Soccer Topics: No goalies in the USA

65,148 Views | 1152 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by sluggo
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Australia is not good

They were good enough to win their first game 2-0. Like Paraguay, not great but not terrible either. The US dominated both.



To my amateur eye it looked like they sent their rugby team by mistake. Slow, disorganized , terrible concept of offense

They're a defensive team that deliberately tries to muck the game up and score when the opponent gets frustrated and makes mistakes. Much of that look was intentional. Plenty of offenses can be ground down by that, but the US was able to punch in some goals and kill that strategy. Turkey couldn't.


US is playing well but this group looks weak. Trump probably put the fix in with FISA.

Host teams typically get weaker groups and this is by design.

Still, we've never seen a US men's team guarantee themselves a playoff spot after 2 group games before. To do it by a 6-1 goal margin is super impressive any way you slice it.


48 teams instead of 32, apples and oranges.

Also true, but again, this kind of performance is not what anyone was predicting even with the easier group. 6 goals to 1 is way ahead of expectations.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
True.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Paraguay beats Turkey, so USA has already won their group.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Paraguay beats Turkey, so USA has already won their group.

The USA has not won its group. If they lose and Paraguay or Australia wins then two teams are on six points and the first tiebreaker is goal difference. The USA has clinched second.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well that was the most fun I have ever had at a sporting event. I was more excited at the Cal-UW football game in 1991, but then Beno Bryant broke off the game winning touchdown and I left feeling deflated.

Australia more or less never left their mid block. A mid block is when a team does not pressure the ball hard but puts a lot of players in the midfield to try to prevent fast movement through the defense. The US was patient and got lots of opportunities. While both goals were a little lucky, if you get lots of chances, you are likely to break through.

The US was not very dynamic without Pulisic. He not only draws double teams but also makes the great pass to break down the defense. I look forward to his return in the round of 32.

I think the US will play reserves against Turkiye. I suspect the game will be 0-0. With a 5 goal difference with Australia and a 7 goal difference against Paraguay, almost any decent performance will win the group. And then they play the round of 32 in Santa Clara. I kind of wish I was going to be in the country.
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sluggo said:

sycasey said:

Paraguay beats Turkey, so USA has already won their group.

The USA has not won its group. If they lose and Paraguay or Australia wins then two teams are on six points and the first tiebreaker is goal difference. The USA has clinched second.

Unless they have changed the rules for this part of the tournament. In a typical tournament they would not have won the group.
ducktilldeath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Australia is not good

They were good enough to win their first game 2-0. Like Paraguay, not great but not terrible either. The US dominated both.



To my amateur eye it looked like they sent their rugby team by mistake. Slow, disorganized , terrible concept of offense

They're a defensive team that deliberately tries to muck the game up and score when the opponent gets frustrated and makes mistakes. Much of that look was intentional. Plenty of offenses can be ground down by that, but the US was able to punch in some goals and kill that strategy. Turkey couldn't.


US is playing well but this group looks weak. Trump probably put the fix in with FISA.

Host teams typically get weaker groups and this is by design.

Still, we've never seen a US men's team guarantee themselves a playoff spot after 2 group games before. To do it by a 6-1 goal margin is super impressive any way you slice it.


48 teams instead of 32, apples and oranges.

Clown post. The US is the first (and currently only) team in the WC that has wins over two other winners. Additionally, entering the WC, Group D was the 2nd highest average ranked group. Furthermore, of the highest ranked teams in each group, the US faces the highest average ranked trio in the entire WC group stage.There is no Saudi Arabia or Curacao or Cabo Verde or New Zealand. The average of the lowest ranked team in each group is 64. The worst team the US faces in group play entered the WC ranked 40th.

I'll keep going.

Group D is one of only 2 groups (F) with all 4 teams ranked in the top 40. It is the ONLY group that entered the WC with their top 3 teams ranked in the top 27.

