CONCACAF at the World Cup: a post-mortem

It's been a week since Argentina eliminated the last of the CONCACAF teams, but the evaluation of the regional qualifiers' performances is well underway.  You can look at the websites of the major sports sites in English and Spanish, as well as the various soccer blogs.   In this post, and in the following posts over the next couple of days, I will look at the performance of the region as a whole and then consider the four representatives.

Overall, this has been a depressingly poor tournament by the CONCACAF sides.  There were flashes of good play and enthusiasm, but the overall performance was bland (in defense, Germany 2006 has been a bland tournament).  The record of CONCACAF in Germany - 13 matches played, won once (1), drawn three (3) , lost nine (9) - is an unforgiving one, the poorest record of the confederations, and it will raise more questions about the wisdom of offering 3.5 slots to the region.   As long as the World Cup finals remain a 32-team tournament, CONCACAF will be virtually guaranteed three places.   Even so, the fight for regional allocations for 2010 will be very closely watched.

European World Cup finals are always difficult on the non-European sides, and the outcome of the CONCACAF sides depends greatly on the luck of the draw.  The USA drew three difficult groups in their last three European finals (1990, 1998, 2006) and struggled mightily.  El Salvador in 1982 and Jamaica in 1998 received tough draws and got hammered by the major European and South American countries.   There were some teams that overachieved and performed honorably  - Honduras in 1982, Costa Rica in 1990, Mexico in 1998 - but
the fact remains that Europe is a difficult place to play.

I'll write more about the four finalists from CONCACAF in a future post.

Comments

[Kevin S.]

Do keep in mind that Jack Warner is from CONCACAF, and his lobbying got the confederation the half slot. What a coincidence that his country (Trinidad & Tobago) made it to the World Cup Finals with this newly - engineered slot.

USA was highly fancied, ending up a major bust. Mexico fought valiantly, but they just coiuldn't compete at the highest level.

What are we doing wrong?

[rj]

It is amazing to look back at 2002 and compare it to 2006, the strength of four years ago versus the weakness of this year. Not only in the World Cup, but also in the hex and semifinal round. The USA about did not even make the hex if Barbados could've held on with their bunker 30 more minutes. Heck, Barbados even beat the team that won the hex (Costa Rica). I think every team save maybe Trinidad (1-7-2) from 2002 would have taken top 3 in this hex, and in the World Cup the weakness of the qualifiers was exposed.

Trinidad were a game side and the only one that exceeded expectations. Tying Sweden and their performance against England though is realistically all you can expect from them.

Costa Rica had glaring flaws and yet qualified for the World Cup with a game to spare from the hex. Their best game was their first one, and they lost 4-2 (albeit to the hosts).

The failures of the USA has been covered in full elsewhere. Nothing much to add.

Mexico played a great game against Argentina...and still lost. And another World Cup has come and gone and they can only make the round of 16. Looks like Hugo Sanchez will get his shot and can now shut up.

[rj]

Small addition to post above:

I think it's safe to say we're down to 3 spots. Although looking at other confeds and their performances, Africa, Asia, and Oceania are not deserving of more. And South America have as many as they should get with their confederation's size. And does anyone really think that all the other confeds are gonna vote for more spots for UEFA.

[ERic]

Africa may not be deserving of more, but because South Africa is hosting, they'll get more. Maybe only a half slot, but more likely a full slot. My bet -- half will come from CONCACAF and half from UEFA. Asia will keep their allotment, based on population (TV revenue) alone.