent, and this is more important than even winning a single tournament.



Even though they happened to be in an easy group for this coming WC, I wouldn’t be so sure that they would qualify for the 2nd round. Obviously Mexico has showed a trend of stability or “consistency” by qualifying to the 2nd round that you use to back up your arguments.
I don't know. As I told you, my crystal ball is being repaired, and I have to rely on my "feeling". And I have a "feeling" that Mexico will qualify together with Portugal, since both are stronger than Angola and Iran. Not that this is what I would like to have ... I would prefer Angola to qualify instead of Mexico, but I think that unfortunately Mexico will beat them



However, this doesn’t guarantee that it is going to be the same or it is going to improve in the future. Mexico hasn’t even showed any improvement. So the trend may go up or down.
I agree. They reached a point about 20 years ago and seem to stay at the same point. Perhaps this is their "real" position. But still it is among the top 6 in America.



History doesn't favor Mexico that much.
Seriously, Mexico has not proved to be one of the top teams in the world.

For me they are top 20 but not top 10. So it depends on what you consider "top".



Besides, to consider only the WC is ridiculous. To say a team is among the best in the world you also have to consider other variables, such as quality of the players, history, other tournaments, luck, place, etc.
I tried to, but you don't consider any argument that backs the fact that Mexico is top 6 in America or top 20 in the World ...
I said that Mexico is one of the 4 teams that reached the quarters at least 4 times in the last 6 editions of the Copa America (when they started participating).
Mexico won many times the Taco Bell's Cup (I loved this expression - I think it was from RojINeGrO - I'll use it from now on for the Golden Cup), they even won the Confed Cup once and lately they were U-17 World Champions (both finals against Brazil).
This doesn't make from them top 10 of the world. But still it's much more than what other world top 20 did.




And mexico right?

these are the games Mexico has played Against France in history:

03-JUN-01 ULSAN (Korea Republic) France vs. Mexico 4:0
31-AUG-96 PARIS (France) France vs. Mexico 2:0
13-JUL-66 LONDON (England) France vs. Mexico 1:1
19-JUN-54 GENEVA (Switzerland) France vs. Mexico 3:2
13-JUL-30 MONTEVIDEO (Uruguay) France vs. Mexico 4:1

Do I need to say more? Mexico has never ever beaten France. So I don’t know how you can make those illogical comparisons. I think your arguments are weak. France might be descending in soccer, but that doesn’t mean Mexico has reached them, or are even better. It doesn’t make sense.
Please don't use my words in order to say that I affirmed that Mexico is
better than France.
I was affirming that France doesn't probably belong to the group of Brazil / Germany / Italy / Argentina, what everybody thought they should after they were taking all tournaments they were participating in the last years.
I consider France top 10, and they're even one of my favorites for 2006.
But the brilliant form that brought them to the top of the top winning consecutively WC, continental title and Confed Cup wasn't to be seen as "normal" as Brazil's same achievements for example.



Argentina is in a really hard group, so who knows if they can make it to the second round. Like you, I strongly agree they will, but I can’t be so sure.
Of course, they have a lot of more chances than Mexico, even if they are in a tougher group.
I'm pretty convinced they will both qualify. I tell you that for sure when my crystal ball is working again.



Finally, I think there isn’t even a point of comparing Mexico to France and Argentina. Even if they don’t make it to the second round next time.
I agree. But a team that never gets good results on the most important stage of world football doesn't deserve to be considered one of the best teams in the world. Otherwise we'll be evaluating football with figure skating methods. Ok. You're allowed to, if you want.



Who knows, maybe in many many years Mexico earns the real privilege to be among the best.

If they keep showing that stability I will soon put them into my "top 10".



Mexico will have to prove that by winning a World Cup maybe twice.

If we want to see them at the level of Brazil / Germany / Italy / Argentina, even once will be enough. We were already considering France up there. But they will have to show also other things.
First of all: they must be feared. Currently they aren't.
I think we won't see this in our life period.



Again, to say a team is among the best in the world you have to consider other variables, such as quality of the players, history, many tournaments, luck, place, etc.
It depends on how many you consider "the best". If this number is as large as 20, subjective analysis aren't perhaps enough.

[unam_mx]

I think u r very confused, we have not only used 1 argument like u guys r doing (WC). We have used many, many, many different arguments, not one like u r doing. It would be ok for u to say i only use one argument to my advantage like u r doing but i think we have shown enough proof of mexico sucking. I dont think i need to say more. And why would we hate mexico?? why dont u say i hate argentina or brazil or urugay or paragay? how come there r so many "mexican haters" out there?

Read my post slowly, Im saying that u guys are the ones that claim that we only use the WC arguement...you just did it again in this post that Im quoting.When in reality we have given way more reasons then that.We bring up tournaments and u guys throw out the sub BS, we bring up what they did in the Confed Cup where everyone including Brasil brought their big-name players and u guys throw this BS about how noone cares about it, and for the WC rather then use the most recent result u guys want to use all of them to bring Mexico to such a low level because we all know they were crap up until the mid-late 80s.I still dont get how u guys cant say wether they "are or arent" better then teams like Ven, Per, Chi, and Col.The only things that are close are the head-to-head matchups, look elsewhere and its Mexico.Are u guys solely basing it on the head-to-head or what?

HandofGod, find somewhere where any of us Mexicans have said that our team is a superpower and that getting to the 2nd rd is a huge accomplishment...u wont be able to cause it hasnt been said.Look man we know that it aint a big deal and that there is no way that Mexico at this moment can be considered elite, but look who we are comparing them to--the South American teams not including the two giants.Uru, Par, Ecu, Chi, Col, Bol, Ven...compared to most of those teams the second round is a huge deal.That little success is alot more then any of those teams can claim.These haters just take it out of context and make it seem like we're saying overall its a huge deal, when of course compared to the whole world which include the likes of Bra, Arg, Ger, Ita, etc. then it becomes a small accomplishment.Basically we have said that they are between 3rd-5th in the Americas...behind Bra & Arg and battling the 3rd-5th with the USA and Par and these haters get all worked up because of that, which I find pretty stupid cause it seems very fair to have them 3rd-5th.I mean alot of neutral non-Mexican would consider them 3rd or at the very least 4th.

[ricoo9]

Read my post slowly, Im saying that u guys are the ones that claim that we only use the WC arguement...you just did it again in this post that Im quoting.When in reality we have given way more reasons then that.We bring up tournaments and u guys throw out the sub BS, we bring up what they did in the Confed Cup where everyone including Brasil brought their big-name players and u guys throw this BS about how noone cares about it, and for the WC rather then use the most recent result u guys want to use all of them to bring Mexico to such a low level because we all know they were crap up until the mid-late 80s.I still dont get how u guys cant say wether they "are or arent" better then teams like Ven, Per, Chi, and Col.The only things that are close are the head-to-head matchups, look elsewhere and its Mexico.Are u guys solely basing it on the head-to-head or what?

HandofGod, find somewhere where any of us Mexicans have said that our team is a superpower and that getting to the 2nd rd is a huge accomplishment...u wont be able to cause it hasnt been said.Look man we know that it aint a big deal and that there is no way that Mexico at this moment can be considered elite, but look who we are comparing them to--the South American teams not including the two giants.Uru, Par, Ecu, Chi, Col, Bol, Ven...compared to most of those teams the second round is a huge deal.That little success is alot more then any of those teams can claim.These haters just take it out of context and make it seem like we're saying overall its a huge deal, when of course compared to the whole world which include the likes of Bra, Arg, Ger, Ita, etc. then it becomes a small accomplishment.Basically we have said that they are between 3rd-5th in the Americas...behind Bra & Arg and battling the 3rd-5th with the USA and Par and these haters get all worked up because of that, which I find pretty stupid cause it seems very fair to have them 3rd-5th.I mean alot of neutral non-Mexican would consider them 3rd or at the very least 4th.


using the WC is a weak argument, cuz most of conmebol teams dont even get to make it to the wc bcuz of the competition in the qualifyin games while mexico already has this guaranteed spot in the wc, that is why I base head to head matches more important cuz as u can see they are pretty even and mexico even when they bring their A team to the copa america r not able to win the cup while countries like uruguay, colombia have won it and even bolivia reached the finals but lost to a full Brazil squad. IF mexico is so good they should of been able to win this cup already, either to colombia or whoever else they played

[PunkguyEG]

For me they are top 20 but not top 10. So it depends on what you consider "top".


Hey Ronni you didn't get what i was trying to say.... you have to pick the sample randomly, not the last 3 or 5 WCs. Also,it is never going to be the current situation, because usually by the time of the 3rd WC there's going to be a completely whole different team, maybe better, maybe worse. You can never be sure of this. It is true that mexico has been improving, but you never know they may be back to sucking real bad again in the future. By the way I agree that mexico can be in the top 20 best teams, but not in the top 10.



you don't consider any argument that backs the fact that Mexico is top 6 in America or top 20 in the World ....


If you read my previous posts, I always said that third place in america could be for anybody in south america (including Mexico), except for Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. So I really don't have any problems to put MExico among the best 6 in america. I just don't like those mexicans that think they are better than everybody else. Not even the real good teams are that arrogant.

[PunkguyEG]

I was just watching the Fox soccer news. They were talking about la copa suramericana and the 2nd final in la bombonera argentina. Some pumas young defender was being interviewed and he was saying he never thought he would be playing against boca and marking palermo. He said he feels confident they are going to win in la bombonera and that he is "currently equal or better than palermo." (at the same time showing this attitude like if it was nothing).

:faint2: I was just like Incredible!!!. I don't know what his name is, but that was really arrogant and overconfident. These people have no respect for their opponents. He couldve said he feels confident and that their going to win or whatever, but saying he is individually better than this other guy is just inappropriate. I am sorry if you mexicans think that is alright, but i don't see any other teams talking that much garbage all the time, but just you. Same thing with the National team.

Besides, It is not like their playing against morelia, los chivos, or some other sorry team from their country. It is an international competition that deserves more respect.

That is what I hate about people, in general, Not just Mexicans but for some reason it is always the same. Maybe that is a custom in Mexico, but I don't see other teams talking that much garbage, especially when it is a international competition. In south America everybody respects each other, especially internationally.

[mawin312]

Nope thats not a custom in Mexico. You're just tring to make Mexico look bad. Thats why you posted the same thing in 11 different threads :boo:

[PunkguyEG]

Im not tryin to make you look bad or anything. It is just what I have heard so many times from you mexicans.... It was on the news.

I was just watching the Fox soccer news. They were talking about la copa suramericana and the 2nd final in la bombonera argentina. Some pumas young defender was being interviewed and he was saying he never thought he would be playing against boca and marking palermo. He said he feels confident they are going to win in la bombonera and that he is "currently equal or better than palermo." (at the same time showing this attitude like if it was nothing).

