US Wins World Cup in 2014. NOW what?

[usertron2020]

OK, this is just a Discussion Thread. I searched post-1900, and no other World Cup threads for the US are here for 2014. I KNOW how implausible it all is, as I imagine there are at least six teams out there standing as a Great Wall of China preventing the US from reaching, much less winning, the Final Round. But as was pointed out to me recently, Greece won the EuroCup in 2004 with a very defensive setup, and defense is what Team USA is all about.

There are MANY valid arguments to be made as to why it couldn't happen this time, and while people are free to discuss that of course, I'd like to be educated by people far more knowledgeable about the World's Game than I about how it COULD happen (in 2014), and what would/could be the outcome/consequences of a US World Cup victory.

Opinions?

[Falecius]

It can happen indeed. I mean, it's not that long competition. US team is surely able to get to the eights of even the fourths, and then they basically need a lot of luck, some of the strongest teams eliminating each other, and they could manage. Unlikely, very unlikely, but not impossible.
As for the consequences... I suppose, essentially, zero. Nil. Nothing. Football would be a bit more popular in the US, Italians and Brazilians and Argentines would pretend to be pissed off for a week, and that's it.

[Porthos]

What is the US's SPI ranking right now anyway?

*checks*

Erf. 35

And over at FIFA?

Not much better at 32.

I seem to recall it being ranked in the upper to mid teens in '10.

====

As for the consequences, footie fans in England* are even more pissed off about where their nation is in regards to the sport than they already are.
* UK not used on purpose.

[jotabe1789]

Football, as Gary Lineker pointed out, is a game where 11 players play against 11, and at the end the Germans win.

So, as long as you don't play against Germany, you're golden

Seriously speaking, it's unlikely, but not THAT unlikely. In football there is very little scoring, so the statistical analysis (that is possible in other games with high scoring) is meaningless. A bad team can defeat a good team. Bad players can defeat good players.

Of course, as you said, the basics is getting a reliable defense, supported by a defensive midfield. Luck can get you to wind the finals, but you have to get there, first.

With a solid defense, the rival creative players can be muddied down and effectively removed from the game. If the defensive team can keep it up, and is lucky to score a counter-strike, that's a win.

Biggest problem is the lack of competitivity of the soccer. American players play very little matches, and the american soccer leagues are very low profile, so they can't improve much. The idea of getting "old glories" from the european leagues is good, but it's too little.

I imagine an integrated league for all the CONCACAF members, or even just the NAFU members, would help the competitivity quite a bit.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Falecius

It can happen indeed. I mean, it's not that long competition. US team is surely able to get to the eights of even the fourths, and then they basically need a lot of luck, some of the strongest teams eliminating each other, and they could manage. Unlikely, very unlikely, but not impossible.
As for the consequences... I suppose, essentially, zero. Nil. Nothing. Football would be a bit more popular in the US, Italians and Brazilians and Argentines would pretend to be pissed off for a week, and that's it.

And if as host country, Brazil LOSES to the US in the Final Round?

Originally Posted by Porthos

What is the US's SPI ranking right now anyway? *checks* Erf. 35

And over at FIFA? Not much better at 32. I seem to recall it being ranked in the upper to mid teens in '10.

As for the consequences, footie fans in England* are even more pissed off about where their nation is in regards to the sport than they already are.
* UK not used on purpose.

As above. If England LOSES to the US in the Final Round?

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by jotabe1789

Football, as Gary Lineker pointed out, is a game where 11 players play against 11, and at the end the Germans win.

So, as long as you don't play against Germany, you're golden

Seriously speaking, it's unlikely, but not THAT unlikely. In football there is very little scoring, so the statistical analysis (that is possible in other games with high scoring) is meaningless. A bad team can defeat a good team. Bad players can defeat good players.

Of course, as you said, the basics is getting a reliable defense, supported by a defensive midfield. Luck can get you to wind the finals, but you have to get there, first.

With a solid defense, the rival creative players can be muddied down and effectively removed from the game. If the defensive team can keep it up, and is lucky to score a counter-strike, that's a win.

Biggest problem is the lack of competitivity of the soccer. American players play very little matches, and the american soccer leagues are very low profile, so they can't improve much. The idea of getting "old glories" from the european leagues is good, but it's too little.

I imagine an integrated league for all the CONCACAF members, or even just the NAFU members, would help the competitivity quite a bit.

Thank you for the education.

Can you tell me your opinion of the politicization of World Cup Soccer officiating? In the Olympics it is wildly manifest (the stories I could tell you of the 1972 Munich Olympics, and I'm not referring to the massacre of the Israeli athletes), and if it's 10% as bad in the World Cup...

[Devvy]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

Can you tell me your opinion of the politicization of World Cup Soccer officiating? In the Olympics it is wildly manifest (the stories I could tell you of the 1972 Munich Olympics, and I'm not referring to the massacre of the Israeli athletes), and if it's 10% as bad in the World Cup...

