Talk:United States men's national soccer team/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

(untitled)

United States national soccer team presently redirs to United States men's national soccer team (this page), whereas United States national football team is a disambig page with links to both USmnst and United States women's national soccer team. I propose that we:

  1. move the disambig page to United States national soccer team, since soccer is the prevailing term in the US and both the MNT and WNT are senior national soccer teams.
  2. redir USnft to USnst, which should happen anyway by moving the page.

As a consequence, users typing in both USnft (Wikipedia standard) and USnst (prevailing US usage) will see the disambig page. This is an improvement because right now "football" fans see the disambig, but "soccer" fans default to the men's. (IMO this setup should be the standard for all nations with women's teams, except that football should override soccer where appropriate, but that's a battle for a different day eh?)

Please state any objections. Cheers, PhilipR 00:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

1930 World Cup placing

Hopefully an edit war won't start here. I noticed a revert already. All of the other results listed for past World Cups do not specify 'placing' in the sense that a FIFA document later 'placed' the 'finishing position' of each team in every World Cup. The other WC's are written here as 'quarterfinals'/'first round'/etc, so IMO 1930 should be listed as "semifinals". Considering that in 1930, there was no declartion of a third place finisher, and that the losing semifinalists didn't play each other, it would be a tad misleading to say the US finished 'third place'.

