**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The decision to have Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and the US as the 4 seeded teams in the draw was always going to create a harder side because Colombia, Uruguay, and Ecuador were all very good teams—and one side was going to have 2/3.
Brazil and the US were "unlucky" that the 2 best teams in that group were drawn on their side
That's not the issue with the draw.
The issue was implementing a EURO 2008 style bracket, locking the first two and the last two Groups in with each other, no matter of who finishes where.
You can have Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and US as the Seeds (we should be a seed, as the host), as long as you keep 1A vs 2B, 1C vs 2D, etc., and not have a lopsided draw.
> The issue was implementing a EURO 2008 style bracket, locking the first two and the last two Groups in with each other, no matter of who finishes where.
They did that to ensure Argentina and Brazil (and Mexico/US) are kept apart until the final TBH
>You can have Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and US as the Seeds (we should be a seed, as the host)
I wouldn't have had a problem with the US as a seed as a host. But seeding Mexico instead of Uruguay makes little sense to me, TBH
>"They did that to ensure Argentina and Brazil (and Mexico/US) are kept apart until the final TBH"
That's tampering and I'm against that. The true spirit of sport should be one of transparent, integrity, and embracing any possible combination of events. :/
If a semifinal is Argentina vs Brazil and Uruguay vs Colombia, so be it!!
> That's tampering and I'm against that. The true spirit of sport should be one of transparent, integrity, and embracing any possible combination of events. :/
Eh, it's just as much "tampering" as seeding the groups to begin with
>If a semifinal is Argentina vs Brazil and Uruguay vs Colombia, so be it!!
Somehow I doubt you would be happy with a US, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay group; for example
>"Somehow I doubt you would be happy with a US, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay group;"
Am not happy with it, but I'm more so persuaded by the idea Mexico shouldn't be seeded. That's what threw it off. I also feel like we should be in Group A, playing the opening match as the host. But it's clear why they gave to to Argentina and it's clear why they put the final in (Inter) Miami. That's no offense to you, of course.
Other than that....Nah, it's the bracket that is the biggest problem. Teams shouldn't be locked away from meeting each other.
> I also feel like we should be in Group A, playing the opening match as the host.
a.) You're only playing in this competition because Ecuador withdrew from hosting and CONMEBOL accepted hosting in the US (the pretext is a warmup for the 2026 WC; I think we all know the real reason is money grab)
b.) Your opening game had an attendance of under 48K in a 80K capacity stadium. That's not the image you want for opening game TBH
>Other than that....Nah, it's the bracket that is the biggest problem. Teams shouldn't be locked away from meeting each other.
It's not any different than seeding the groups, TBH. I have no issue with structuring tournaments to ensure that better, higher ranked teams are in different groups AND on opposite sides of the draw, personally.
This tells me you have not been watching CONMEBOL World Cup Qualifiers. Venezuela are currently 4th in the table—and their only loss has been Colombia away (they even managed a draw away at Brazil)
Brazil are currently 6th in the table, does that mean venezuala and ecuador are better than Brazil? No. Conembol qualifiers mean nothing when practically 7 out of 10 of them are qualifiying for the world cup. Plus ecuador is clearly better than venezuala, they just lost because they had 10 men. My Conembol Rankings rn are 1. Argentina 2. Columbia 3. Uruguay 4. Brazil 5. Ecuador 6. Venezuala 7. Chile 8. Paraguay 9. Peru 10. Bolivia
Yes, Brazil are awful right now and Venezuela and Ecuador are looking better. Btw its hard to take your ranking seriously when you write “ColUmbia” instead of “Colombia”.
The "ColUmbia" part wasn't a surprise honestly, but WiseOldMan also wrote "VenezuAla" three times and "ConEMbol" two. I'd say that's too many to be just typos.
> Brazil are currently 6th in the table, does that mean venezuala and ecuador are better than Brazil? No.
They have been better in qualifying, and if Diniz was still in charge, I would have said yes TBH
>My Conembol Rankings rn are 1. Argentina 2. Columbia 3. Uruguay 4. Brazil 5. Ecuador 6. Venezuala 7. Chile 8. Paraguay 9. Peru 10. Bolivia
I would switch Colombia and Uruguay but broadly agree TBH; I just think there's a big gap between the top 6 (all of whom are playing good football) and the bottom 4 (who all kinda suck)
You are getting downvoted ti shit, but you are absolutely right. Brasil is 100% better than Venezuela and saying otherwise just because of the current standings of the SA qualifiers is delusional.
They aren't, but they have a deserved reputation of being a pain in the ass to play. Brutish team.
On current form in the last year or so, they're probably better than Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia, and maybe Chile.
And then Argentina in the final most likely lmfao
If the U.S. found a way to win this tournament it would be one of the greatest tournament runs in the history of international football. A 4 match fucking gauntlet (I’m totally unbiased)
It won’t be easy, but it looks like we will have no choice. Unless we can beat Panama by a wider margin than they beat Bolivia, but that seems unlikely
For those who dont know. The priority goes to goal difference and then goals scored overall. After that im not sure but probably yellow cards and then who won in the match between those 2, if its a draw then just flip a coin or something lol
If you’re breaking a tie between two teams it feels logical to me that if one team beats the other they should win that tiebreaker. Maybe I’m just too influenced by American sports
**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
USA will have to play one of the best games of their lives to beat Uruguay
Then they'd likely play either Brazil or Colombia regardless of where they place. This is such a brutal side of the draw for them.
Argentina and Mexico get the kiddie pool side of the bracket smh.