In other words, if we want to judge strength of schedule by the average FIFA rank entering the WC the US literally has the single most difficult schedule of any team in the WC.

You can argue cherry picking, you can argue rankings, you can argue being top heavy is worse than being good across the board, but the fact of the matter is that your insinuation that the US is only having historic success(so far) is because 16 more teams are in is utter garbage.

Willful ignorance is fine, I don't know **** about cricket, but I'm not going to go be an ******* in the cricket thread about something I know nothing about. You on the other hand...
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sluggo said:

sluggo said:

sycasey said:

Paraguay beats Turkey, so USA has already won their group.

The USA has not won its group. If they lose and Paraguay or Australia wins then two teams are on six points and the first tiebreaker is goal difference. The USA has clinched second.

Unless they have changed the rules for this part of the tournament. In a typical tournament they would not have won the group.


Yes, I believe they have changed the rules. First tiebreaker is head-to-head.
Censorship has always been a tool of the fascist
sluggo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

sluggo said:

sluggo said:

sycasey said:

Paraguay beats Turkey, so USA has already won their group.

The USA has not won its group. If they lose and Paraguay or Australia wins then two teams are on six points and the first tiebreaker is goal difference. The USA has clinched second.

Unless they have changed the rules for this part of the tournament. In a typical tournament they would not have won the group.


Yes, I believe they have changed the rules. First tiebreaker is head-to-head.

It does appear that way given all the media reports. I am not sure I understand why.
ducktilldeath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sluggo said:

dajo9 said:

sluggo said:

sluggo said:

sycasey said:

Paraguay beats Turkey, so USA has already won their group.

The USA has not won its group. If they lose and Paraguay or Australia wins then two teams are on six points and the first tiebreaker is goal difference. The USA has clinched second.

Unless they have changed the rules for this part of the tournament. In a typical tournament they would not have won the group.


Yes, I believe they have changed the rules. First tiebreaker is head-to-head.

It does appear that way given all the media reports. I am not sure I understand why.

Because they are greedy idiots who can't think beyond the length of their own noses. 8 third place teams go through which means 4 first place teams will have to face group runner ups. That's not fair. Teams can now win their group after only 2 games and completely rest game three giving whoever their opponent is a massive advantage. What if the US had beaten Turkiye their first match and rested starters and lost or drew to Paraguay in match 3? That's not fair. Fair? Who cares? Straight cash homey!
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sluggo said:

dajo9 said:

sluggo said:

sluggo said:

sycasey said:

Paraguay beats Turkey, so USA has already won their group.

The USA has not won its group. If they lose and Paraguay or Australia wins then two teams are on six points and the first tiebreaker is goal difference. The USA has clinched second.

Unless they have changed the rules for this part of the tournament. In a typical tournament they would not have won the group.


Yes, I believe they have changed the rules. First tiebreaker is head-to-head.

It does appear that way given all the media reports. I am not sure I understand why.


I think it's better to have head to head be a first tiebreaker though it will lead to more meaningless games. USA vs. Turkey would be important for both teams under the old rules (though the US would probably force a boring 0-0 draw).
Censorship has always been a tool of the fascist
ducktilldeath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

sluggo said:

dajo9 said:

sluggo said:

sluggo said:

sycasey said:

Paraguay beats Turkey, so USA has already won their group.

The USA has not won its group. If they lose and Paraguay or Australia wins then two teams are on six points and the first tiebreaker is goal difference. The USA has clinched second.

Unless they have changed the rules for this part of the tournament. In a typical tournament they would not have won the group.


Yes, I believe they have changed the rules. First tiebreaker is head-to-head.

It does appear that way given all the media reports. I am not sure I understand why.


I think it's better to have head to head be a first tiebreaker though it will lead to more meaningless games. USA vs. Turkey would be important for both teams under the old rules (though the US would probably force a boring 0-0 draw).