:faint2: I was just like Incredible!!!. I don't know what his name is, but that was really arrogant and overconfident. These people have no respect for their opponents. He couldve said he feels confident and that their going to win or whatever, but saying he is individually better than this other guy is just inappropriate. I am sorry if you mexicans think that is alright, but i don't see any other teams talking that much garbage all the time, but just you. Same thing with the National team.

Besides, It is not like their playing against morelia, los chivos, or some other sorry team from their country. It is an international competition that deserves more respect.

That is what I hate about people, in general, Not just Mexicans but for some reason it is always the same. Maybe that is a custom in Mexico, but I don't see other teams talking that much garbage, especially when it is a international competition. In south America everybody respects each other, especially internationally.

[Ronni]

Hey Ronni you didn't get what i was trying to say.... you have to pick the sample randomly, not the last 3 or 5 WCs. Also,it is never going to be the current situation, because usually by the time of the 3rd WC there's going to be a completely whole different team, maybe better, maybe worse. You can never be sure of this. It is true that mexico has been improving, but you never know they may be back to sucking real bad again in the future. By the way I agree that mexico can be in the top 20 best teams, but not in the top 10.
I think we are talking about different things.
I'm not talking about these current teams, but the football power of the nations in general. Or at least their effects on the national team.
This is a fact that is very difficult to measure, since it can only be seen on what is directly reflected by the quality of the national team. As I already posted contradicting that american guy in another thread, there are many variables that can be impressive, but still have not such a strong impact in the quality of the national team. I mentioned the number of football players in the country. There are many others, like average salaries etc. They may help separately, but they are only some out of too many variables. That's why the easiest way to measure these effects of the football power of a nation on the national team is considering the results of this national team themselves. And of course for that we can't consider one single team, nor take too old statistics. We have to try to take at least 3 generations. If the nation consistently brings one generation after the other at a certain level, this can't be a coincidence. It must be due to the fact that the football power of this nation is more or less at that level.

Considering the last 3 or 4 generations, Mexico has never brought any team that was on top 4. The countries that I consider at that level are Brazil, Germany, Italy, Argentina, France, England and Holland. However only the first 4 are really consistent at that. They may have one bad generation every now and then (like Germany now), but they're always on top. France, England and Holland proved to have very often one team at the top, but then they have a generational change and stay for some time in the shadow of the others.
As I stated before, in my opinion to be considered a member of this list it's necessary even more than only 3 or 4 generations.

In any case Mexico was NEVER in this group. However Mexico has already proved that in the last 20-25 years they are consistent in being at a certain level I consider "top 20" in the world. They may even get peaks like having one "top" generation, or one "scrap" generation, but the "football power" Mexico achieved is in my opinion at that level. I consider them more or less at the same level of the US nowadays.
Paraguay is another good example. Despite of being a much smaller country than Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Colombia, they are bringing one good generation after the other. Uruguay is the same. This is football power.
Since football became extremely popular in most of the countries in the world, the population of a country started playing a major role on the football power, and things like Uruguay being one of the major football powers in the world belongs to the past and I'm sure it will never happen again. They may even have one brilliant generation every now and then, but still this will not be possible to keep them on top for many years. This will be kept restrained to big nations like Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Mexico, USA, Colombia and some others.

Nowadays Mexico has already achieved the top 20 as a football power. And this can be seen on the last generations they're producing. This wasn't the case previous to 1980. I don't know the history of mexican football, and I don't know what happened in Mexico to trigger the development, but this is a fact, like this is a fact also for the US.
So I'm sorry for you if you don't like Mexico, but if Mexico is being consistent on the first 16 of the world cups, they may have one generation that is weak enough to be eliminated in the first round, and they may have one generation that is able to get to the semis. But the position they proved to be is among the first 16, or as I say, "top 20".

Considering the current team, I also think they're on top 20. We're living in a moment when there are too many good NTs around. Countries like Czech R., Switzerland, Poland and others had good teams in the past, then they had some very weak generations, and now they're back. And most of them seem to be "back" at the same time. That's why the current mexican team is for me today on top 20. I would have to think a little bit, but perhaps I would consider them on top 10 about 4 or 5 years ago. I don't know.




If you read my previous posts, I always said that third place in america could be for anybody in south america (including Mexico), except for Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela.
I don't agree. I would exclude also Peru, Chile and Uruguay. I would have my doubts about Colombia. Seeing the statistics I keep Mexico, US and Paraguay. This is considering the teams. Considering the football power of the nation, I would even put Colombia together with Mexico and the US, one step over Paraguay - this one close to Uruguay, Chile and Peru, and these three one step over Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia.



So I really don't have any problems to put MExico among the best 6 in america. I just don't like those mexicans that think they are better than everybody else. Not even the real good teams are that arrogant.
I also don't like arrogance, but sometimes we have to find out where it comes from, in order also to be able to understand if it is a trend of the people, if it's only an individual issue, or if it's a moment question.
I also feel that mexicans in general in this moment tend to hype their team, or even being a little bit arrogant. But I think it isn't enough to say "mexicans are arrogant". I think this is just for now. And I have an explanation for this. Mexicans saw for years their own football in the shadow of their south american neighboors, although they were always a very enthousiastic football nation. They knew they weren't able to bring up quality. They used to cheer their own team, but they knew that the main stage was too high for them. In order to be able to enjoy also this "main stage", they had to do what fans from small nations do: they choose one specific strong team they like and take this as their own team. As I am informed, Mexicans used to choose Brazil for that. As Mexico became stronger, they started thinking they didn't have to cheer Brazil, since their own Mexico was strong enough. However they felt their growth sort of estagnated, and they stayed at the middle of the way between the nobodies they were and the top. They're happy they reached this point, but they're still sort of deceived that they seem not to be able to climb further, and they see no real improvement. Every small improvemente they notice, they tend to think this is the next step they were waiting for. This is what outsiders can perceive. Other countries know there are ups and downs when you are established at a level. Mexico had a long growth and seem to have established at a certain point, and when they have an up they think this is the growth going on. It's not. It's just an up. And this is what disturbs people like you, and make you perceive their reaction as arrogance.
I'm personally a fan of the brazilian team, and I had the opportunity of living with a mexican guy some years ago at my college time. I could notice this change very clearly on himself and on his mexican friends. It's interesting to notice that this situation seems to be not far from its end, since I notice that they're coming back to "cheering Brazil" (what they had left for a while), although not more at the same extend as before, since they know Mexico today is also respected.

We just have to try to understand why people from a same country tend to react in the same way in some circumstances, instead of making definitive conclusions about the whole folk.

[ricoo9]

I also don't like arrogance, but sometimes we have to find out where it comes from, in order also to be able to understand if it is a trend of the people, if it's only an individual issue, or if it's a moment question.
I also feel that mexicans in general in this moment tend to hype their team, or even being a little bit arrogant. But I think it isn't enough to say "mexicans are arrogant". I think this is just for now. And I have an explanation for this. Mexicans saw for years their own football in the shadow of their south american neighboors, although they were always a very enthousiastic football nation. They knew they weren't able to bring up quality. They used to cheer their own team, but they knew that the main stage was too high for them. In order to be able to enjoy also this "main stage", they had to do what fans from small nations do: they choose one specific strong team they like and take this as their own team. As I am informed, Mexicans used to choose Brazil for that. As Mexico became stronger, they started thinking they didn't have to cheer Brazil, since their own Mexico was strong enough. However they felt their growth sort of estagnated, and they stayed at the middle of the way between the nobodies they were and the top. They're happy they reached this point, but they're still sort of deceived that they seem not to be able to climb further, and they see no real improvement. Every small improvemente they notice, they tend to think this is the next step they were waiting for. This is what outsiders can perceive. Other countries know there are ups and downs when you are established at a level. Mexico had a long growth and seem to have established at a certain point, and when they have an up they think this is the growth going on. It's not. It's just an up. And this is what disturbs people like you, and make you perceive their reaction as arrogance.
I'm personally a fan of the brazilian team, and I had the opportunity of living with a mexican guy some years ago at my college time. I could notice this change very clearly on himself and on his mexican friends. It's interesting to notice that this situation seems to be not far from its end, since I notice that they're coming back to "cheering Brazil" (what they had left for a while), although not more at the same extend as before, since they know Mexico today is also respected.

We just have to try to understand why people from a same country tend to react in the same way in some circumstances, instead of making definitive conclusions about the whole folk.

i think that is one of the reasons why they act this way, another one is that since they r always playing teams like haiti and dominica they r used to winning, maybe they beat these teams 8-0 sometimes so this also hypes them up and makes them believe they have a chance. Then when they play Copa America they go againsts the bench teams and they sometimes get good results, or they might play a confed. cup and beat brazil, something that probably only happens to them every 300 years but this also hypes them up and makes them arrogant, i dont know if u read punkguys last post but that is not the only time and only player to talk like that from mexico. Tell me this, if Every team took the "A" squad to the Copa America do u really think they would get that far?

[ricoo9]

I also don't like arrogance, but sometimes we have to find out where it comes from, in order also to be able to understand if it is a trend of the people, if it's only an individual issue, or if it's a moment question.
I also feel that mexicans in general in this moment tend to hype their team, or even being a little bit arrogant. But I think it isn't enough to say "mexicans are arrogant". I think this is just for now. And I have an explanation for this. Mexicans saw for years their own football in the shadow of their south american neighboors, although they were always a very enthousiastic football nation. They knew they weren't able to bring up quality. They used to cheer their own team, but they knew that the main stage was too high for them. In order to be able to enjoy also this "main stage", they had to do what fans from small nations do: they choose one specific strong team they like and take this as their own team. As I am informed, Mexicans used to choose Brazil for that. As Mexico became stronger, they started thinking they didn't have to cheer Brazil, since their own Mexico was strong enough. However they felt their growth sort of estagnated, and they stayed at the middle of the way between the nobodies they were and the top. They're happy they reached this point, but they're still sort of deceived that they seem not to be able to climb further, and they see no real improvement. Every small improvemente they notice, they tend to think this is the next step they were waiting for. This is what outsiders can perceive. Other countries know there are ups and downs when you are established at a level. Mexico had a long growth and seem to have established at a certain point, and when they have an up they think this is the growth going on. It's not. It's just an up. And this is what disturbs people like you, and make you perceive their reaction as arrogance.
I'm personally a fan of the brazilian team, and I had the opportunity of living with a mexican guy some years ago at my college time. I could notice this change very clearly on himself and on his mexican friends. It's interesting to notice that this situation seems to be not far from its end, since I notice that they're coming back to "cheering Brazil" (what they had left for a while), although not more at the same extend as before, since they know Mexico today is also respected.