Though maybe if anyone wishes to, they could add a note at the end telling the 'official ranking of position' for each of the WC's that the USMNT competed in as well, just to add some detail. Peoplesunionpro 02:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Entirely correct. In 1930 there was no 3rd place just two losing semi-finalists. Losing in the quater-finals does not make everyone joint fifth either. There was no 3rd place or 5th place or 9th place etc. The USA and Yugoslavia lost in the semi-finals. The was no provision for third place. Just like there is no 3rd place position in the Wimbledon Championships only losing semi-finalists - see 2005 Wimbledon - Men's Singles for example. There was no criteria to separate teams on equal points either. The idea of using 'goal difference' or 'goal average' (a different formula that preceeded the idea of goal difference) to split teams on the same points was not used in the World Cup finals until 1962. In the qualifying rounds of the 1958 and 1962 WC for example they used play-offs to sort out which team would proceed to the next round when teams were on equal points. Jooler 17:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
WRONG according to the OFFICIAL FIFA records and history book, the USA finished the tournament in 3rd place. See this link for proof. [1]. There should be no further argument, FIFA ranks the United States as finishing 3rd in the tournament, the decision was retroactive and presumably based on goal differential in the tournament. I have changed it in the article and will continue to change it to the OFFICIAL FIFA records. Batman2005 04:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That list has no meaning whatsoever, it does not explain how these ranking have been calculated and what status it has. In what way is it "Official"? Is it a list someone compiled for fun? How do we know one way or the other? How is it that for the 1934 competition it places Argentina 9th France 10th and the Netherlands 11th when they all lost the first round matches 3-2? Perhaps it places them in that order because that is the alphabetic order? Perhaps it places the USA in 3rd in 1930 above Yugoslavia for the same reason? It places Bolivia in last place in the 1950 competition. Bolivia only played one game in the competition because they were in a group of two with Uruguay which they lost. It hardly seems fair to place them below Mexico who played three games and lost them all! The ranking using modern criteria is entirely irrelevant to where they finished in the tournament in 1930 using the rules that were in place at that time. Using modern criteria we can separate the teams using goal difference, but goal difference was not used to separate teams in the World Cup finals until 1970. The schema that was used in World Cup qualifiers and finals from 1958 up til 1970 was goal average. However in every World Cup up until 1966, goal average was only used as a last resort before it went to the drawing of lots. i.e. before resorting to goal average teams on equal points had to play a play-off. In 1930 there was no criterion in place by which any decision about who had finished 3rd or 4th could be determined. They didn't use goal average, they didn't use goal difference, they didn't use count of goals for (ignoring goals against), they didn't use the aggregate score of the matches between the two teams on equal points, they didn't use number of corners, they didn't draw lots and they didn't play a play-off. There was no 3rd place in 1930, just like there is no 3rd place in the Wimbledon Championships, there were two losing semi-finalists. Goal difference was brought into play in league football to encourage attacking play and thus it influences how many goals teams score. Do you think that if the teams were aware that their goal average/difference would make a difference to their position in respect of 3rd/4th place then it might have had an influence on how many goals they put no the back of the net? Using modern criteria retrospectively for the 1930 World Cup makes no sense whatsoever. If it does, then why don't we award 3 points for a win instead of 2 and then re-rank the teams accordingly? The Yugoslavia national football team page doesn't say 4th for 1930, it says semifinals. When a team's best performance in the World Cup is to get to the last 8 we put Quaterfinals (see Mexico national football team) we don't rank them as 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th and despite what that ranking table says. So why do it here? Jooler 10:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Jooler on this one... the USA didn't finish in 3rd place, they were losing semi-finalists. When you produce a table like at http://www.fifa.com/infoplus/IP-201_06E-WC-ranking.pdf you have to put someone in 3rd place and someone in 4th place... but it doesn't mean that 3rd place was the actual result. Who knows why FIFA chose to put the USA in 3rd place on that table? It could be any one of a number of reasons, but the fact is that in 1930, the USA was knocked out at the semi-final stage, and no ranking was attributed. Robwingfield (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you can say it means nothing all you want, the simple fact is that I have produced a verifiable source, from the world's governing body that says that they list the United States as 3rd place finishers in the 1930 world cup. Wikipedia is about verifiablity, I have verified it. It's going back in and i'll get an admin to handle it if you keep reverting it. I have verified it, that's the whole point of this site. Jooler, it doesn't matter what you say, i know there was no 3rd place game, i know there was no final game played in the 1950 world cup...so how do we really know who won that one? The list shows that FIFA ranks the United States as the third place team in 1930...Now if you think wikipedia should go against FIFA in matters pertaining to soccer, well then that's just not practical at all. And saying that "no ranking was attributed" is wrong as well, clearly through my source, a ranking WAS attributed that put the United States 3rd and Yugoslavia 4th. And the bit about ranking people based on getting to the quarterfinals as on the Mexican team page, I don't edit that page, but FIFA ranks teams all the way through to the last place team, so there's no reason why Mexico wouldn't be listed in the actul page that FIFA ranks them, perhaps the editors on that page have not seen this listing, maybe we should share it with them...it is OFFICIAL RANKINGS. BUt you're right, we're not sure how FIFA got to these rankings, just that they did and that the United States goes down in their history books, as the third place finisher in the 1930 world cup. If you don't want to print verifiable fact on this page what do you want to print? And don't tell me to get over it like i'm a small child, it makes you sound ridiculous.Batman2005 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Batman2005 13:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. - pot/kettle (edit summary - 22:16, 3 June 2006 Batman2005 (removed crap about the rankings, get over it, they're ranked #5, if the rankings don't mean shit then argue that on the FIFA page where the rankings are discussed.) Jooler 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If you can justify the rankings on that list for the 1950 1934 World Cup of Argentina, France, and the Netherlands in any way other than alphabetical then you might have a point, but as far as I or anyone else can tell the ranking of USA and Yugoslavia in 1930 could be alphabetical as well. The rankings are entirely without context. Jooler 14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
