Here's a team "sport" for you, 2004 olympic medal count:
1 United States 35 40 27 102
2 China 32 17 14 63
3 Russia 27 27 38 92
4 Australia 17 16 16 49
5 Japan 16 9 12 37
6 Germany 14 16 19 49
7 France 11 9 13 33
8 Italy 10 11 11 32
9 South Korea 9 12 9 30
10 Great Britain 9 9 12 30
You can go ahead and either lick my ass now, or a little later after I get back from my run...
burned
tits "the facts" mcgee wrote:
Here's a team "sport" for you, 2004 olympic medal count:
1 United States 35 40 27 102
2 China 32 17 14 63
3 Russia 27 27 38 92
4 Australia 17 16 16 49
5 Japan 16 9 12 37
6 Germany 14 16 19 49
7 France 11 9 13 33
8 Italy 10 11 11 32
9 South Korea 9 12 9 30
10 Great Britain 9 9 12 30
You can go ahead and either lick my ass now, or a little later after I get back from my run...
I think you must have made a mistake: the United States came out first in the Olympic standings while Great Britain was tenth, but this is obviously impossible because we are inferior athletes.
USA also has many times the population of all of these countries except for China.
Look in the mirror wrote:
Understood.
The fact of the matter is that in their most recent head-to-head match (which was critical for World Cup qualifying), Mexico was not only the inferior team, but they managed to play 90 minutes with a big "0" on the scoreboard.
It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out who the better team was in that match.
You clearly don't understand soccer very well. Not scoring at all in a soccer game really isn't rare, and the discussion between you and whoever is about who is the better team overall, not in one match. Obviously the US won that match, but on the whole, Mexico is better.
Mexico would win any match against the US at least 7 out of 10 times.
Anyone who pays any attention to soccer outside of the World Cup would actually know that. The US lacks offensive power, but in the Mexico game they were simply able to get away with it...this time.
What about the Olympics? Terrible at globally competitive sports...look at the medal count bitch!
huh? wrote:
Mexico would win any match against the US at least 7 out of 10 times.
June 11, 2000 W, 3-0
October 25, 2000 W, 2-0
February 28, 2001 W, 2-0
July 1, 2001 L, 0-1
April 3, 2002 W, 1-0
June 17, 2002 W, 2-0
May 8, 2003 T, 0-0
April 28, 2004 W, 1-0
March 27, 2005 L, 1-2
September 3, 2005 W, 2-0
Or Mexico would lose 7 times and win twice. Both teams are probably grouped among the top 8-25 teams worldwide on a given day-good but not a premier side, and there is not much difference among teams at this level.
35 golds vs 30 total medals says it all to me. I would bet the gap only grows during the next Olympics too. Just hold onto that one superior sport as long as you can you jealous Brit.
And then you die, and no one cares what country you're from, because you're dead. And having national pride is pretty f***ing stupid when you're alive as well.
Alemania wrote:
What about the Olympics? Terrible at globally competitive sports...look at the medal count bitch!
To be fair, the EU with a similar population has a larger medal count. further, while population is a factor, a fairer comparison is population-weighted by GDP, which i think Australia or Luxumberg (Cuba for Gold) comes up top. The US rank way below most European countries. But this is rather obvious since the majority of americans (compare to say Europeans of similar income) are more spectator than participant as far as sports is concern.
In fact, if you take away the immigration components -- many american in the olympics are transplanted Europeans, Jamaicans etc. -- homegrown american are even worst off, but again it is partly the spectator/NASCAR culture.
World Cup soccer equal professional wrestling. However, soccer has more theatrics and less integrity.
kiril wrote:
hahahahahahahahaha wrote:The US team will have a Euro coach for the next World Cup. Maybe Hiddink can be a paid assassin again.
He has a contract with Russia - so much for your informed opinions.
Hey cocksmoke, who said that it was informed?
According to the ELO rankings (
) the US is currently 27th which is about right.
That so many have taken delight in their failures in this Cup indicates that they are becoming a presence on the world stage, though still far from the first tier. If they were the joke that many claim, no one would notice.
The US is about equal to Angola in basketball during the Barcelona Olympics.
scumbag is me wrote:
I say not even in the top 20 in the world, sorry to break it to you fat yanks.
WHO CARES!?
I would say somewhere in the top 15.
Yes, the US is a little better than Mexico, but that was last year. In 2005 the US was a better side than Mexico.
Arena probably will be back.
The 5th place ranking is not valid, but something strange happened to the US this world cup. That was not the 2005 team that played around with Mexico. I still think the US has moretalent than Mexico. How many Mexicans play in the English premiere league? The answer I believe is one!
I care
To be fair, the EU with a similar population has a larger medal count. further, while population is a factor, a fairer comparison is population-weighted by GDP, which i think Australia or Luxumberg (Cuba for Gold) comes up top...[/quote]
Actually, I'm not sure this is a totally fair comparison either because of the limits on the number of athletes a country can send. The 25 countries of the EU may have a similar population and GDP to the USA, but they can send 25 times the number of people (disregarding qualifying standards), greatly increasing the chances someone gets lucky or has a great day. It also decreases the competition to make the team, allowing people to focus on and peak for the Olympics themselves.
WOW WOW You say were only above average at football/soccer were current world cup rugby champs and we just beat the best cricket team in the world(australia) in the ahses and that wasn't a fluke we beat them over 5 matches or so. God you americans are very very stupid. Olympics we all know the americans are the best at hiding their athletes are on drugs, dirtiest nation ever.