We just have to try to understand why people from a same country tend to react in the same way in some circumstances, instead of making definitive conclusions about the whole folk.

i think that is one of the reasons why they act this way, another one is that since they r always playing teams like haiti and dominica they r used to winning, maybe they beat these teams 8-0 sometimes so this also hypes them up and makes them believe they have a chance. Then when they play Copa America they go againsts the bench teams and they sometimes get good results, or they might play a confed. cup and beat brazil, something that probably only happens to them every 300 years but this also hypes them up and makes them arrogant, i dont know if u read punkguys last post but that is not the only time and only player to talk like that from mexico. Tell me this, if Every team took the "A" squad to the Copa America do u really think mexico would get that far?

[PunkguyEG]

you mean this?

[PunkguyEG]

I was just watching the Fox soccer news. They were talking about la copa suramericana and the 2nd final in la bombonera argentina. Some pumas young defender was being interviewed and he was saying he never thought he would be playing against boca and marking palermo. He said he feels confident they are going to win in la bombonera and that he is "currently equal or better than palermo." (at the same time showing this attitude like if it was nothing).

:faint2: I was just like Incredible!!!. I don't know what his name is, but that was really arrogant and overconfident. These people have no respect for their opponents. He couldve said he feels confident and that their going to win or whatever, but saying he is individually better than this other guy is just inappropriate. I am sorry if you mexicans think that is alright, but i don't see any other teams talking that much garbage all the time, but just you. Same thing with the National team.

Besides, It is not like their playing against morelia, los chivos, or some other sorry team from their country. It is an international competition that deserves more respect.

That is what I hate about people, in general, Not just Mexicans but for some reason it is always the same. Maybe that is a custom in Mexico, but I don't see other teams talking that much garbage, especially when it is a international competition. In south America everybody respects each other, especially internationally.

[Ronni]

I was just watching the Fox soccer news. They were talking about la copa suramericana and the 2nd final in la bombonera argentina. Some pumas young defender was being interviewed and he was saying he never thought he would be playing against boca and marking palermo. He said he feels confident they are going to win in la bombonera and that he is "currently equal or better than palermo." (at the same time showing this attitude like if it was nothing).

:faint2: I was just like Incredible!!!. I don't know what his name is, but that was really arrogant and overconfident. These people have no respect for their opponents. He couldve said he feels confident and that their going to win or whatever, but saying he is individually better than this other guy is just inappropriate. I am sorry if you mexicans think that is alright, but i don't see any other teams talking that much garbage all the time, but just you. Same thing with the National team.

Besides, It is not like their playing against morelia, los chivos, or some other sorry team from their country. It is an international competition that deserves more respect.

That is what I hate about people, in general, Not just Mexicans but for some reason it is always the same. Maybe that is a custom in Mexico, but I don't see other teams talking that much garbage, especially when it is a international competition. In south America everybody respects each other, especially internationally.

8 (eight)

[unam_mx]

rico, u are unreal...u got some sort of BS excuse for everything.

For tournaments like the Copa America, u say that they always bring "B" teams...maybe Bra and Arg do but I doubt everybody else does.Noone other then those two are deep enough to do that.Just cause they do it u generalize it with all of South America, and make it seem like something its not.And yes they would have made it just as far even if those two teams brought their "A" teams, they always play better against tougher opponents...and besides they usually dont have to go through them until later in the tournament.

Confed Cup, finally u got what u want...everybody including Brasil brings their big-guns and the tables are turned since its Mexico who doesnt have their best players (Marquez and Blanco are out).They play very well, gain tons of respect and whats ur excuse?"Noone cares about that tournament" :faint2:

WC, u keep on arguing that Mexico has a weak qualifying phase (which they do) but completely ignore that they legitimize themselves by making it to the 2nd rd over and over...if they were just a below-average team in a crap region like u claim they are, they wouldnt make it out of the group stage.They would be exposed for what they are, but that doesnt happen.Also what's this of 'the WC is a weak arguement because alot of SA teams arent there because of the tough qualifying'...well how about the ones that are there in the place of the ones that got eliminated?Uru made it almost everytime up until this WC and they havent consistently gotten out of the group stage, especially in the most recent WCs.Chile made it once, when they had Zamorano and Salas but now they are far from that team.Colombia did it once as well (had two chances) when they were real strong in the mid 90s but now?.Bolivia and Ecuador werent/arent close.The only team that shows consistenty in doing so is Par, and Im generous in saying that because its only been 2 WCs...Mexico has done it in 4 out of 5 (the one they missed they werent there because of suspension), including 3 in a row.

The only arguement u want to take is the head-to-head matchup...which is crap.Did u watch the game Mexico against Hungary last night?Only two players that will probably make it to Germany were there (Kikin, Corona).Point being, u make a big deal of teams not caring about Copa America...well guess what?They sure as hell care about it more then they do about some friendlies.The majority of those friendlies were played with nothing close to a first team, for both teams.

So if u want everything to be perfect how u want it, no subs and teams actually caring about a tournament...then the WC is ur answer.But for some odd reason even though it goes with ur logic u belittle it.I think it has to do with the fact that Mexico has been successful there (compared to who we are comparing them to in this thread) moreso then with it being a 'weak' arguement.If Mexico got bounced out of the group stage every yr, u would be saying how in the biggest stage they are crap...we wouldnt hear the end of it.But since they actually have some success there then the WC isnt a good arguement :rolleyes:

[ricoo9]

rico, u are unreal...u got some sort of BS excuse for everything.

For tournaments like the Copa America, u say that they always bring "B" teams...maybe Bra and Arg do but I doubt everybody else does.Noone other then those two are deep enough to do that.Just cause they do it u generalize it with all of South America, and make it seem like something its not.And yes they would have made it just as far even if those two teams brought their "A" teams, they always play better against tougher opponents...and besides they usually dont have to go through them until later in the tournament.


U obviously dont know anything about the cup if u say that argentina and brazil r the only ones that bring their "B" team.

This is the Starting Line up for Paragay :

Justo Villar;

Francisco Arce, Julio César Cáceres, Carlos Gamarra y Denis Caniza

; Carlos Bonet, Angel Ortiz, Carlos Humberto Paredes y Enciso;

Roque Santa Cruz y José Cardozo

Now this was from the Last Copa America

PARAGUAY:

Diego Barreto;

Emilio Martínez, José De Vaca, Carlos Gamarra, Ernesto Cristaldo;

Aureliano Torres, Jorge Britez, Edgar Barreto, Carlos Partedes;

Diego Figueredo, Nelson Haedo

As u can see only one of those players in the Copa America were from the original starting line up that played the eliminatorias.

[Ronni]

rico, u are unreal...u got some sort of BS excuse for everything.

For tournaments like the Copa America, u say that they always bring "B" teams...maybe Bra and Arg do but I doubt everybody else does.Noone other then those two are deep enough to do that.Just cause they do it u generalize it with all of South America, and make it seem like something its not.
Historically only Brazil played the Copa America with a "B" team - actually in the past it wasn't even a "B" team, but a mix of available players. They haven't been doing this in the latest years, but they did it in 2004, as it was a complete "B" team. If you find today Adriano and Juan in the "A" team, they got the starters position exactely because of that tournament.
Argentina historically considered the Copa America an important tournament, and most of the times played it with the best they had. In 2004 it was also the case. If you don't find some of their today's starters there, it's because that one was Bielsa's first team. Everybody knows Pekerman has a different concept, and uses different players.
What commonly happens with the Copa America is that teams that are doing well at the "higher stage", i.e., the World Cup, tend to ignore it. This is exactely what Brazil did the whole time (they stopped in the 90's, as their last WC title started to rust) and Argentina did in 2001 (they were considered one of the best teams in the world, and just ignored the Copa America, supposing "lack of security" in Colombia). In the same way, Paraguay didn't send their best players in the last edition - they're enjoying their consistent status of top 16 in the world.
Other teams like Peru, Ecuador or Uruguay sent what they had (actually Uruguay keeps on taking the Copa America very seriously).



Confed Cup, finally u got what u want...everybody including Brasil brings their big-guns and the tables are turned since its Mexico who doesnt have their best players (Marquez and Blanco are out).They play very well, gain tons of respect and whats ur excuse?"Noone cares about that tournament" :faint2:

Not really. The big teams have actually never cared much about the Confed Cup. For them it's always some kind of showing FIFA some sort of goodwill, most of the times expecting some advantages from them.
Like the 1999 Confed Cup Mexico won as hosts. Among the big ones, actually nobody wanted to participate. France as World Champions declined the invitation, then FIFA postponed the whole thing so that they could participate, and still they didn't. Germany as european champions had already missed the previous version (runners-up Czech R. participated instead), but since they were presenting their bid for organizing the 2006 WC, they saw the best thing they could do was to participate. Brazil did it (as Copa America winners) for the same reason. Yet Germany sent a "B"-team (and indeed had an awful performance), and Brazil a mixed team (sort of "who was available", including some starters).
FIFA has always made pressure in order to make out of this tournament a "real" one, but none of the "big teams" take it much for serious.
In the last edition Germany indeed did it (as expected from a host), and Brazil and Argentina tried to do the same in order to show FIFA some goodwill, but still it was a real tournament for both only on the final (Bra vs. Arg is always for real).
In any case I would never say that the defeat Mexico imposed to Brazil wasn't an impressive result. Brazil missed some starters in the tournament (Cafu, R.Carlos, Ronaldo), but still these players aren't really necessary in the team - their subs are more or less at the same level. And Brazil may have started the match against Mexico not taking it so seriously, but after Borghetti's goal you can be sure they did. Nobody wants to be defeated. In any tournament.




WC, u keep on arguing that Mexico has a weak qualifying phase (which they do) but completely ignore that they legitimize themselves by making it to the 2nd rd over and over...if they were just a below-average team in a crap region like u claim they are, they wouldnt make it out of the group stage.They would be exposed for what they are, but that doesnt happen.Also what's this of 'the WC is a weak arguement because alot of SA teams arent there because of the tough qualifying'...well how about the ones that are there in the place of the ones that got eliminated?Uru made it almost everytime up until this WC and they havent consistently gotten out of the group stage, especially in the most recent WCs.Chile made it once, when they had Zamorano and Salas but now they are far from that team.Colombia did it once as well (had two chances) when they were real strong in the mid 90s but now?.Bolivia and Ecuador werent/arent close.The only team that shows consistenty in doing so is Par, and Im generous in saying that because its only been 2 WCs...Mexico has done it in 4 out of 5 (the one they missed they werent there because of suspension), including 3 in a row.
Never mind. As I understand, any argument that backs the fact that Mexico isn't crap seems not to be important, or to have anything that disqualifies it.

For me there's no better way of seeing how consistent a team is like verifying its presence in the second round of the World Cups. The qualifying effect doesn't play a role, and you know everyone take the tournament for serious. Consider that "accidents" can happen (once not qualifying, or even being eliminated), and if they're rare they're acceptable. And you can take conclusions.
But Mexico is too good at that. So this can't be an argument at all - this is my feeling.