As an avid football (soccer) fan, I don't think there is really any politicisation in the refereeing of matches. The referees are always from a neutral 3rd country (and all 4 of the officials at least speak the same language, and are usually from the same country).

A bigger problem is that refereeing a football match is incredibly subjective. What is a foul to one man, can be legitimate to another. There are no video replays allowed, and the referee must make a snap decision on whether something is a foul in a second. Linesmen must make instant decisions on whether a player is offside based on where the ball is, when is was struck, where the last defender is, and where the attacker is.

Nothing is perfect in this world, but it generally ends up being reasonably fair over the course of a 90 minute match, but sometimes you do get matches where you feel all the official's decisions have gone for the other team.

All the decisions are then later scrutinised in TV analysis; a benefit which the referees don't have during the match.

[The Red]

Originally Posted by jotabe1789

Football, as Gary Lineker pointed out, is a game where 11 players play against 11, and at the end the Germans win.

So, as long as you don't play against Germany, you're golden

Although a more contemporary example might be Spain

But if the Americans do manage to win, either by fluke or by a heavily defensive set-up, it's dismissed as a blip.

[Porthos]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

As above. If England LOSES to the US in the Final Round?

English football fans spend so much money in pubs and on drinks afterwards (in an attempt to drown out their sorrows [and blot out the memory of what just happened]) that the British Economy enters a boom period. This economic recovery is strong enough to bring back the Tories with a full majority government, altering the future of British politics forever.

Also, once finding out that no amount of booze can possibly erase the memory of losing the Cup in the final round to the YANKS, these same fans go on a wild spree of debauchery with their significant others in the fleeting hope of trying to get some pleasure to soothe their damaged souls.

This, naturally, leads to a baby boom nine months later.

20+ years later these Cup Babies propel the British society into a new found period of prosperity, due to the fact that they were one of the few Wester Powers that actually experienced a rise in birthrate at the time.

So, you see, far from being inconsequential, America beating England in the World Cup could prove to be a pivotal moment in British history!
*gets coat and eyes the doorway* :-D

[Devvy]

It'd be far from the craziest thing to happen in football (to return to the OP). As noted, football is a low scoring sport, where one team can be far superior but just can not get the ball into the goal, and the crap team can get a fluke goal. It's part of the attraction of the sport - as long as you're prepared to work hard and well together, there's always a chance of beating a far superior team.

There's also a good deal of good US players who play in the English Prem, so you a small group of players who are used to playing at a top level.

Other then that; butterflies would probably be as already noted. More popularity in the US. Whatever team the US defeated in the final vows revenge and is widely insulted for losing to a non-footballing nation in the final.

[jotabe1789]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

Thank you for the education.

Can you tell me your opinion of the politicization of World Cup Soccer officiating? In the Olympics it is wildly manifest (the stories I could tell you of the 1972 Munich Olympics, and I'm not referring to the massacre of the Israeli athletes), and if it's 10% as bad in the World Cup...

There isn't much politization, but there is definitely a slant to favour "home" teams*. It's unavoidable, though, it happens in ever football championship: the home team has a higher probability of being given a favourable decisions when there is doubt (in dubio pro domo XD). It needs not even be a conscientious thing... referees are human, and susceptible to the environment.

So yeah, another World Cup played in the US would definitely give you an edge. In 2014... avoid Brazil in the knockout!

*this gives extra value to Spain's victory We are the only team with only 1 World Cup that didn't win it at home.

Originally Posted by Porthos

An awesome story

Great scenario! XD

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Devvy

As an avid football (soccer) fan, I don't think there is really any politicisation in the refereeing of matches. The referees are always from a neutral 3rd country (and all 4 of the officials at least speak the same language, and are usually from the same country).

A bigger problem is that refereeing a football match is incredibly subjective. What is a foul to one man, can be legitimate to another. There are no video replays allowed, and the referee must make a snap decision on whether something is a foul in a second. Linesmen must make instant decisions on whether a player is offside based on where the ball is, when is was struck, where the last defender is, and where the attacker is.

Nothing is perfect in this world, but it generally ends up being reasonably fair over the course of a 90 minute match, but sometimes you do get matches where you feel all the official's decisions have gone for the other team.

All the decisions are then later scrutinised in TV analysis; a benefit which the referees don't have during the match.

Thank you for all that. Guess I saw the Sylvester Stallone/Michael Caine/Pele movie "Victory" too many times.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by The Red

Although a more contemporary example might be Spain

But if the Americans do manage to win, either by fluke or by a heavily defensive set-up, it's dismissed as a blip.

Or else charged as sabotage by the CIA. Assuming the losing country in the Final Round is Iran.

Originally Posted by Porthos

English football fans spend so much money in pubs and on drinks afterwards (in an attempt to drown out their sorrows [and blot out the memory of what just happened]) that the British Economy enters a boom period. This economic recovery is strong enough to bring back the Tories with a full majority government, altering the future of British politics forever.

Don't worry. The Tories will blow it again.