It's just not. It completely upends competitive balance.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducktilldeath said:

dajo9 said:

sluggo said:

dajo9 said:

sluggo said:

sluggo said:

sycasey said:

Paraguay beats Turkey, so USA has already won their group.

The USA has not won its group. If they lose and Paraguay or Australia wins then two teams are on six points and the first tiebreaker is goal difference. The USA has clinched second.

Unless they have changed the rules for this part of the tournament. In a typical tournament they would not have won the group.


Yes, I believe they have changed the rules. First tiebreaker is head-to-head.

It does appear that way given all the media reports. I am not sure I understand why.


I think it's better to have head to head be a first tiebreaker though it will lead to more meaningless games. USA vs. Turkey would be important for both teams under the old rules (though the US would probably force a boring 0-0 draw).

It's just not. It completely upends competitive balance.


I read your previous post and couldn't follow the logic. Feel free to try again.
Censorship has always been a tool of the fascist
ducktilldeath
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

ducktilldeath said:

dajo9 said:

sluggo said:

dajo9 said:

sluggo said:

sluggo said:

sycasey said:

Paraguay beats Turkey, so USA has already won their group.

The USA has not won its group. If they lose and Paraguay or Australia wins then two teams are on six points and the first tiebreaker is goal difference. The USA has clinched second.

Unless they have changed the rules for this part of the tournament. In a typical tournament they would not have won the group.


Yes, I believe they have changed the rules. First tiebreaker is head-to-head.

It does appear that way given all the media reports. I am not sure I understand why.


I think it's better to have head to head be a first tiebreaker though it will lead to more meaningless games. USA vs. Turkey would be important for both teams under the old rules (though the US would probably force a boring 0-0 draw).

It's just not. It completely upends competitive balance.


I read your previous post and couldn't follow the logic. Feel free to try again.

Nah, you're the one who needs a better effort. It's not hard to grasp.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

sluggo said:

sluggo said:

sycasey said:

Paraguay beats Turkey, so USA has already won their group.

The USA has not won its group. If they lose and Paraguay or Australia wins then two teams are on six points and the first tiebreaker is goal difference. The USA has clinched second.

Unless they have changed the rules for this part of the tournament. In a typical tournament they would not have won the group.


Yes, I believe they have changed the rules. First tiebreaker is head-to-head.
you are correct. They did change the rules this year.
Head to head is now a tiebreaker ahead of goal differential.
I had to educate myself about this yesterday morning.

USA has locked up group D because we beat both Australia and Paraguay, despite them being capable of matching us with 6 points at the end of Group stage.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Boy, you sure were cantankerous in your prior exchange.

I get your post about average ranking, but did you know how groups were filled? You might want to read up on it. Here's a try:


Short answer:
FIFA created balanced World Cup groups by placing teams into pots using (1) host status, (2) FIFA ranking, and (3) geographic restrictions.
Because hosts were automatically placed in Pot 1 - the same pot as the world's strongest teams - they were treated as if they were topranked. This guaranteed that each host avoided playing any of the very strongest nations in the group stage, giving them a structural advantage.

Below is the full, structured explanation, grounded in the official 2026 draw procedures.


---

How FIFA built the World Cup pots

FIFA used three layers of logic to create balanced groups of four:

---

1 Host placement

FIFA automatically placed Canada, Mexico, and the United States into Pot 1, the top-seeded pot.

This is explicitly stated in the 2026 draw rules:
"The hosts Canada, Mexico and the USA will be allocated to pot 1."
They were also preassigned to specific group positions (A1, B1, D1).


Effect:
Even if a host nation was not one of the world's best teams, they were treated as if they were, receiving the same seeding protection as Spain, Argentina, France, England, Brazil, etc.

---

2 Top-ranked teams

After placing the hosts, FIFA filled the rest of Pot 1 with the nine highest-ranked teams in the FIFA World Ranking (Nov 2025).


Pot 1 for 2026 included:
Spain, Argentina, France, England, Brazil, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany + the 3 hosts.