The only arguement u want to take is the head-to-head matchup...which is crap.Did u watch the game Mexico against Hungary last night?Only two players that will probably make it to Germany were there (Kikin, Corona).

Forget about Hungary. They don't have a real team.



Point being, u make a big deal of teams not caring about Copa America...well guess what?They sure as hell care about it more then they do about some friendlies.The majority of those friendlies were played with nothing close to a first team, for both teams.
I wouldn't agree. Friendlies are most of the times played in FIFA dates, and the clubs can't complain about anything - if the teams don't do it, it's just to show goodwill towards the clubs. But the NTs taking the players on their holidays for a tournament like the Copa America is really abominated by the clubs. In both cases the teams without players in Europe are the ones that are able to sent their best team - this means friendlies and such tournaments.

Why do you think Mexico can play a friendly (like this week) when nobody is doing it? Because they don't need FIFA dates for this - they just need to see it with their own league.



So if u want everything to be perfect how u want it, no subs and teams actually caring about a tournament...then the WC is ur answer.But for some odd reason even though it goes with ur logic u belittle it.I think it has to do with the fact that Mexico has been successful there (compared to who we are comparing them to in this thread) moreso then with it being a 'weak' arguement.If Mexico got bounced out of the group stage every yr, u would be saying how in the biggest stage they are crap...we wouldnt hear the end of it.But since they actually have some success there then the WC isnt a good arguement :rolleyes:
The WC seems to be a valid argument when you take the whole history (and so the miserable records Mexico have). Just mention it, and you will notice that the WC suddenly turns out to be a proof for everything!

[unam_mx]

U obviously dont know anything about the cup if u say that argentina and brazil r the only ones that bring their "B" team.

This is the Starting Line up for Paragay :

Justo Villar;

Francisco Arce, Julio César Cáceres, Carlos Gamarra y Denis Caniza

; Carlos Bonet, Angel Ortiz, Carlos Humberto Paredes y Enciso;

Roque Santa Cruz y José Cardozo

Now this was from the Last Copa America

PARAGUAY:

Diego Barreto;

Emilio Martínez, José De Vaca, Carlos Gamarra, Ernesto Cristaldo;

Aureliano Torres, Jorge Britez, Edgar Barreto, Carlos Partedes;

Diego Figueredo, Nelson Haedo

As u can see only one of those players in the Copa America were from the original starting line up that played the eliminatorias.

Mexico's Lineup now:
Oswaldo
Rojas , Osorio, Marquez, Salcido
Torrado, Sinha/Blanco, Pardo, Lozano/Pineda
Borgetti, Fonseca

Copa America:
Oswaldo
Suarez, Davino, Marquez, Briseno
Torrado, Valdez, Pardo, Morales
Bofo, Palencia

So I guess Mexico sent their "B" team as well...and respond to the rest of the post as well, u have this dumb habit of just taking one little section of a post.I want to know why u belittle the WC so much yet make such a big deal of nearly-meaningless friendlies.

[Ronni]

Mexico's Lineup now:
Oswaldo
Rojas , Osorio, Marquez, Salcido
Torrado, Sinha/Blanco, Pardo, Lozano/Pineda
Borgetti, Fonseca

Copa America:
Oswaldo
Suarez, Davino, Marquez, Briseno
Torrado, Valdez, Pardo, Morales
Bofo, Palencia

So I guess Mexico sent their "B" team as well...and respond to the rest of the post as well, u have this dumb habit of just taking one little section of a post.I want to know why u belittle the WC so much yet make such a big deal of nearly-meaningless friendlies.

As far as I remember, those were Mexico's starters at that time.
Players like Osorio, Lozano and Borgetti - which you don't list under the starters during the Copa America, as I know, they played, and also in the victory against Argentina. I'm not sure, but I think Osorio even scored (I don't know if against Argentina).

Mexico did play with the best they had.

[unam_mx]

As far as I remember, those were Mexico's starters at that time.
Players like Osorio, Lozano and Borgetti - which you don't list under the starters during the Copa America, as I know, they played, and also in the victory against Argentina. I'm not sure, but I think Osorio even scored (I don't know if against Argentina).

Mexico did play with the best they had.

You mightve missed my point...I was trying to state how teams can change.Just cause they are different now doesnt mean that those werent the best players then, I am very aware that at the time most of those players were the best Mexico had (atleast in the coach's eyes).But the same can mostly be said for Paraguay.I was just trying to give him alittle taste of his own medicine.

As for Lozano, Osorio, and Borgetti...they were there but they were subs.They played but not as regular starters like they do now.

[PunkguyEG]

:blabla: .... :lol: .... :boo:

[ricoo9]

You mightve missed my point...I was trying to state how teams can change.Just cause they are different now doesnt mean that those werent the best players then, I am very aware that at the time most of those players were the best Mexico had (atleast in the coach's eyes).But the same can mostly be said for Paraguay.I was just trying to give him alittle taste of his own medicine.

As for Lozano, Osorio, and Borgetti...they were there but they were subs.They played but not as regular starters like they do now.

Ur a freaking joke man, hahahahahaha well all i can say is ur either really stupid or ur the one with the "weak" arguments, so which one is it?
u got caught, :lol: and i'm the one with weak arguments? i think urs r just plain stupid, it didnt make a point, cuz they were the starters at the time :boo: u telling me that paragays team changed so much that they only used 1 of those players in copa america, the original startin lineup for paragay basically played the entire qualifying but i guess ur more of an idiot than i thought. I think thats it man, ur not even worthy of an argument, i'm not gonna argue with u anymore cuz it would just be a waste of my time

[ricoo9]

Mexico in my opinion come in 5th or 6th

Brazil
Argentina
Paraguay
Uruguay
USA
Mexico
Ecuador( Untill they prove themselves away from high elevation they can't be considered a top 5 team

see, south american knows that those team r better than mexico

[unam_mx]

Ur a freaking joke man, hahahahahaha well all i can say is ur either really stupid or ur the one with the "weak" arguments, so which one is it?
u got caught, :lol: and i'm the one with weak arguments? i think urs r just plain stupid, it didnt make a point, cuz they were the starters at the time :boo: u telling me that paragays team changed so much that they only used 1 of those players in copa america, the original startin lineup for paragay basically played the entire qualifying but i guess ur more of an idiot than i thought. I think thats it man, ur not even worthy of an argument, i'm not gonna argue with u anymore cuz it would just be a waste of my time

God damn u are one stupid son of a b....

I was aware of what I was doing, I was just showing that there was no point to ur post...of Parguays Copa America line-up compared to their line-up now.Because the same can easily be said with Mexico.They too have basically used the line-up they have now throughout the entire qualifiers...and guess what?Just like Paraguay, it is very different from the one they took to Copa America.I couldve made the exact same point and claim that it was Mexico's "B" team as well...but despite the great difference in those line-ups compared to now, the truth is at that time a good portion of those players were the best they had.For both Mexico and Paraguay.

Besides ur list is alittle suspect.You mightve made some stuff up, Cardozo is not currently a starter for Paraguay I know that for a fact.Im going to look this stuff up, there were probably some manipulations on ur part.

[ricoo9]

God damn u are one stupid son of a b....

I was aware of what I was doing, I was just showing that there was no point to ur post...of Parguays Copa America line-up compared to their line-up now.Because the same can easily be said with Mexico.They too have basically used the line-up they have now throughout the entire qualifiers...and guess what?Just like Paraguay, it is very different from the one they took to Copa America.I couldve made the exact same point and claim that it was Mexico's "B" team as well...but despite the great difference in those line-ups compared to now, the truth is at that time a good portion of those players were the best they had.For both Mexico and Paraguay.

Besides ur list is alittle suspect.You mightve made some stuff up, Cardozo is not currently a starter for Paraguay I know that for a fact.Im going to look this stuff up, there were probably some manipulations on ur part.

yea ur sayin that paragays team changed so drastically that they only have one player left from the copa america time??

This is starting line up for paragay 9/5/04 for a qualifyin match, remember that the copa america was 7/04 which makes this a 2 month difference, so if ur correct then that means that in a 2 months span 10 players stopped being called for paragay, including the goalie, fowards,midfield,defence haha basically everyone except one player :lol:

PARAGUAY (1): Justo Villar; Pedro Sarabia, Julio César Cáceres, Carlos Gamarra (m.83 Julio Manzur), Paulo da Silva; Diego Gavilán (m.78 Edgar Barreto), Julio César Enciso, Carlos Humberto Paredes, Roque Santa Cruz; Nelson Cuevas y José Cardozo (m.58 César Ramírez). Director técnico: Aníbal "Maño "Ruiz.

compare to : from the copa america

PARAGUAY: Diego Barreto; Emilio Martínez, José De Vaca (Pedro Benítez), Carlos Gamarra, Ernesto Cristaldo; Aureliano Torres, Jorge Britez (Julio Dos Santos Edgar Barreto, Carlos Partedes; Diego Figueredo (Fredy Barreiro), Nelson Haedo. DT: Carlos Jara Saguier

As u can see they even brought their sub23 coach, or did they change him too? :rolleyes:
Only one player from their starting lineup played the copa america, meanin those were not the best players in paragay at the time. oohhhh!! so who is the stupid one now? :D

thats the link for the copa america lineup
paragay copa america (http://www.peru.com/futbol/AutoNoticias/DetalleNoticia45448.asp)

thats the link for the wc qualifying lineup:
paragays lineup qualifying wc (http://www.peru.com/futbol/AutoNoticias/DetalleNoticia48501.asp)

So was there a point to my previous post? YES there was thank u!!! :lol:

[bboy treble]

id say

brazil
argentina
paraguay
USA
mexico

[Ronni]

You mightve missed my point...I was trying to state how teams can change.Just cause they are different now doesnt mean that those werent the best players then, I am very aware that at the time most of those players were the best Mexico had (atleast in the coach's eyes).But the same can mostly be said for Paraguay.I was just trying to give him alittle taste of his own medicine.

Ok, now I understand what you mean.
But you just took a bad example. Paraguay really planned a "B" team to that Copa America, like Brazil did. These were perhaps the only two teams - I'm not really 100% sure about some others, but Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico and Peru brought sort of the best they had.



As for Lozano, Osorio, and Borgetti...they were there but they were subs.They played but not as regular starters like they do now.
They weren't perhaps starters some years before, but at that time, they were already considered starters. In the qualies - both in the playoff-round against a caribbean before the Copa America and in the first group round after the Copa America, Mexico were using them as "starters".
You can say that the coach knew they would have no problems to reach the final group round, and I agree, but there's no point on not using your key players neither in the qualies nor in the Copa America (even Brazil, having much more depth than Mexico don't do this!). And if they were just "evaluating players" (like Brazil and Paraguay did), it really came out that these guys were the best ones for the coach. This takes us to the strong suspicion that they were already the "starters" even previous to that tournament.