Also, once finding out that no amount of booze can possibly erase the memory of losing the Cup in the final round to the YANKS, these same fans go on a wild spree of debauchery with their significant others in the fleeting hope of trying to get some pleasure to soothe their damaged souls.

Just remember it's still another World Cup for the English Speaking Peoples!

This, naturally, leads to a baby boom nine months later.

20+ years later these Cup Babies propel the British society into a new found period of prosperity, due to the fact that they were one of the few Western Powers that actually experienced a rise in birthrate at the time.

Not to mention many young players available to rejuvenate and bolster Team England for the World Cup 2034, 2038, 2042, 2046...

So, you see, far from being inconsequential, America beating England in the World Cup could prove to be a pivotal moment in British history!
*gets coat and eyes the doorway*

Well, you could always auto-goal the US to victory...

Originally Posted by Devvy

It'd be far from the craziest thing to happen in football (to return to the OP). As noted, football is a low scoring sport, where one team can be far superior but just can not get the ball into the goal, and the crap team can get a fluke goal. It's part of the attraction of the sport - as long as you're prepared to work hard and well together, there's always a chance of beating a far superior team.

There's also a good deal of good US players who play in the English Prem, so you a small group of players who are used to playing at a top level.

Other then that; butterflies would probably be as already noted. More popularity in the US. Whatever team the US defeated in the final vows revenge and is widely insulted for losing to a non-footballing nation in the final.

Which country's team do you think would take it the worst? Besides the above mentioned Iran, that is...

Originally Posted by jotabe1789

There isn't much politization, but there is definitely a slant to favour "home" teams*. It's unavoidable, though, it happens in ever football championship: the home team has a higher probability of being given a favourable decisions when there is doubt (in dubio pro domo XD). It needs not even be a conscientious thing... referees are human, and susceptible to the environment.(1)

So yeah, another World Cup played in the US would definitely give you an edge. In 2014... avoid Brazil in the knockout! (2)

*this gives extra value to Spain's victory We are the only team with only 1 World Cup that didn't win it at home.

Great scenario! XD

1) OTOH, there's also the "easier to melt into the local population" thing.

2) If you want the Brazilian goalie to get out of the stadium alive!

[PulkitNahata]

NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.:ee k:

No more Islamic terrorists in the USA, only Football terrorist suicide bombers

[tallthinkev]

As for in the US, in the short term. I could see it more aceptable for boys to play football at school and a higher number of people watching football, live and in bars. Also it is much cheaper to buy a football kit than the pads that, (can I call them whimps) use so they don't get hurt (come on man up and grow a set). But the whole thing would be very short lived. Also which tv station would be bothered to show it in the first place, apart from ESPN?

[Uff Da the optimist]

I'll tell you what would happen:

Europe and Latin-America, enraged at a nation which refers to the beautiful sport as "soccer" has won the world cup, cuts off all economic, social and diplomatic relations and pretends the area between Canada and Mexico doesn't exist.

or, the more realistic one

WW3, everybody against the U.S

[Devvy]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

Which country's team do you think would take it the worst? Besides the above mentioned Iran, that is...

At a guess, one of the South American heavy weights? Maybe Brazil or Argentina.

A European heavyweight (as well as England for historical rivalry reasons!) wouldn't take it much better, but at least in England (and probably Europe to a lesser degree) we have the easy benefit of seeing top US players playing in the Premier League, so can see the quality that the US has on offer, something that makes defeat a bit easier to swallow.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Uff Da the optimist

I'll tell you what would happen:

Europe and Latin-America, enraged at a nation which refers to the beautiful sport as "soccer" has won the world cup, cuts off all economic, social and diplomatic relations and pretends the area between Canada and Mexico doesn't exist.

or, the more realistic one

WW3, everybody against the U.S

Yeah, that was my bet.

[Derek Pullem]

Being serious - I suspect that it might lead to some questions being asked about the rigour of the CONCACAF qualification system and lead to a group based system along with South America. At the moment CONCACAF's qualification system is very favourable to Mexico and USA who would need to be asleep at the wheel not to qualification in a final group that is top 3 (and a half) out of 6 to qualify.

In Europe every qualifier will face another "good" team in their group (as well as at least two making up the numbers) and the loser may have a shot at a playoff.

This would all be sour grapes after the USA won but FIFA works like that.

[Falecius]

Originally Posted by Devvy

At a guess, one of the South American heavy weights? Maybe Brazil or Argentina.

A European heavyweight (as well as England for historical rivalry reasons!) wouldn't take it much better, but at least in England (and probably Europe to a lesser degree) we have the easy benefit of seeing top US players playing in the Premier League, so can see the quality that the US has on offer, something that makes defeat a bit easier to swallow.

Yeah, Argentina and Brazil won't take kindly the Yankees stealing THEIR cup. Especially if Brazil loses the final at home. It was quite a blow to the national pride when Uruguay won in 1950, and the US don't even have the excuse of being South Americans.