Effect:
Each group received exactly one elite team (or host treated as elite).
This prevents "Group of Death" scenarios where multiple top5 teams land together.

---

3 Geographical restrictions

To avoid regional clustering, FIFA applied confederation limits:

No group may contain more than one team from the same confederation,
except UEFA, which can have two per group because Europe has many qualifiers.



Effect:
This prevents, for example, three South American teams or three African teams from being drawn together, keeping groups globally balanced.

---

How the pots were filled

Using the above rules, FIFA created four pots of 12 teams each:

Pot 1: Hosts + top-ranked teams

Canada, Mexico, USA, Spain, Argentina, France, England, Brazil, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany
FIFA

Pot 2: Next 12 highest-ranked teams

Croatia, Morocco, Colombia, Uruguay, Switzerland, Japan, Senegal, Iran, Korea Republic, Ecuador, Austria, Australia
FIFA

Pot 3: Next 12

Norway, Panama, Egypt, Algeria, Scotland, Paraguay, Tunisia, Cte d'Ivoire, Uzbekistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa
FIFA

Pot 4: Lowest-ranked + playoff placeholders

Jordan, Cabo Verde, Ghana, Curaao, Haiti, New Zealand, plus UEFA playoff A-D and FIFA playoff teams
FIFA

---

Why hosts gained a real competitive advantage

This is the part you asked about directly.

Hosts were treated as if they were topranked

Even if a host nation was ranked 20th, 30th, or 40th, they were placed in Pot 1, the same pot as Spain, Argentina, France, and England.

This gave hosts two major advantages:

---

1. They avoided all elite teams in the group stage

Because Pot 1 teams cannot be drawn together, each host automatically avoided:

Spain
Argentina
France
England
Brazil
Portugal
Netherlands
Belgium
Germany


This is a massive competitive benefit.
A host could not be placed in a "Group of Death" with two global giants - they were the protected seed.

---

2. They received the best scheduling and venue positions

Hosts were preassigned to the first slot in their groups (A1, B1, D1), which determines:

Opening match timing
Stadium assignment
Travel minimization
Prime-time broadcast windows


These are advantages normally reserved for the world's strongest teams.

---

Why FIFA does this

FIFA's logic is simple:

Hosts drive ticket sales, TV ratings, and local engagement.
Ensuring hosts survive the group stage increases tournament stability and interest.
Historically, hosts perform better when seeded (e.g., South Korea 2002, Russia 2018).


So FIFA's system intentionally gives hosts a soft landing.

---

Summary

FIFA created balanced groups by:

Placing hosts in Pot 1 (even if not elite)
Filling the rest of Pot 1 with top-ranked teams
Applying geographic restrictions


This gave hosts a major advantage:
They avoided every top global power in the group stage and were treated exactly like a topranked team.

---
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducktilldeath said:

Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Australia is not good

They were good enough to win their first game 2-0. Like Paraguay, not great but not terrible either. The US dominated both.



To my amateur eye it looked like they sent their rugby team by mistake. Slow, disorganized , terrible concept of offense

They're a defensive team that deliberately tries to muck the game up and score when the opponent gets frustrated and makes mistakes. Much of that look was intentional. Plenty of offenses can be ground down by that, but the US was able to punch in some goals and kill that strategy. Turkey couldn't.


US is playing well but this group looks weak. Trump probably put the fix in with FISA.

Host teams typically get weaker groups and this is by design.

Still, we've never seen a US men's team guarantee themselves a playoff spot after 2 group games before. To do it by a 6-1 goal margin is super impressive any way you slice it.


48 teams instead of 32, apples and oranges.

Clown post. The US is the first (and currently only) team in the WC that has wins over two other winners. Additionally, entering the WC, Group D was the 2nd highest average ranked group. Furthermore, of the highest ranked teams in each group, the US faces the highest average ranked trio in the entire WC group stage.There is no Saudi Arabia or Curacao or Cabo Verde or New Zealand. The average of the lowest ranked team in each group is 64. The worst team the US faces in group play entered the WC ranked 40th.