[unam_mx]

Ok, now I understand what you mean.
But you just took a bad example. Paraguay really planned a "B" team to that Copa America, like Brazil did. These were perhaps the only two teams - I'm not really 100% sure about some others, but Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico and Peru brought sort of the best they had.

Yeah, rico was actually right this time.

Since Paraguay's "A" NT is so freakin old, they probably decided to test out the youngsters...a good portion of those guys are from that 98' team.This is probably the last run for them and after that it will be handed over to the youngsters that played in Copa America.

rico, u were right about Paraguay...but dude just cause two teams bring subs, u cant claim that all of them do.You cant say that Mexico is the only team that almost brings the best they have.Actually there's more teams that bring the best they have, then teams who dont.



They weren't perhaps starters some years before, but at that time, they were already considered starters. In the qualies - both in the playoff-round against a caribbean before the Copa America and in the first group round after the Copa America, Mexico were using them as "starters".
You can say that the coach knew they would have no problems to reach the final group round, and I agree, but there's no point on not using your key players neither in the qualies nor in the Copa America (even Brazil, having much more depth than Mexico don't do this!). And if they were just "evaluating players" (like Brazil and Paraguay did), it really came out that these guys were the best ones for the coach. This takes us to the strong suspicion that they were already the "starters" even previous to that tournament.

You're right...they were for the most part starters in the early qualifiers, but they werent undisputed starters like they are now--especially Osorio and Borgetti.Sometimes it was El Bofo and Palencia up front (like in the Copa America) with Borgetti watching from the bench, then when Kikin got called up for the NT it became that much more crowded up front.Osorio for whatever retarded reason had sorry-ass Duilio Davino battling with him for that spot (in Copa America Lavolpe played Davino).

Lozano...although he did perform very well in the qualifiers he hardly even played in Copa America.Up until recently that spot was all but guaranteed for Morales (he's the one who scored against Arg on a free-kick).Now he's probably taking a backseat to either Lozano or Pineda.

[unam_mx]

id say

brazil
argentina
paraguay
USA
mexico

That's cool, again I feel theyre no higher then 3rd but also no lower then 5th.But not too long ago u had them not only 3rd in the Americas but 4th in the WORLD...not even something I would come close to doing.Why such a sudden change of thought?

Sometimes I wonder if some of u guys actually are basing some of ur statements on the team, rather then on a few Mexicans that piss u off by talking unreasonable smack...i.e. "Mexico's going to win the WC, Mexico is on par with Arg and Bra, etc."

[Ronni]

That's cool, again I feel theyre no higher then 3rd but also no lower then 5th.But not too long ago u had them not only 3rd in the Americas but 4th in the WORLD...not even something I would come close to doing.Why such a sudden change of thought?

Sometimes I wonder if some of u guys actually are basing some of ur statements on the team, rather then on a few Mexicans that piss u off by talking unreasonable smack...i.e. "Mexico's going to win the WC, Mexico is on par with Arg and Bra, etc."
Not everyone enter forums only to try to convince people of their nationalistic beliefs. Some enter them also to get more information, and when getting new information you can sometimes change your mind.
I've already changed my mind more than a couple of times here in this forum, and this also thanks to some nationalistic biased people - you just have to read what they say, sometimes there's even a true basis on their words.
Regarding this question of Mexico being 3rd or not, I also entered the thread completely convinced Mexico was unquestionably 3rd, but with some other teams close. I had never analysed particularly this issue. After thinking some further, analysing some statistics etc, I've reached a point where I'm thinking Mexico isn't any longer "unquestionably" the third, but the distance to some others behind them got even larger.

What's the point to discuss when nobody is supposed to change his mind? If bboy_treble did it, it's a good sign that he reads the posts, makes his own analyses and takes his own conclusions, instead of just making subborn blind affirmations.

[PunkguyEG]

:sad:

[Orgulho Judeu]

Paraguay :third:

[chamillionaire]

its like this:
1.brazil
2.argentina, mexico--mexico and argentina are very even teams.
3.Paraguay
4.USA
5.Cuba--hahaha NOT!!

[mawin312]

its like this:
1.brazil
2.argentina, mexico--mexico and argentina are very even teams.
3.Paraguay
4.USA
5.Cuba--hahaha NOT!!

My Mexico equal to Argentina.:shocked: Argentina are better then us.:sad:

[chaymin]

Not everyone enter forums only to try to convince people of their nationalistic beliefs. Some enter them also to get more information, and when getting new information you can sometimes change your mind.
I've already changed my mind more than a couple of times here in this forum, and this also thanks to some nationalistic biased people - you just have to read what they say, sometimes there's even a true basis on their words.
Regarding this question of Mexico being 3rd or not, I also entered the thread completely convinced Mexico was unquestionably 3rd, but with some other teams close. I had never analysed particularly this issue. After thinking some further, analysing some statistics etc, I've reached a point where I'm thinking Mexico isn't any longer "unquestionably" the third, but the distance to some others behind them got even larger.

What's the point to discuss when nobody is supposed to change his mind? If bboy_treble did it, it's a good sign that he reads the posts, makes his own analyses and takes his own conclusions, instead of just making subborn blind affirmations.


:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

[ricoo9]

its like this:
1.brazil
2.argentina, mexico--mexico and argentina are very even teams.


ugghh....U see what i mean? :worried:
this guy should be ashamed of himself and if he was tryin to be funny its not workin its not funny at all

[bernardo8]

First of I never said peru is the best or that they r 3rd in america, I just said they r better than Chile and its a fact, U guys should try beating us once in a while. As for politics and economy stuff i sugesst u go to another forum or go back to chile since its so great.... loser :boo: and chile why dont u guys go give argentina some more land .....pussies :kiss:

OMG hahah i never said peru is the best or that theyre 3rd in the americas, do u suffer from brain damage or something affecting your memory? People people people, do you know who the one and single vote for Peru in this poll???(yes the polls name is 3rd in the americas) do u know who was the only person to vote for Peru? yeees thats right, it was my fellow friend ricoo9, oh but he says he never said peru was third in the americas. ahhahahh this guy just makes me laugh.

I voted for mexico but that does not mean theyre 289347598234 times better than the other teams, maybe a 100 times better, hahaha JUST KIDDING, i think its like this

3rd Mexico/Paraguay/Uruguay/USA (i think these teams are really close but since im a proud mexican i simply had to say mexico)

another funny thing i noticed of ricoo9 is that well first he votes Peru is third, then he says he didnt say they were third, but when another guy votes Paraguay or Uruguay or some other team than Mexico, he says he agrees with them. Get real rico u only place mexico in last place because ur a hater. At least thats what ur posts make us understand, i think most people would agree with me on that one.

[ricoo9]

OMG hahah i never said peru is the best or that theyre 3rd in the americas, do u suffer from brain damage or something affecting your memory? People people people, do you know who the one and single vote for Peru in this poll???(yes the polls name is 3rd in the americas) do u know who was the only person to vote for Peru? yeees thats right, it was my fellow friend ricoo9, oh but he says he never said peru was third in the americas. ahhahahh this guy just makes me laugh.

I voted for mexico but that does not mean theyre 289347598234 times better than the other teams, maybe a 100 times better, hahaha JUST KIDDING, i think its like this

3rd Mexico/Paraguay/Uruguay/USA (i think these teams are really close but since im a proud mexican i simply had to say mexico)

another funny thing i noticed of ricoo9 is that well first he votes Peru is third, then he says he didnt say they were third, but when another guy votes Paraguay or Uruguay or some other team than Mexico, he says he agrees with them. Get real rico u only place mexico in last place because ur a hater. At least thats what ur posts make us understand, i think most people would agree with me on that one.

is this ur new name from now on UNAM? ok well i suggest u read more of the thread. i said I picked peru cuz i certainly wasnt gonna pick Mexico and there werent enough votes for Paragay which is the team I believe is actually proven to be 3rd and again i never said they r 3rd, i only put it in that poll but i have never written this. u should read more before writing meaningless posts

[bernardo8]

I was investigating on fifas webpage, on all the results mexico has had against south american teams other than brazil and argentina (since we are discussing the third place in all of the americas): This is what came out

Mexico vs conmebol (except bra and arg):
Country Won Tie Loss Total
Bolivia 6 1 1 8
Chile 6 1 2 9
Colombia 4 7 4 15
Ecuador 8 2 1 11
Paraguay 1 5 3 9
Peru 4 3 2 9
Uruguay 4 2 5 11
Ven. 3 0 0 3
Total 36 21 18 75

Mexico vs USA
Country Won Tie Loss Total
USA 19 10 12 41

Mexico vs conmebol (except those 2) and USA
Country Won Tie Loss Total
Total 48 31 37 116

there may be some errors since i had to do this by just looking at the result of mexico vs each country, so i mightve counted wrong, but im pretty certain this is correct. (mexico vs usa has higher probability for error since there were more games)
so this shows that only uruguay and paraguay have had better results over mexico in all of their games, and also colombia is tied with mexico, from 1930 up til now, consequently showing that based on these statistics, which i find very useful, it would be stupid to place mexico behind other conmebol teams than uruguay paraguay and colombia.
After i finished all the counting i was surprised, to see that i had mentioned, even before i counted this up, that uruguay paraguay and the US, besides mexico had a shot for americas third place. i did it on my last post.

PD: beleive me rico, im not unams other account, i dont even know him, im a 16 year old from saltillo mexico

[bernardo8]

is this ur new name from now on UNAM? ok well i suggest u read more of the thread. i said I picked peru cuz i certainly wasnt gonna pick Mexico and there werent enough votes for Paragay which is the team I believe is actually proven to be 3rd and again i never said they r 3rd, i only put it in that poll but i have never written this. u should read more before writing meaningless posts

im sorry but i dont find any sense in "there werent enough votes for Paragay which is the team I believe is actually proven to be 3rd" if u beleive paraguay is third then why didnt u vote for them, or did voting for paraguay mean voting for mexico?? of course not. and btw the post that im quoting right now i find it meaningless

[ricoo9]

im sorry but i dont find any sense in "there werent enough votes for Paragay which is the team I believe is actually proven to be 3rd" if u beleive paraguay is third then why didnt u vote for them, or did voting for paraguay mean voting for mexico?? of course not. and btw the post that im quoting right now i find it meaningless

Ok but i have already explained why i did it, NO i dont think Peru is 3rd in America not at all, do they have better players then Mexico does? Yes they sure do though

[bernardo8]

Ok but i have already explained why i did it, NO i dont think Peru is 3rd in America not at all, do they have better players then Mexico does? Yes they sure do though

I think that having good players is not the only thing to consider whos a better team than the other, whos better Mexico or Peru?? Well i can easily say mexico and u can say peru, it would be a never ending discussion. I also think that they may have 2 or three players like pizarro, but overall i think Mexico has a better players and team.

