Ciao!

Hmm... And what's up with the Balkans or East European soccer? If I am not mistaken, no country is in the second round?! Weird! What happened to Bulgarians, and once bronze Croats, and with Russians, etc. I don't wanna even mention Serbs! And just to ask you expert, how come such huge countries, like China and India, don't have a good national soccer team?

Well, Balkan soccer has been in the decline ever since Yugoslavia broke up (all those players now spread out across more teams). But, really, it just comes down to soccer being a sport of luck as much as skill. A team can dominate the entire game, but not put it in the net. While a team can struggle for 89 minutes, then score to win it.

As for why China or India don't have good teams, I guess it comes down to having a program. The Chinese women's soccer team is quite good & ranked in the top 5 (along w/ US, Norway, Brazil). India, I suspect that soccer just isn't very popular there (unlike, say, cricket). But both countries have large national populations, so once they start, they should do well.

But look at the current Final 16. The 5th ranked US is out. The 2nd ranked Czechs are out. While 42nd ranked Australia is in after beating higher-ranked Japan & Croatia. So it's often topsy turvy.

You can also find lots of info on national soccer teams at Wikipedia. Such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_national_football_team

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_national_football_team

I always have to think about a world ranking which ranks Czech Rep. second and the US fifth. What kind of ranking is that? Where are Germany, England, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Argentina, Uruguay, ..... you get my point? ;-)

Well, actually, the rankings are fairly accurate. They're based on how well teams did against which teams. The US qualified on top of their group (CONCACAF) after playing some decent teams, and also some exhibitions games against tough opponents. The Czech Republic team has consistently been good, and was considered the strongest contender to beat Brazil.

As for other teams ... Argentina was under the radar, and are surprising many people in this coup (they're even winning me over). Germany had many questions, based on the teams' performance in the European championships. Ditto Portugal, England, and Netherlands. Italy looked like a sleeper team (and was ranked 4th), but France disintegrated after their 1998 high and wansn't expected to even make it out of their group (they barely qualified in their Europe group). As for Uruguay ... they've not QUALIFIED for a cup in over a decade!!

Nenad:

Also, as for your China/India question ... Qualifying from Asia is difficult. The entire continent only gets 4.5 berths in the 32-berth tournament. (The 0.5 team plays the 0.5 team from CONCACAF for a spot.) Compare that to the 13 berths for Europe (the most of any continent).

This year, the Asian teams were: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Korea. China didn't qualify because Kuwait beat them in group play in the pre-cup qualifying round.

Starting the next World Cup, Australia will play in Asia, rather than Oceania. So the odds of China or India (which is ranked 117th in the world) qualifying are slimmer than before.

Here are the FIFA world rankings on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings

Thx. Calculations criteria and formuli can be found here: http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/rank/procedures/0,2540,3,00.html

Well, they might be accurate (as to the most recent time), but they lack memory. They also lack a consistent criteria. For example, some exhibition matches or friendly matches are played with substitution teams. That is a wide practice, speciall, by the soccer powerhouses, such as Argentina, Brazil, France, etc. Their stars are just too busy to play in such games. Whereas, other teams like the US team might play with all its players.

I am not saying the US or other teams do not deserve to be ranked high, if their performance has been good. What I am questioning is the ranking method itself. It might no be the method giving a truly accurate picture.

But I think it's important to remember two things:

First, the ranking system is like any other (e.g. NCAA basketball or football) & is always controversial. People want the teams they think are better to be ranked higher.

Second, the ranking system doesn't mean that a higher ranked team must beat a lower ranked team. Sports is still sports. And at the highest level, the rankings are pretty close, so any team could beat any team on any given day.

The US is a good team. And even if some of the best teams play w/ subs frequently enough, that's their decision, and they suffer the consequences in rankings. Coaches also think about such things. But it's not the just the US that went out. So did 2nd place Czech Republic. European champions Greece didn't even make the World Cup qualifiers. Japan lost to Australia in its group. Switzerland & Togo advanced from their group, while higher ranked France & South Korea didn't. It happens all the time.

Switzerland & Togo advanced from their group, while higher ranked France & South Korea didn't.

France advanced, plays Spain tomorrow.

Yeah, my mistake. Though I could argue that France SHOULDN'T have come out of their group, since they played like total crap for three entire games.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree to a practical extent. But, I still think the ranking system is not realistic. Somehow, I cannot really explain, I think that ranking such a young team like the US higher than other teams with more tradition and history is not correct.

On the other side, like I said, I see what you are saying and if the US' performance leading up to the WC has been good, then why not rank them high.

Also, I think that this time around, some teams, like France and specially Italy, do not deserve to be in the finals. They have played a weak game all along.

Particularly, I am kind of upset the way the Italians got through by beating the Ausies with a penalty in the last 10 seconds of the game. And that was a penalty given to them by the referee.