I'll keep going.

Group D is one of only 2 groups (F) with all 4 teams ranked in the top 40. It is the ONLY group that entered the WC with their top 3 teams ranked in the top 27.

In other words, if we want to judge strength of schedule by the average FIFA rank entering the WC the US literally has the single most difficult schedule of any team in the WC.

You can argue cherry picking, you can argue rankings, you can argue being top heavy is worse than being good across the board, but the fact of the matter is that your insinuation that the US is only having historic success(so far) is because 16 more teams are in is utter garbage.

Willful ignorance is fine, I don't know **** about cricket, but I'm not going to go be an ******* in the cricket thread about something I know nothing about. You on the other hand...


Hup Holland Hup!
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SO, SATURDAY MORNING DISCUSSION

Now that USA can lose to Turkey, how should Coach line up the team in a meaningless game next Thursday evening vs Turkey ?

I think I would rest ALL the starters and anyone on yellow.
What a luxury.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Because the following are on yellow, and any card vs turkey requires next game suspension, I would sit:
Tyler Adams
Antonee Robinson
Folarin Balogun
Chris Richards

I'd also rest pulisic and starters, protecting from injury and exhaustion.
Play backups in case we go deep in the tourney and need them.

Therefore,

Quote:


Left Back
Max Arfsten


* Naturally a wingback/fullback.
* Very attack-minded.
* Left-footed.
* Most comfortable at LB/LWB.

Right Back
Joe Scally


* True right back.
* Strong defender.
* Less adventurous than Dest or Freeman.
* Easiest position to place.

Center Backs
The two natural CBs are:
* Auston Trusty
* Mark McKenzie


Both play center back professionally and are left/right-center-back capable.

Defensive Midfielder
That leaves:
Miles Robinson


He is actually a center back, but among these five he is:

* Fastest
* Most athletic
* Best recovery defender
* Most capable of stepping into midfield and cleaning up transitions

So if you absolutely had to field only these five together, I'd put Miles in the Adams role.





If we vomit at the thought of Miles as Adams Defensive Mid, then

Quote:



Clear #6 backup
Cristian Roldan

* Most frequently used "drop-in Adams replacement"
* Plays the role as:
* ball-winner
* positional screen in front of CBs
* simple distributor, not a creator
* Coaches trust him in tournament settings specifically because he's low-risk

Multiple squad analyses and depth charts consistently list him as the direct backup 6 behind Adams.



Gio Reyna hasn't got a lot of minutes, so let's start he and Berhalter in front of Roldan.

That leaves Aaronson out left and
Weah out right.
Haji Wright can play target striker.


Commentary:
Quote:


Giovanni Reyna

He is actually the bridge player in your entire system.
He doesn't fit as a pure winger anymore at his best level - he fits as:

* central creator
* second striker drifting
* "free 10"

If you want him lots of minutes, you build the team around him, not slot him in.

1. Defensive mid / pivot
* Cristian Roldan

* least tactically risky
* high work rate
* can sit in front of your "CB-heavy experiment"

2. Central mid
* Sebastian Berhalter

* Help build out of pressure
* simple circulation
* safe outlet under press

Support Reyna
* keep central structure stable
* allow Reyna to stay higher

Connect phases
* not break shape
* keep possession tidy

3. Left attack
* Brenden Aaronson

* presses like crazy
* fits against Turkey's build-out style

4. Right attack
Tim Weah

5. Central striker
Haji Wright




Zendejas and Miles would be subs, last men used.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sluggo said:

Well that was the most fun I have ever had at a sporting event. I was more excited at the Cal-UW football game in 1991, but then Beno Bryant broke off the game winning touchdown and I left feeling deflated.