[Ronni]

I was investigating on fifas webpage, on all the results mexico has had against south american teams other than brazil and argentina (since we are discussing the third place in all of the americas)

in my opinion you have to consider the last 20 years or about that. Football forces changed a bit in the region during this period. In the same way that 50 years ago Mexico was unquestionably behind at least 6 south american teams, the US offered not competition to Mexico. Now we're living a completely different situation.

When comparing direct results it's also very important to consider the home effect too. South American teams tend commonly to play much more as visitors than as hosts, and against Mexico and the US it isn't different. You also have to see which tournaments you're taking into consideration. Because of a more home league based national team, in the last decades Mexico tends to be more able of bringing their "A" teams to the tournaments.

If you consider these points, you will still have Mexico sharing the third position with a couple of other teams. And you will notice though that Uruguay has lost terrain to Mexico, Paraguay and the US. Regarding the US, if you don't consider too old historic results (much before the starting of MLS), you will see that (unfortunately) Mexico lost the undefiable crone of concacaf, and got pretty strong concurrence for it.

I did some analysis on this some pages back in this thread, and also on the similar thread in the "Copa America" forum. Please have a look on it and on the comments the other guys made.

[ricoo9]

Face it guys, If conmebol clubs had as much money as the mexican clubs have Mexico wouldnt reach that far in any tournament period. its all about the money

[bernardo8]

in my opinion you have to consider the last 20 years or about that. Football forces changed a bit in the region during this period. In the same way that 50 years ago Mexico was unquestionably behind at least 6 south american teams, the US offered not competition to Mexico. Now we're living a completely different situation.

When comparing direct results it's also very important to consider the home effect too. South American teams tend commonly to play much more as visitors than as hosts, and against Mexico and the US it isn't different. You also have to see which tournaments you're taking into consideration. Because of a more home league based national team, in the last decades Mexico tends to be more able of bringing their "A" teams to the tournaments.

If you consider these points, you will still have Mexico sharing the third position with a couple of other teams. And you will notice though that Uruguay has lost terrain to Mexico, Paraguay and the US. Regarding the US, if you don't consider too old historic results (much before the starting of MLS), you will see that (unfortunately) Mexico lost the undefiable crone of concacaf, and got pretty strong concurrence for it.

I did some analysis on this some pages back in this thread, and also on the similar thread in the "Copa America" forum. Please have a look on it and on the comments the other guys made.

thanks for ur comments, yes i do agree that all those matters have to be taken into consideration and that Mexico (compared to twenty years ago) has been closing in, and i would say passed uruguay, but its the opposite with the US, i think that now theyre neck and neck.

[bernardo8]

Face it guys, If conmebol clubs had as much money as the mexican clubs have Mexico wouldnt reach that far in any tournament period. its all about the money

could u please tell me why are u mentioning this? i mean where r u backing this up from? i think ur mentioning it because mexico has more access to its NT players since they mostly play in mexico; but even if thats what u meant i still think there is no point in ur comment.

[ricoo9]

could u please tell me why are u mentioning this? i mean where r u backing this up from? i think ur mentioning it because mexico has more access to its NT players since they mostly play in mexico; but even if thats what u meant i still think there is no point in ur comment.

If u guys didnt have all that money, u wouldnt be able to buy players like Marioni, C. Lopez, Cardozo etc, which in turn would make ur league shit and it would just be another guatemalteco league, all of ur players would really suck cuz they would still be playin in mexico without that competitive edge and in turn make the national team suck as well, clubs like pumas would of never gone to any final of a sudamericana cup or libertadores cup. understand what im tryin to say now? I think a big part of mexicos recent success has to do with the competitiveness of their league and also good organization which is a big problem with these corrupt conmebol leagues that in time rob not only money from these leagues but success as well.

[bernardo8]

If u guys didnt have all that money, u wouldnt be able to buy players like Marioni, C. Lopez, Cardozo etc, which in turn would make ur league shit and it would just be another guatemalteco league, all of ur players would really suck cuz they would still be playin in mexico without that competitive edge and in turn make the national team suck as well, clubs like pumas would of never gone to any final of a sudamericana cup or libertadores cup. understand what im tryin to say now? I think a big part of mexicos recent success has to do with the competitiveness of their league and also good organization which is a big problem with these corrupt conmebol leagues that in time rob not only money from these leagues but success as well.

well first of all this is a comment that should be in another thread, buy anyways, i think ur forgeting something to, if mexican clubs didnt have the money they have, there would also be more mexicans playing in europe

[chaymin]

If u guys didnt have all that money, u wouldnt be able to buy players like Marioni, C. Lopez, Cardozo etc, which in turn would make ur league shit and it would just be another guatemalteco league, all of ur players would really suck cuz they would still be playin in mexico without that competitive edge and in turn make the national team suck as well, clubs like pumas would of never gone to any final of a sudamericana cup or libertadores cup. understand what im tryin to say now? I think a big part of mexicos recent success has to do with the competitiveness of their league and also good organization which is a big problem with these corrupt conmebol leagues that in time rob not only money from these leagues but success as well.

That would be true for almost any league. Can you imagine what Real Madrid would look like without any foreign players?? :boo: :boo: :boo:

[chaymin]

well first of all this is a comment that should be in another thread, buy anyways, i think ur forgeting something to, if mexican clubs didnt have the money they have, there would also be more mexicans playing in europe

I bet he didn't think about that one...

[ricoo9]

That would be true for almost any league. Can you imagine what Real Madrid would look like without any foreign players?? :boo: :boo: :boo:


ughh...the point i was tryin to make was that if the other conmebol leagues stopped robbin money and actually worked to make their leagues better, not only would mexico not have a chance in libertadores but in the national team as well, because everybody would have a higher level of competition, understand what Im tryin to say ?

[chaymin]

ughh...the point i was tryin to make was that if the other conmebol leagues stopped robbin money and actually worked to make their leagues better, not only would mexico not have a chance in libertadores but in the national team as well, because everybody would have a higher level of competition, understand what Im tryin to say ?

That same corruption exists in Mexico. Do you know how much better our league would be if corruption ended? :) :) :)

[Mugabi]

Peru in front of Chile??? anyway who voted for Peru 3rd in the americas or did he means 3rd from the bottom because that i would i agree, Peru, Venenzuela, Bolivia last 3. Anyway 3rd in Americas i think its Paraguay then Mexico or USA.

Chilenos, no existen. Ni siquiera deberian estar en la lista. Deberian ir todos los dias a la casa de Zamorano a chuparle la verga porque gracias a el saben que ustedes muertos juegan football...

NO EXISTEN... Dediquense a otro deporte.

[Yañez]

parece que comiendo mucha basura afecta la cabeza. Y si estai siego, no estamos en la lista pero deberia estar ahi porque el titulo es 3rd in the AMERICAS y si no te han enseñado, Chile ESTA en las americas , estupido. Parece que amai a los peruanos , como los defendi. Ni siquiera voi a insultar a tu pais porque soy vo el cagao de la cabeza.

[Orgulho Judeu]

Paraguay by far...by FAR...

[realmadrid289]

were z Uruguay, it must be there, n its the 3rd

[PunkguyEG]

That would be true for almost any league. Can you imagine what Real Madrid would look like without any foreign players?? :boo: :boo: :boo:

Are you comparing Mexico to Spain?. First of all, Spain has more way better players playing for important clubs other than in spain. As far as i know, Mexico only has Rafa Marquez and Borgetti which he is not even considered in bolton.

Also, Spain has more competitive league than mexico's. So don't compare. I am not saying Spain is great as a national team, but i belive it has way better players than mexico.

If mexico really had good players they woudn't be in mexico. I am tired of you guys making excuses for not having players in Europe. Maybe the sub 17 guys will change that in the future. I believe those guys have a good future and are really talented. FOR REAL. But they have along way to go, most of those guys don't ever become starters.

So for now, you guys have to stick to what you have and admit that you are not 3rd in the americas. I would say your about 4-6 place. Something in between. I already posted long time ago what i feel the list should be.

[handofgod]

Are you comparing Mexico to Spain?. First of all, Spain has more way better players playing for important clubs other than in spain. As far as i know, Mexico only has Rafa Marquez and Borgetti which he is not even considered in bolton.

Also, Spain has more competitive league than mexico's. So don't compare. I am not saying Spain is great as a national team, but i believe it has way better players than mexico.

If mexico really had good players they woudn't be in Mexico. I am tired of you guys making excuses for not having players in Europe. Maybe the sub 17 guys will change that in the future. I believe those guys have a good future and are really talented. FOR REAL. But they have along way to go, most of those guys don't ever become starters.

So for now, you guys have to stick to what you have and admit that you are not 3rd in the americas. I would say your about 4-6 place. Something in between. I already posted long time ago what i feel the list should be.

Bravo!!!! Finally some common sense here. Mexico has no place to be compared to South American teams until they formally join their region. If Mexico plays 90% of the time against the kinds of Haiti and Barbados they will always look good on paper but not in reality. In reality no Mexican player playing outside Mexico except for Rafael Marquez is worth consideration. I agree the future appears bright for Mexico specially after watching the u-17 team, hopefully by then Mexico will have the pelotas to join Conmebol.

[faire]

What the hell that list sucks.. I don't see 'Uruguay, twice world champion, and Chile. Venezuela and no Uruguay or Chile??? your list def sucks.

[faire]

Chilenos, no existen. Ni siquiera deberian estar en la lista. Deberian ir todos los dias a la casa de Zamorano a chuparle la verga porque gracias a el saben que ustedes muertos juegan football...

NO EXISTEN... Dediquense a otro deporte.

Calla argentino muerto de hambre.

[ricoo9]

What the hell that list sucks.. I don't see 'Uruguay, twice world champion, and Chile. Venezuela and no Uruguay or Chile??? your list def sucks.

yea I dunno why he didnt put URugay, for me them or Paragay should be 3rd

[Adk]

its like this:
1.brazil
2.argentina, mexico--mexico and argentina are very even teams.
3.Paraguay
4.USA
5.Cuba--hahaha NOT!!



see what I mean

[Saraj Fanatico]

I say columbia!

[DuZCO]

I say columbia!

and I say "what you smok'n!?" :smoking:

[josh79er]

Paraguay, just cause they qualify 4th in a 'tough' region theyre better?When was the last time they had a good showing internationally rather then just in the qualifiers?Like in tournaments or notable friendlies.

Uruguay, they lost to Australia...quite possibly the worst team at the world cup.Nuff said.