i know there was no final game played in the 1950 world cup...so how do we really know who won that one? - There's no mystery there. The final four teams played a mini-tournamen, which you can see quite clearly on the 1950 FIFA World Cup page. Jooler 14:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
IN YOUR OPINION, however, according to the WORLD GOVERNING BODY the United States is recognized as the 3rd place team in the 1930 world cup. And the pot/kettle thing is yet another example of your immaturity at work here Jooler. Yes, and you can quite clearly see on this page [2] that the United States is officially the 3rd place team in the 1930 World Cup. Batman2005 14:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Gents, please take a second. If FIFA declares US and Yug to be the 3rd place holders, and if we have sources to that effect, we should attain to those rules. Remember WP:NOR. Having said that, we can reach a compromise by inserting a reference to a note (like in the FIFA_World_Cup page) explaining why this is unusual. Furthermore, the note already exists in the page, we just need to point to it.. I hope I helped.
Just to round up my point, in the link above you can look at the 1950 results. Even though it was a minitournament, we still recognize a "3rd place match".
Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
We don't, we have a source that says that the USA was 3rd and Yugoslavia 4th. Which i think is why Jooler doesn't want it in there, because it ranks the USA ahead of Yugoslavia. Batman2005 16:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Batman, don't be obstinate and refrain from attacking Jooler. Please assume good faith. That is just an alphabetical order. Since we had semifinal games in 1930, and both US and Yug lost, it is safe (and Salomonic) to say that they are both 3rd. It's the fairest thing to do. Look at FIFA WC page here, here and here. In WC honors, it's very clear that there is not distinction. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sebastian. I think that last page makes it very clear. Well done. FIFA show the USA World Cup honours for 1930 as a semifinalist (no mention of placing), and so that should be our guide. The rankings page has no context and in my opinion is worthless. Jooler 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Jooler, thanks for the kudos. I believe both of you to be right. Would it be amenable to you to put both US and Yug on 3rd place (with an explanatory note), to make a compromise possible?.
Batman, in light of this new and contradictory evidence (also from FIFA), would you agree that Yug and the US are indeed in the same footing as far as qualification goes and if the US is 3rd, then Yug also is 3rd?
IMHO, we are really talking semantics here. The "3rd Place" approach is consistent with today's standards where the losing semi-finalists contend for 3rd and 4th while the "Semi-finalist" approach is more according to reality since we can't really tell positions below 1st and 2nd when there is no clear determining factor.
I move to put "3rd Place" and explain with a note (clearly noted and in the infobox itself). My argument in favor of this hybrid solution is to be consistent with other WP pages (like the FIFA World Cup page) and to avoid confusion among less experienced readers.
I hope we can put this behind us, and thanks for letting me try to mediate.
Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think, after being called petulant by Jooler, that i'll attack him in whatever way I see fit. Arbitrary as it may be, unfair as it may be, if FIFA chooses to list the United States as Third and Yugoslavia as Fourth simply by alphabetical order, then that's their right. It's the FIFA World Cup, not the Jooler World Cup, or the Wikipedia World Cup. FIFA reserves the right to declare the United States as the third place winner and Yugoslavia as the Fourth place winner. They could choose to do it based on who had the cooler uniforms. The simple point is that FIFA lists in their official records (not on the world cup website, but their official records) the United States as third. Fair or not, we're not in the business here of creating our own version of history, wikipedia is about verifiablity. If FIFA says one thing and we go completely against is just so a few editors will feel better about it, that's rather ridiculous. Would we go against what the NBA says about the 1992 Championship based on what the Chicago Bulls website says? No, and going against FIFA is as ridiculous an idea. I'm ok with Sebastian Kessel idea, provided that we show that FIFA does in fact recognize that the United States was declared as the 3rd place team. If in 20 years they go back and say, no wait...Yugoslavia was, then we can go back and change it. Batman2005 17:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sebastian - I'm afraid that I don't find that a satisfactory solution. It would be an exception to normal convention. The 1930 case is the only one in which there was no mechanism in place for determing 3rd place or separating the semi-finalists. I think that is clear. But that is no different from the current situation where there is no mechanism in place for separating those teams that lost in the quarter finals. Those team consistently have their ranking displayed as "quaterfinalist". They are never ranked as equal 5th. I beleive that the the FIFA World Cup page is forced to display the finishers that way becuase it is in a table. Originally I had moved to remove both Yugoslavia and the USA from the table, but I compromised on the table format as it is now. I once again draw comparison to the Wimbledon Championships. They do not play a 3rd place play-off (just like the World Cup in 1930). Look at the 2005 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles page. Thomas Johansson lost in the semi-finals On his results this is listed as SF for semi-finalist, it doesn't say joint 3rd. Jooler 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You're talking tennis, this is soccer. If the governing body for tennis came out and said "so and so finished 3rd" then we'd certainly change it. The governing body for soccer came out and said "the united states finished 3rd." Again, this is not the Jooler World Cup, FIFA makes these determinations, not Jooler. FIFA says that the USA was third, regardless of your feelings about it, the USA is recognized as the third place team. Batman2005 19:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Note the above comment was originally posted as - 75.2.20.119 18:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC) - contribs