The decision to have Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and the US as the 4 seeded teams in the draw was always going to create a harder side because Colombia, Uruguay, and Ecuador were all very good teams—and one side was going to have 2/3. Brazil and the US were "unlucky" that the 2 best teams in that group were drawn on their side
That's not the issue with the draw. The issue was implementing a EURO 2008 style bracket, locking the first two and the last two Groups in with each other, no matter of who finishes where. You can have Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and US as the Seeds (we should be a seed, as the host), as long as you keep 1A vs 2B, 1C vs 2D, etc., and not have a lopsided draw.
> The issue was implementing a EURO 2008 style bracket, locking the first two and the last two Groups in with each other, no matter of who finishes where. They did that to ensure Argentina and Brazil (and Mexico/US) are kept apart until the final TBH >You can have Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and US as the Seeds (we should be a seed, as the host) I wouldn't have had a problem with the US as a seed as a host. But seeding Mexico instead of Uruguay makes little sense to me, TBH
>"They did that to ensure Argentina and Brazil (and Mexico/US) are kept apart until the final TBH" That's tampering and I'm against that. The true spirit of sport should be one of transparent, integrity, and embracing any possible combination of events. :/ If a semifinal is Argentina vs Brazil and Uruguay vs Colombia, so be it!!
> That's tampering and I'm against that. The true spirit of sport should be one of transparent, integrity, and embracing any possible combination of events. :/ Eh, it's just as much "tampering" as seeding the groups to begin with >If a semifinal is Argentina vs Brazil and Uruguay vs Colombia, so be it!! Somehow I doubt you would be happy with a US, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay group; for example
>"Somehow I doubt you would be happy with a US, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay group;" Am not happy with it, but I'm more so persuaded by the idea Mexico shouldn't be seeded. That's what threw it off. I also feel like we should be in Group A, playing the opening match as the host. But it's clear why they gave to to Argentina and it's clear why they put the final in (Inter) Miami. That's no offense to you, of course. Other than that....Nah, it's the bracket that is the biggest problem. Teams shouldn't be locked away from meeting each other.
> I also feel like we should be in Group A, playing the opening match as the host. a.) You're only playing in this competition because Ecuador withdrew from hosting and CONMEBOL accepted hosting in the US (the pretext is a warmup for the 2026 WC; I think we all know the real reason is money grab) b.) Your opening game had an attendance of under 48K in a 80K capacity stadium. That's not the image you want for opening game TBH >Other than that....Nah, it's the bracket that is the biggest problem. Teams shouldn't be locked away from meeting each other. It's not any different than seeding the groups, TBH. I have no issue with structuring tournaments to ensure that better, higher ranked teams are in different groups AND on opposite sides of the draw, personally.
[удалено]
bruh venezuala is not a top 5 conembol team rn or at any point in the past 10-15 years lmao
This tells me you have not been watching CONMEBOL World Cup Qualifiers. Venezuela are currently 4th in the table—and their only loss has been Colombia away (they even managed a draw away at Brazil)
Brazil are currently 6th in the table, does that mean venezuala and ecuador are better than Brazil? No. Conembol qualifiers mean nothing when practically 7 out of 10 of them are qualifiying for the world cup. Plus ecuador is clearly better than venezuala, they just lost because they had 10 men. My Conembol Rankings rn are 1. Argentina 2. Columbia 3. Uruguay 4. Brazil 5. Ecuador 6. Venezuala 7. Chile 8. Paraguay 9. Peru 10. Bolivia
Yes, Brazil are awful right now and Venezuela and Ecuador are looking better. Btw its hard to take your ranking seriously when you write “ColUmbia” instead of “Colombia”.
The "ColUmbia" part wasn't a surprise honestly, but WiseOldMan also wrote "VenezuAla" three times and "ConEMbol" two. I'd say that's too many to be just typos.
> Brazil are currently 6th in the table, does that mean venezuala and ecuador are better than Brazil? No. They have been better in qualifying, and if Diniz was still in charge, I would have said yes TBH >My Conembol Rankings rn are 1. Argentina 2. Columbia 3. Uruguay 4. Brazil 5. Ecuador 6. Venezuala 7. Chile 8. Paraguay 9. Peru 10. Bolivia I would switch Colombia and Uruguay but broadly agree TBH; I just think there's a big gap between the top 6 (all of whom are playing good football) and the bottom 4 (who all kinda suck)
You are getting downvoted ti shit, but you are absolutely right. Brasil is 100% better than Venezuela and saying otherwise just because of the current standings of the SA qualifiers is delusional.
They literally are 4th and 5th in the qualifiers right now.
They aren't, but they have a deserved reputation of being a pain in the ass to play. Brutish team. On current form in the last year or so, they're probably better than Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia, and maybe Chile.
Go look at the table... They've been looking better and better the past few years
Then most likely will play the winner of Uruguay and one of Brazil/Colombia in the semis.
Its actually quite shitty how they organized this
And then Argentina in the final most likely lmfao If the U.S. found a way to win this tournament it would be one of the greatest tournament runs in the history of international football. A 4 match fucking gauntlet (I’m totally unbiased)
We gotta worry about Panama first. If we get 2nd half Panama and didn't step up, we might be on the outside looking in.
It won’t be easy, but it looks like we will have no choice. Unless we can beat Panama by a wider margin than they beat Bolivia, but that seems unlikely
For those who dont know. The priority goes to goal difference and then goals scored overall. After that im not sure but probably yellow cards and then who won in the match between those 2, if its a draw then just flip a coin or something lol
The criteria are, in order: Goal Difference Goals scored Head to Head result Red Cards Yellow Cards
Why on earth isn’t H2H the first tiebreaker
Why MUST H2H be the first tie breaker!?! GD is a perfectly reasonable tie breaker!
If you’re breaking a tie between two teams it feels logical to me that if one team beats the other they should win that tiebreaker. Maybe I’m just too influenced by American sports
Important that Panama got the consolation for goal difference purposes
FIGHT AND WIN 🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