USA, I guess u could make a case for them but I would still put them slightly behind Mexico...they always seem to raise their level when they play us and come down to earth against everyone else.Example, they beat us 2-0 in the qualifiers then the next game they go and lose to Guatemala.They havent shown the capability of surprising the big teams like Mexico has.

Well well Australia the worse in the world cup, well see about that!!!! I think Mexico would be about 4th or 5th third the USA and fourth Uruguay, they did lose to Australia, thats because Australia are a good team and you will see that in the world cup. Why are you crying about Mexico being the 5th best anyway, get over it, i hope you do well in the world cup, you will know where your country stands after that

[josh79er]

well said, Australia aren't the easy beats anymore, i think we will show all this come world cup

[ricoo9]

well said, Australia aren't the easy beats anymore, i think we will show all this come world cup

Dont mind him, He was only degrading Australia to make mexico look better. but we all know Australia is better than Mexico and Mexico is not 3rd in Americas;)

[unam_mx]

Well well Australia the worse in the world cup, well see about that!!!! I think Mexico would be about 4th or 5th third the USA and fourth Uruguay, they did lose to Australia, thats because Australia are a good team and you will see that in the world cup. Why are you crying about Mexico being the 5th best anyway, get over it, i hope you do well in the world cup, you will know where your country stands after that

Man dont just come in here and talk crap if u dont even know what's going on...where do I cry because Mexico is 5th?Numerous times (which obviously u didnt take the time to read) I stated that in my opinion Mexico, Paraguay, and the USA were very equal and were all very valid choices for that 3rd spot.I feel Mexico is slightly the better choice with bias included of course, so I would give them that 3rd spot (as has the majority of the people voting in this poll).But if u choose one of those other two, and feel they are slightly better I aint going to make a big deal of it...Mexico can be considered 5th.I dont have a problem with that even if I feel otherwise.I just have a problem with idiots like ricoo who consider them like 10th and puts them behind teams like Venezuela and Peru.

I will however take back my statement about Australia being the worst team...there's worse--T&T, Saudi Arabia, Bahrein.But they still arent very good though, come on they hadnt made a WC in 40 yrs and they looked like crap at the Confed Cup.Beating Uruguay was nice and surprising, but that aint magically going to override all their other poor results.I want some consistency, until then I still wont consider them a good team.

[Saraj Fanatico]

and I say "what you smok'n!?" :smoking:

? Colombia is preety good. They are nowhere close to Brazil and Argentina but they sure as hell can take on all the other NT's.

[FireFan]

It was Mexico, now it's USA. I'm confident that both of these team (yes, I'm including Mexico and it's not easy for me to say that) can beat anybody in the Americas, except Argentina and Brazil.

[ricoo9]

It was Mexico, now it's USA. I'm confident that both of these team (yes, I'm including Mexico and it's not easy for me to say that) can beat anybody in the Americas, except Argentina and Brazil.

Ur right, Mexico and USA can beat any middle team in the americas just as much as any middle team can beat Mexico and USA.

[bernardo8]

Ur right, Mexico and USA can beat any middle team in the americas just as much as any middle team can beat Mexico and USA.

yes, middle teams in the americas can beat mexico and the other way around, but those middle teams only include uruguay and paraguay, so that puts mexico or usa in the 3-6th place in the americas. so don bullshit people saying peru deserves a higher place than mexico, with mexico in like 10th place hahaha

[ricoo9]

yes, middle teams in the americas can beat mexico and the other way around, but those middle teams only include uruguay and paraguay, so that puts mexico or usa in the 3-6th place in the americas. so don bullshit people saying peru deserves a higher place than mexico, with mexico in like 10th place hahaha

u do know Peru beat Mexico 3-1 last time they played right? and before that 1-0...so no uruguay and paraguay arent the only mid level teams, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela should be considered as well.

[unam_mx]

u do know Peru beat Mexico 3-1 last time they played right? and before that 1-0...so no uruguay and paraguay arent the only mid level teams, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela should be considered as well.

You do know Mexico beat Brasil 1-0 last time right?And that they are 5-2-1 in their last 8 games against them right?So does that magically put them on Brasil's level?

Dude all ur crappy logics suck...just cause Peru beat us 3-1 like three yrs ago or cause they beat us 1-0 before that doesnt magically override how pathetically sorry theyve been in every other aspect.Those two games dont magically put them on the level of the Mexico and the rest of the middle teams.They finished 2nd to last in the Conmebol qualifiers!Quit fooling urself and saying they are any good, if they were they wouldnt have finished so low.

Ecuador is good because of Qito's elevation...look up there record as visitors in the qualifiers.

Chile, Colombia...a few yrs ago when Chile had Zamorano and Salas and when Colombia was still strong they were in the 2nd level.But right now both are going through tough moments.You might be able to sneak Colombia in there but Im not so sure about Chile.

Venezuela has made big strides but come on...they still got a ways to go before they can be put with Mex, Par, Uru, and the USA.

[DuZCO]

Dont mind him, He was only degrading Australia to make mexico look better. but we all know Australia is better than Mexico and Mexico is not 3rd in Americas;)

Mexico is argueably the 3rd best team in the Americas. And nobody needs to degrade Australia to make the Mexican NT look better. We all know that Mexico is a way better team than Australia.

[ricoo9]

You do know Mexico beat Brasil 1-0 last time right?And that they are 5-2-1 in their last 8 games against them right?So does that magically put them on Brasil's level?


U do know Mexico always takes their starters right? atleast against the games with Peru, and most south american teams. In the other hand the only exception were Mexico beat Brazils full squad was the conf. cup.



just cause Peru beat us 3-1 like three yrs ago or cause they beat us 1-0 before that doesnt magically override how pathetically sorry theyve been in every other aspect.Those two games dont magically put them on the level of the Mexico and the rest of the middle teams.They finished 2nd to last in the Conmebol qualifiers!Quit fooling urself and saying they are any good, if they were they wouldnt have finished so low.

Everybody had a close race, even Peru and Venezuela were close to qualifying at one point, not till the end did these teams basically lose all possibility of qualifying (by choking) but anybody can beat anybody is what I was saying. Peru beat Uruguay in Montevideo 3-0, they beat Paraguay 4-1 etc if Peru can beat those teams what makes u think they cant beat Mexico again. Like I said, any team can beat Mexico/USA as much as Mexico/USA can beat any team. The only team that had no chance in conmebol was bolivia.

[ricoo9]

Mexico is argueably the 3rd best team in the Americas. And nobody needs to degrade Australia to make the Mexican NT look better. We all know that Mexico is a way better team than Australia.

Sorry to burst ur bubble there bud but Mexico isnt 3rd in the americas, this has already been discussed many times, read the thread, Paraguay consistingly qualifies in the toughest group as 3rd, USA is 7W 1D 2L againt Mexico in the last 10 games and well Uruguay has a great team as well. Its between those teams. :)

[DuZCO]

Sorry to burst ur bubble there bud but Mexico isnt 3rd in the americas, this has already been discussed many times, read the thread, Paraguay consistingly qualifies in the toughest group as 3rd, USA is 7W 1D 2L againt Mexico in the last 10 games and well Uruguay has a great team as well. Its between those teams. :)

Like I said, Mexico is ARGUEABLY the 3rd best team in the Americas. Theres a reason why Mexico is seeded in WC group D. You think the ppl in FIFA jus wake up one morning and think, hmm ...lets seed Mexico this WC. jus cause. No, Theres a system! and like it or not Mexico has qualified within that system.

And another thing, jus like you give arguements for Paraguay, Uruguay and the US to be considered 3rd best theres also reasons to why Mexico has a say in being 3rd best and I know you know them. Don't let the hate blind you bud :yuck:

[kingkong]

It's btw Mexico and Paraguay (Ecuador as runner-up), although Mexico lately's been quite more present in the final segments of America's Cup and Libertadores

[ricoo9]

Like I said, Mexico is ARGUEABLY the 3rd best team in the Americas. Theres a reason why Mexico is seeded in WC group D. You think the ppl in FIFA jus wake up one morning and think, hmm ...lets seed Mexico this WC. jus cause. No, Theres a system! and like it or not Mexico has qualified within that system.

And another thing, jus like you give arguements for Paraguay, Uruguay and the US to be considered 3rd best theres also reasons to why Mexico has a say in being 3rd best and I know you know them. Don't let the hate blind you bud :yuck:

Theres a reason why mexico is seeded, ur right, cuz mexico is better than holland right? :rolleyes: its ok, i'm not the one thats blinded ;)

[FIFAchamp]

lol, ricoo9 u freakin' idiot.... the seeds arent based on who's better.... they're based on wc performances and other such relevant matters.... it doesnt mean that the 8 teams seated are the absolute best teams in the world.... lol, swoooooosh!!!! thats the system going over your head. :lol:

[ricoo9]

lol, ricoo9 u freakin' idiot.... the seeds arent based on who's better.... they're based on wc performances and other such relevant matters.... it doesnt mean that the 8 teams seated are the absolute best teams in the world.... lol, swoooooosh!!!! thats the system going over your head. :lol:

Aha! i see what ur saying, so there r better teams than mexico that werent seeded... ok, makes sense cuz Mexico sucks balls. Btw watch out for Ali Karimi, just one of that guys foot is more talented than the whole mexican squad.

check it out
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6653532141434325232&q=karimi
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8316771386944101426&q=karimi
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4416760598499968831&q=karimi

[FIFAchamp]

Aha! i see what ur saying, so there r better teams than mexico that werent seeded... ok, makes sense cuz Mexico sucks balls. Btw watch out for Ali Karimi, just one of that guys foot is more talented than the whole mexican squad.

check it out
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6653532141434325232&q=karimi
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8316771386944101426&q=karimi
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4416760598499968831&q=karimi

of course there are better teams than mexico that werent seated, isnt it obvious? lol, so u making that comment towards duzco is pretty much pointless... so i see you are on iran's nuts now huh? lol... dude its a shame that in these kind of matches u dont support ur fellow LATINO'S... :sad: i dont know dude, i dont know wat else to say to a person like that...

[ricoo9]

of course there are better teams than mexico that werent seated, isnt it obvious? lol, so u making that comment towards duzco is pretty much pointless... so i see you are on iran's nuts now huh? lol... dude its a shame that in these kind of matches u dont support ur fellow LATINO'S... :sad: i dont know dude, i dont know wat else to say to a person like that...

I usually like to root for the underdogs but since Mexico talks to much shit without ever winning a tournament then what more do u want me to say?... I will be going for most underdogs especially whoever plays brazil :D

[Saraj Fanatico]

Colombia is definently number 3 in the Americas. They even beat Argentina 3:0 once!