Australia more or less never left their mid block. A mid block is when a team does not pressure the ball hard but puts a lot of players in the midfield to try to prevent fast movement through the defense. The US was patient and got lots of opportunities. While both goals were a little lucky, if you get lots of chances, you are likely to break through.

The US was not very dynamic without Pulisic. He not only draws double teams but also makes the great pass to break down the defense. I look forward to his return in the round of 32.

I think the US will play reserves against Turkiye. I suspect the game will be 0-0. With a 5 goal difference with Australia and a 7 goal difference against Paraguay, almost any decent performance will win the group. And then they play the round of 32 in Santa Clara. I kind of wish I was going to be in the country.


Congrats and thx.

I look forward to you doing a better job on the reserves lineup vs turkey than I did.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

ducktilldeath said:

Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Australia is not good

They were good enough to win their first game 2-0. Like Paraguay, not great but not terrible either. The US dominated both.



To my amateur eye it looked like they sent their rugby team by mistake. Slow, disorganized , terrible concept of offense

They're a defensive team that deliberately tries to muck the game up and score when the opponent gets frustrated and makes mistakes. Much of that look was intentional. Plenty of offenses can be ground down by that, but the US was able to punch in some goals and kill that strategy. Turkey couldn't.


US is playing well but this group looks weak. Trump probably put the fix in with FISA.

Host teams typically get weaker groups and this is by design.

Still, we've never seen a US men's team guarantee themselves a playoff spot after 2 group games before. To do it by a 6-1 goal margin is super impressive any way you slice it.


48 teams instead of 32, apples and oranges.

Clown post. The US is the first (and currently only) team in the WC that has wins over two other winners. Additionally, entering the WC, Group D was the 2nd highest average ranked group. Furthermore, of the highest ranked teams in each group, the US faces the highest average ranked trio in the entire WC group stage.There is no Saudi Arabia or Curacao or Cabo Verde or New Zealand. The average of the lowest ranked team in each group is 64. The worst team the US faces in group play entered the WC ranked 40th.

I'll keep going.

Group D is one of only 2 groups (F) with all 4 teams ranked in the top 40. It is the ONLY group that entered the WC with their top 3 teams ranked in the top 27.

In other words, if we want to judge strength of schedule by the average FIFA rank entering the WC the US literally has the single most difficult schedule of any team in the WC.

You can argue cherry picking, you can argue rankings, you can argue being top heavy is worse than being good across the board, but the fact of the matter is that your insinuation that the US is only having historic success(so far) is because 16 more teams are in is utter garbage.

Willful ignorance is fine, I don't know **** about cricket, but I'm not going to go be an ******* in the cricket thread about something I know nothing about. You on the other hand...


Hup Holland Hup!


He's a disappointed Yugoslavia fan
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For anyone still confused


Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This new rule sucks, it destroys interest and incentive for teams to play in matchday 3 games and ends up distorting the competitive process in group play. It will probably be removed in 2030.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

SO, SATURDAY MORNING DISCUSSION

Now that USA can lose to Turkey, how should Coach line up the team in a meaningless game next Thursday evening vs Turkey ?

I think I would rest ALL the starters and anyone on yellow.
What a luxury.

Sit Pulisic and anyone on a yellow. Let everyone else play on a conservative game plan and substitute freely.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Boy, you sure were cantankerous in your prior exchange.

I get your post about average ranking, but did you know how groups were filled? You might want to read up on it. Here's a try:


Short answer:
FIFA created balanced World Cup groups by placing teams into pots using (1) host status, (2) FIFA ranking, and (3) geographic restrictions.
Because hosts were automatically placed in Pot 1 - the same pot as the world's strongest teams - they were treated as if they were topranked. This guaranteed that each host avoided playing any of the very strongest nations in the group stage, giving them a structural advantage.

Below is the full, structured explanation, grounded in the official 2026 draw procedures.


