Not sure why I dignify such rudeness with a response, but...
RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:danivon wrote: There were four other national teams who were not seeded but had a higher ranking than the USA. By definition, then, it was not 'by the slimmest of margins' that they were not. The Netherlands were ranked 8 and were only not seeded because Brazil were as hosts.
Oh for [bleep]'s sake. Can we have any conversation without you just being a complete [bleep]? Is that possible. Do you have to nitpick every [bleep] word?
The USA might well have have outpaced Switzerland had they won in their game Costa Rica instead of losing that qualifier. That's pretty close to something most people thought unthinkable. But nothing like Danivon or Ricky to show up, and attack a simple statement with some nitnoid detail for the sole purpose of being a [bleep].
So, basically, the USA lost a game they should have won, on paper, and that means they were a gnat's breath from being seeded? Guess what? Lose games you should win and that happens.
danivon wrote: If FIFA used a better ranking system, it is not guaranteed that the US would be seeded. The ELO rankings show them in 13th. But England would have been seeded. To be honest, the main reason our FIFA ranking is low is a combination of mediocre results in WC qualifying and a poor choice of friendly opponents.
No, there is no guarantee. And my comments were not at all about the FIFA rankings, but rather their method of determining World Cup groups. The FIFA ranking system is fine as it is. As for other ranking systems England doesn't deserve to be seeded in any conceivable scenario, so a system that would have them in the top 8 is just a load of garbage. England would struggle to qualify in the CONCACAF region with their present team. That doesn't change the fact that the seeding system sucks. But anything to distract the conversation, right? That's pretty much standard procedure for you. You have no point to make, but you must be a [bleep], so...
Sorry, but the seeding for the top pot was the hosts plus the top 7 in the FIFA rankings. It's entirely relevant. Perhaps if you could express yourself without swearing, or fanboy partisanship, you'd be able to make a point beyond 'the system sucks'. What would be a better system?
danivon wrote:England's draw is disappointing not for being a tough group, which it is, or for having to play in Manaus, which sucks,.but because the two major teams there play negatively, and England do not play attractive football either.
Unsurprisingly the above comment make no sense. Playing in Manaus has nothing to do with their opponents' style of play at all. England's draw sucks because they have to play Italy and Uruguay, who are both top 10 teams. England's draw sucks because they are arguably the weakest team in it. While there is yet some hope for them to right the ship, it's unlikely that they will use the players available to them that could get the job done. If they don't develop a goalkeeper, they're going to blow their game against Costa Rica.
This would be because the comment was written in English, not in sweary yahoo. I was not actually talking about England's draw being bad from a fan point of view, but from a football point of view. If you could get your head out of the space of 'my team good, other team sucks' point of view, and of you could read things and respond rationally rather than just glancing and emoting, perhaps you'd get this:
I get that Italy and Uruguay are top-10 teams. That is why I said it was a "tough group" (as well as the fact that Costa Rica are no easy team to play). Manaus is an issue because of the remoteness, the heat and the humidity - the latter does actually have some bearing on how a game is played - you won't see a fast-paced game over 90 minutes with 80% humidity. But that was not my point (hence me putting the first to part in "not for" clauses.
My point was that Italy and Uruguay have reputations (and not particularly undeserved) for playing negative football. Italy tend to rely on defence. Uruguay on thuggery. Costa Rica can play beautifully, or like a bunch of hacks. Combined with England's current lassitude, it makes for a tedious set of games to watch.
I fully expect the USA's group to be far more fun to watch
Dempsey left for a chance to play in Champions League, something that he was promised with Spurs, who failed as usual to deliver. Fulham couldn't offer any realistic hope of that. To link that move to money alone is naive. In the end Fulham made the move about money, since they sold the player, thinking that they could get better with the profits. They didn't.
Several problems with this:
1) Dempsey joined a team that had Europa League football and missed out on CL simply because Chelsea had won it that summer. Tottenham did not 'promise' CL football, but of the teams going in for him at the time (Spurs, Liverpool, Aston Villa), they were also the closest to qualifying in 2012-13 - with their best EPL points & GD ever, but a win away from being in 4th place.
2) I understand that Fulham were unlikely to offer a shot at the CL. But Spurs were not a certain bet and if that really were his motivation, why go to Seattle a year later?
3) he got a pay rise at Spurs
4) What was Fulham supposed to do with a player a year away from the end of his contract who made it clear he wanted to go? Keep him and hope his form didn't get affected and then see him release on a Bosman? Give him away for nowt? No. Given that Liverpool only offered about £3M for him, why should they not accept an offer for £6M? You do realise that football clubs are businesses and not social clubs right?
5) Fulham did not make a huge profit on Dempsey. Sure, he cost $4M in 2007 and was sold for $9.5 in 2012, but if he was on any more than $20K a week that's break-even at best (and ignoring any other clauses). He was a great player for the club and we are grateful for what he did, but he was not sold for the money - as before it was because he wanted to go.
6) Frankly, Fulham were not in the position to use the receipts to much effect. We are generally a selling club (Saha, Smalling, Van der Sar, etc) because we don't have the fanbase and income to just buy whoever we want. Berbatov was a gamble, and on his day he's fantastic, but at the time we had an owner who was seeking to cut his losses. And again - Dempsey wanted to go. I believe FFC would have tried to renew his contract rather than sell, but if didn't want to, it wasn't going to happen.
The deal as it exists now is being described as an (MLS) off season loan. I seriously doubt that Fulham, are going to pay MLS what they just paid Tottenham for Dempsey when they sold him to Spurs in the first place. Maybe they realize their mistake, but it doesn't sound like they've learned their lesson to me. They're getting ready to sell Berbatov now.... If the fans give Dempsey a poor reception then then so be it. Sounds like a great idea, though. Sell Berbatov, and then sit around and pout because another player is coming back to help. That should really help the club.
Sheesh! yes, it's a loan. Not sure that I've seen an indication of buying Clint back anyway. Berba may stay (after all, who would buy him?), but even so I can't see us paying £6m to get Dempsey. Not unless he has a serious uptick in form given his last few months at Seattle.