[FIFAchamp]

I usually like to root for the underdogs but since Mexico talks to much shit without ever winning a tournament then what more do u want me to say?... I will be going for most underdogs especially whoever plays brazil :D

who? mexico? or like the 3 ppl that have started threads around here? or the ppl that live on ur block? ur neighbors? ur classmates? :lol: dude, even if ALL the mexicans that you KNOW claim that mexico is the best that would still be only .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of ALL the mexicans that think that in mexico and ABROAD. the only time that i hear that a MEXICAN thinks to highly of our team or talks shit is wen i hear a central american or some kind of hater say that THEY heard it somewhere or somehow... trust me, i KNOW more mexicans than you, and NONE of them think mexico is the best or talk shit about the superior countries like arg or bra... perhaps only about some central american countries that hate the fact that mexico can put up a fight against the real powerhouses. so ALL of mexico talks shit you say? lol.... oooookay...

-but you must admit that u do dislike mexico a lot and that is the root for most or all of your double standard comments and attempts to put down mexico... dude fact of the matter is that imna be cheering for the LATINO countries... especially MEXICO and ECUADOR (cuz my gf is ecuadorian, and i'd get in trouble if i didnt :sad: lol) and USA (cuz i live here) hell i dont care if you talk shit and you're from peru, if peru was there i'd cheer for them too, i have peruvian friends, and having your country in the world cup is an awesome feeling, so of course i'd feel their excitement cuz i know how it feels too, as the rest of the 31 other nationalities :D

-btw dont try to resort to wat you see on tv here in the states... "latino" tv will say anything to get more ratings from the biggest latino minority, MEXICANS, so course they'll only praise and talk about the mexican NT, its all about the money with these channels... n besides isnt this the same tv that we heard tell us about "weapons of mass destruction"?:lol: dont believe everything you hear and see on tv son... ;)

[ricoo9]

who? mexico? or like the 3 ppl that have started threads around here? or the ppl that live on ur block? ur neighbors? ur classmates? :lol: dude, even if ALL the mexicans that you KNOW claim that mexico is the best that would still be only .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of ALL the mexicans that think that in mexico and ABROAD. the only time that i hear that a MEXICAN thinks to highly of our team or talks shit is wen i hear a central american or some kind of hater say that THEY heard it somewhere or somehow... trust me, i KNOW more mexicans than you, and NONE of them think mexico is the best or talk shit about the superior countries like arg or bra... perhaps only about some central american countries that hate the fact that mexico can put up a fight against the real powerhouses. so ALL of mexico talks shit you say? lol.... oooookay...

-but you must admit that u do dislike mexico a lot and that is the root for most or all of your double standard comments and attempts to put down mexico... dude fact of the matter is that imna be cheering for the LATINO countries... especially MEXICO and ECUADOR (cuz my gf is ecuadorian, and i'd get in trouble if i didnt :sad: lol) and USA (cuz i live here) hell i dont care if you talk shit and you're from peru, if peru was there i'd cheer for them too, i have peruvian friends, and having your country in the world cup is an awesome feeling, so of course i'd feel their excitement cuz i know how it feels too, as the rest of the 31 other nationalities :D

-btw dont try to resort to wat you see on tv here in the states... "latino" tv will say anything to get more ratings from the biggest latino minority, MEXICANS, so course they'll only praise and talk about the mexican NT, its all about the money with these channels... n besides isnt this the same tv that we heard tell us about "weapons of mass destruction"?:lol: dont believe everything you hear and see on tv son... ;)

Unless ur voice counts for the mllions of mexicans, I can use the same thing ur saying for my argument. Do u know every single Mexican? or when u say Mexicans dont talk shit, u must be talking about the lonely 3 that live in ur neighborhood? dude, even if ALL the mexicans that you KNOW dont talk garbage it would still only be00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of ALL the mexicans that do that in mexico and ABROAD. and its not true that mexicans only claim their the best when somebody tells them different, if not there wouldnt be threads with the names "Mexico wc champions" "Mexico the powerhouse" which were all started without provocation. ;) Even in TV i see it all the time with Mexican players claiming their better than everybody or players like bofo, blanco causing fights because of their "supposed superiority." Just the other day i saw a commercial on tv saying " Borgetti y sus compañeros de bolton intentaran contra __." comon' Borgetti y sus compañeros? He didnt even play that game, yet the commercial makes it look like hes their most important player, simply put pathetic and infuriating. U want talent? Nolberto Solano has scored 4 goals in the last 3 games including one against Bolton, or Mcbride that has just extended his contract with fulham for having consistingly good performances, but Borgetti is not even considered in the bench yet he is Mexicos best national foward:worried: U guys should get ur head out of the clouds man.;) btw when am I gonna kick ur ass in fifa?:D

[FIFAchamp]

Unless ur voice counts for the mllions of mexicans, I can use the same thing ur saying for my argument. Do u know every single Mexican? or when u say Mexicans dont talk shit, u must be talking about the lonely 3 that live in ur neighborhood? dude, even if ALL the mexicans that you KNOW dont talk garbage it would still only be00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of ALL the mexicans that do that in mexico and ABROAD..... 3 lonely that live in my neighborhood? lol, the ones that live on my block are probably more of them than you know, miami is probably the only place where there isnt a strong mexican population... i live in LA... and i fly out to mexico 1 or 2 times a year, i was in mexico during France '98 and i saw mexico games while in mexico... trust me... its safe to say that none of us overrate our team perhaps ONLY .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% actually do...
...and its not true that mexicans only claim their the best when somebody tells them different, if not there wouldnt be threads with the names "Mexico wc champions" "Mexico the powerhouse" which were all started without provocation. ;) yeah the 3 or 4 ppl that make up the miniscule percentage that is forementioned? :lol: and by the way... u got it wrong... we dont claim we are the best wen somebody tell us different... because we arent... we just defend the fact that we can put up good matches against the powerhouses.... .....
Even in TV i see it all the time with Mexican players claiming their better than everybody or players like bofo, blanco causing fights because of their "supposed superiority." Just the other day i saw a commercial on tv saying " Borgetti y sus compañeros de bolton intentaran contra __." comon' Borgetti y sus compañeros? He didnt even play that game, yet the commercial makes it look like hes their most important player, simply put pathetic and infuriating. i see that u disgregared the last part of my previous post... otherwise you wouldnt have been able to use this in your "comeback" :lol: how lame... trust me, watch a sports show in mexico and you'll see that they DONT overrate their team and such commercials dont exist... infact the MEXICAN MEDIA is perhaps the NT's hardest critic, i bet you didnt know that... but of course u didnt, cuz u only go along with wat u see here (where its more important to make money than to show "quality" tv here) u probably also believed that there were weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION huh :lol: ....
U want talent? Nolberto Solano has scored 4 goals in the last 3 games including one against Bolton, or Mcbride that has just extended his contract with fulham for having consistingly good performances, but Borgetti is not even considered in the bench yet he is Mexicos best national foward:worried: U guys should get ur head out of the clouds man.;) btw when am I gonna kick ur ass in fifa?:D
dude im not even talking shit about peru, but ok watever, the MOST PERUVIAN action that we will see in germany this year for the WC will probably be PIZARRO ripping tickets at a stadium entrance :lol: :lol: :lol: maybe Mexico-Portugal? :lol: :lol: :lol:
-and quote a mexican player saying that he is the absolute best player in the world... :lol: oooooookay.

hell i dont care if you talk shit and you're from peru, if peru was there i'd cheer for them too, i have peruvian friends, and having your country in the world cup is an awesome feeling, so of course i'd feel their excitement cuz i know how it feels too, as the rest of the 31 other nationalities
y didnt you quote this huh? cuz u know you wouldnt be man enough to do the same... but i guess u might not know wat national pride is...

btw this was the sorriest reply that ive seen you post up.... u used poor logic and referring back to US television? poor move, even after wat i had said... it looked more like a poor struggle to at least say something back and not be shut down... ive come to expect better from you ricoo9 :sad:

[Orgulho Judeu]

I really think that peopel underestimate Paraguay alot, and honestly I dotn know why...look at 04...they have the ability to be really strong.

[ricoo9]

3 lonely that live in my neighborhood? lol, the ones that live on my block are probably more of them than you know, miami is probably the only place where there isnt a strong mexican population... i live in LA... and i fly out to mexico 1 or 2 times a year, i was in mexico during France '98 and i saw mexico games while in mexico... trust me... its safe to say that none of us overrate our team perhaps ONLY .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% actually do... yeah the 3 or 4 ppl that make up the miniscule percentage that is forementioned? :lol: and by the way... u got it wrong... we dont claim we are the best wen somebody tell us different... because we arent... we just defend the fact that we can put up good matches against the powerhouses.... ..... i see that u disgregared the last part of my previous post... otherwise you wouldnt have been able to use this in your "comeback" :lol: how lame... trust me, watch a sports show in mexico and you'll see that they DONT overrate their team and such commercials dont exist... infact the MEXICAN MEDIA is perhaps the NT's hardest critic, i bet you didnt know that... but of course u didnt, cuz u only go along with wat u see here (where its more important to make money than to show "quality" tv here) u probably also believed that there were weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION huh :lol: ....
dude im not even talking shit about peru, but ok watever, the MOST PERUVIAN action that we will see in germany this year for the WC will probably be PIZARRO ripping tickets at a stadium entrance :lol: :lol: :lol: maybe Mexico-Portugal? :lol: :lol: :lol:
-and quote a mexican player saying that he is the absolute best player in the world... :lol: oooooookay.

y didnt you quote this huh? cuz u know you wouldnt be man enough to do the same... but i guess u might not know wat national pride is...

btw this was the sorriest reply that ive seen you post up.... u used poor logic and referring back to US television? poor move, even after wat i had said... it looked more like a poor struggle to at least say something back and not be shut down... ive come to expect better from you ricoo9 :sad:

Since when did u become this "intellectual" :confused: lol j/k but to tell u the truth u can say w/e about Peru, I'll admit even though they have a High level of indivual talent, (way more than Mexico) for some reason they cannot play well together as a group and thus making them a crap team. U wont see me making threads Peru the powerhouse unlike u Mexicans :lol: I'm realistic, Peru sux as a national team, USA is better than Mexicos NT and Italy forgett about it ;) btw we live in USA, not MExico, and watching garbage like that is just infuriating... they make it seem like Mexico is the best team in the world. and dont deny that those Mexican players r always talking:blabla: crap, one thing is to be confident but being cocky and arrogant is just messed up especially since their not even great players.:boo: and ok so u know more mexicans then I do, what is that make up of all mexicans? like 000000000000000000000000002%??:lol: u see what i mean? we all know there r exceptions but I would say most of u guys think u r this great team. Anyways, we'll see if Mexico can shut ppls mouths come wc time which is very very soon, cant wait! :smoking:

[ricoo9]

I really think that peopel underestimate Paraguay alot, and honestly I dotn know why...look at 04...they have the ability to be really strong.

good to have u back dude:) where have u been?