---

How FIFA built the World Cup pots

FIFA used three layers of logic to create balanced groups of four:

---

1 Host placement

FIFA automatically placed Canada, Mexico, and the United States into Pot 1, the top-seeded pot.

This is explicitly stated in the 2026 draw rules:
"The hosts Canada, Mexico and the USA will be allocated to pot 1."
They were also preassigned to specific group positions (A1, B1, D1).


Effect:
Even if a host nation was not one of the world's best teams, they were treated as if they were, receiving the same seeding protection as Spain, Argentina, France, England, Brazil, etc.

---

2 Top-ranked teams

After placing the hosts, FIFA filled the rest of Pot 1 with the nine highest-ranked teams in the FIFA World Ranking (Nov 2025).


Pot 1 for 2026 included:
Spain, Argentina, France, England, Brazil, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany + the 3 hosts.

Effect:
Each group received exactly one elite team (or host treated as elite).
This prevents "Group of Death" scenarios where multiple top5 teams land together.

---

3 Geographical restrictions

To avoid regional clustering, FIFA applied confederation limits:

No group may contain more than one team from the same confederation,
except UEFA, which can have two per group because Europe has many qualifiers.



Effect:
This prevents, for example, three South American teams or three African teams from being drawn together, keeping groups globally balanced.

---

How the pots were filled

Using the above rules, FIFA created four pots of 12 teams each:

Pot 1: Hosts + top-ranked teams

Canada, Mexico, USA, Spain, Argentina, France, England, Brazil, Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany
FIFA

Pot 2: Next 12 highest-ranked teams

Croatia, Morocco, Colombia, Uruguay, Switzerland, Japan, Senegal, Iran, Korea Republic, Ecuador, Austria, Australia
FIFA

Pot 3: Next 12

Norway, Panama, Egypt, Algeria, Scotland, Paraguay, Tunisia, Cte d'Ivoire, Uzbekistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa
FIFA

Pot 4: Lowest-ranked + playoff placeholders

Jordan, Cabo Verde, Ghana, Curaao, Haiti, New Zealand, plus UEFA playoff A-D and FIFA playoff teams
FIFA

---

Why hosts gained a real competitive advantage

This is the part you asked about directly.

Hosts were treated as if they were topranked

Even if a host nation was ranked 20th, 30th, or 40th, they were placed in Pot 1, the same pot as Spain, Argentina, France, and England.

This gave hosts two major advantages:

---

1. They avoided all elite teams in the group stage

Because Pot 1 teams cannot be drawn together, each host automatically avoided:

Spain
Argentina
France
England
Brazil
Portugal
Netherlands
Belgium
Germany


This is a massive competitive benefit.
A host could not be placed in a "Group of Death" with two global giants - they were the protected seed.

---

2. They received the best scheduling and venue positions

Hosts were preassigned to the first slot in their groups (A1, B1, D1), which determines:

Opening match timing
Stadium assignment
Travel minimization
Prime-time broadcast windows


These are advantages normally reserved for the world's strongest teams.

---

Why FIFA does this

FIFA's logic is simple:

Hosts drive ticket sales, TV ratings, and local engagement.
Ensuring hosts survive the group stage increases tournament stability and interest.
Historically, hosts perform better when seeded (e.g., South Korea 2002, Russia 2018).


So FIFA's system intentionally gives hosts a soft landing.

---

Summary

FIFA created balanced groups by:

Placing hosts in Pot 1 (even if not elite)
Filling the rest of Pot 1 with top-ranked teams
Applying geographic restrictions


This gave hosts a major advantage:
They avoided every top global power in the group stage and were treated exactly like a topranked team.

---


Yeah this is how it always works for the host team. They get placed in Pot 1 and can avoid the other top ranked countries. There's still a luck of the draw in who gets picked out of the other pots and the US actually did not get a great one. They got reasonable opponents out of the other pots, while Canada and Mexico each legitimately got a cupcake in their group.
BearlySane88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlySane88 said:



These FIFA rankings were pre-WC, they are the equivalent of pre-season NCAAF rankings. Turkey for instance was ranked #22 before the WC, they were clearly way overrated, are now down to #32. Paraguay is at #37, Oz #26.

So basically none of our group opponents are top 25 teams. That's why some observers are saying that the group is weak.

By and large the US' group is mid to lower-mid relative to the field of groups. Mexico's a bit stronger, Canada's weaker.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Cal88 said:

ducktilldeath said:

Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Australia is not good

They were good enough to win their first game 2-0. Like Paraguay, not great but not terrible either. The US dominated both.



To my amateur eye it looked like they sent their rugby team by mistake. Slow, disorganized , terrible concept of offense

They're a defensive team that deliberately tries to muck the game up and score when the opponent gets frustrated and makes mistakes. Much of that look was intentional. Plenty of offenses can be ground down by that, but the US was able to punch in some goals and kill that strategy. Turkey couldn't.


US is playing well but this group looks weak. Trump probably put the fix in with FISA.

Host teams typically get weaker groups and this is by design.

Still, we've never seen a US men's team guarantee themselves a playoff spot after 2 group games before. To do it by a 6-1 goal margin is super impressive any way you slice it.


48 teams instead of 32, apples and oranges.

Clown post. The US is the first (and currently only) team in the WC that has wins over two other winners. Additionally, entering the WC, Group D was the 2nd highest average ranked group. Furthermore, of the highest ranked teams in each group, the US faces the highest average ranked trio in the entire WC group stage.There is no Saudi Arabia or Curacao or Cabo Verde or New Zealand. The average of the lowest ranked team in each group is 64. The worst team the US faces in group play entered the WC ranked 40th.

I'll keep going.

Group D is one of only 2 groups (F) with all 4 teams ranked in the top 40. It is the ONLY group that entered the WC with their top 3 teams ranked in the top 27.

In other words, if we want to judge strength of schedule by the average FIFA rank entering the WC the US literally has the single most difficult schedule of any team in the WC.

You can argue cherry picking, you can argue rankings, you can argue being top heavy is worse than being good across the board, but the fact of the matter is that your insinuation that the US is only having historic success(so far) is because 16 more teams are in is utter garbage.

Willful ignorance is fine, I don't know **** about cricket, but I'm not going to go be an ******* in the cricket thread about something I know nothing about. You on the other hand...


Hup Holland Hup!


He's a disappointed Yugoslavia fan


I'm rooting for Zaire.
PAC-10-BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nice gesture, but when you're paying $500 per seat that's a bit rich. Would still not litter regardles of cost, but wouldn't waste my time picking up other people's trash in a stadium event that is grossing upwards of $40M...
PAC-10-BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think Paraguay fans just wanted to be seen as considerate guests. They got my attention!
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like Germany is going to win their group after all if this holds, based GD through their thumping of Curacao. Not very convincing performance though.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

BearlySane88 said:



These FIFA rankings were pre-WC, they are the equivalent of pre-season NCAAF rankings. Turkey for instance was ranked #22 before the WC, they were clearly way overrated, are now down to #32. Paraguay is at #37, Oz #26.

Okay, but re-rating the groups based on what happened in the tournament is dicey. By that logic the US devalues its own schedule by destroying the teams it goes up against. That might not be happening because the teams were bad.
BearlySane88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Cal88 said:

BearlySane88 said:



These FIFA rankings were pre-WC, they are the equivalent of pre-season NCAAF rankings. Turkey for instance was ranked #22 before the WC, they were clearly way overrated, are now down to #32. Paraguay is at #37, Oz #26.

Okay, but re-rating the groups based on what happened in the tournament is dicey. By that logic the US devalues its own schedule by destroying the teams it goes up against. That might not be happening because the teams were bad.


That's what I was going to say also. It's then a negative to dominate the opponents in your group.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.