Yes, it was, i forgot to sign in...OH MY GOD!!! BIG CONTROVERSY, HOLY CRAP, BRING OUT THE WIKIPEDIA POLICE TO DEAL WITH ME. Grow up Jooler. Batman2005 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You are assuming some merit to a contextless document. Perhaps it's ranking the teams by who had the best haircuts? Perhaps it was produced as a feed for a computer simulation of each contry's potential future performance? Who says it's some sort of "official proclamation" and not a document some lowly clerk knocked up for their own amusement one lunchtime? How do we know anything about the merits of the document? There is no context and without context it is meaningless. The World Cup honours pages produced by FIFA and highlighted by Sebastian have a very clear context and this is the example we should follow. Jooler 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Guys, a famous person said (I can't remember who) that "you know a compromise is good when both parties are unhappy with it". This is a chicken-and-egg solution. I believe the current state of the page is ok provided we add a note saying something like "A 3rd place match wasn't played in the 1930 WC therefore both USA and YUG are awarded 3rd place).
Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sebastian - Batman2005 has a very clear agenda of trying to push the view that the USA are officially 3rd. I accept the term joint 3rd is a possible way of expressing the two-losing semifinalists position, but it seems clear to me that using it is POV pushing, trying to elevate the result into "bronze medal" position. To remove the POV we should be consistent with other examples such as the quarter-final finishers and the semi-finalists in other sports that do not rank 3rd and 4th. BTW AFAIK the USA and Yugoslavia were not officially awarded anything at that competion and nor were Argentina. There are some commemorative medals floating about, silver ones were issued by the AFA, you can pick them up on Ebay, but officially FIFA awarded the Cup to the winners and a plaque all of the teams that entered. See here Jooler 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Jooler, you have good points and I'm glad that you accept the term joint 3rd. I believe that to be the fairest compromise here. Now, I understand your comparison to other sports, but the 3rd/4th place finishers are different that the quarter-final losers in that nowadays a game is played, therefore "elevating" their status. Personally, I really couldn't care less about whether they're 3rd, 4th or umpteenth since unless you're the champion, you lost. :) No points or any other advantage is won by being 3rd or Xth on a 1930 competition. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sebastian - perhaps you mis-read me. I said "I accept the term joint 3rd is a possible way of expressing the two-losing semifinalists position" - but I do not think that it should be used here, for the reasons given above. I agree 3rd is nothing, which is why I'm amused by this whole thing and Batman2005's POV pushing. There whole 3rd place issue is POV pushing, if it wasn't then then Batman wouldnt still be arguing that the USA's 3rd place is "officially" recognised. Please let's just be consistent shall we? Jooler 18:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for the mis-read. I don't think either position is POV-pushing. They're just different views. I think both approaches (yours and Batman's) equally acceptable, therefore I try to find some middle ground, while also being consistent with other WP pages (see above) that show both as 3rd place holders. That's why maybe joint 3rd (with explanation) is the easiest way out. But let's see what Batman has to say about this... (that last sentence sounded right out of a comic-book!!!)
Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sebastian. Okay so you're citing the the FIFA_World_Cup page. As I stated earlier the way that is displayed is a constraint of the use of tables. I originally favoured removing both the USA and Yugoslavia from the table (evidence that I am not batting to inflate the Yugolslavian position to the detriment of the USA) the compromise was to put both teams above each other in 3rd place. Hovever I still don't find that satisfactory. There's no real reason why Yugoslavia or the USA should feature in the table, any more than we soulh put all the losing quater finalists in, other than the fact that if they weren't there both spaces in the table would be blank and look "untidy". If I was a dab hand at tables I would deal with it. Jooler 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a pretty dumb representation coming from someone who has disregarded continuously the official FIFA list. I said just a few posts ago, which you likely disregarded to go off on some unrelated tangent about tennis, that Sebastians idea was fine with me. But lets not be presumptious here Jooler and think that i'm trying to push my point of view, i'm pushing what FIFA says, not what i think it should say....you on the other hand have been pushing to disregard FIFA and put what YOU think it means. I draw your attention to your continuous comments such as "the list means nothing." Jooler, quite frankly, if anyone is pushing POV here, it is you. You obviously don't want the truth to be represented and you've been pushing that POV before this discussion even began. Like I said, you've consistently tried to avoid the facts that the WORLD GOVERNING BODY FOR SOCCER has ranked these teams (regardless of whether or not it was by haircuts, goal differential, largest penis, or alphabetically). The final tie-breaker for this world cup is...waith for it...."DRAWING OF LOTS" i'm sure that's the most fair way to determine the better soccer team....no wait, its not fair, but since its the FIFA WORLD CUP...again, not the JOOLER WORLD CUP, they make the rules. Therefore, if FIFA ranks the United States as 3rd in the 1930 world cup, you can argue the point till you're blue in the face, but its not up to YOU. Its up to FIFA and FIFA has spoken. I say, go with Sebastions idea and put "Joint 3rd Place" for the United States and Yugoslavia, the FIFA official position is shown as well as your assinine POV position. Batman2005 18:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE CONTINUE DISCUSSION BELOW, this section is getting too long Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Famous Players

+from my talkpage I've readded the famous players that you deleted earlier. These players are ALL former World Cup players or players who had achieved many caps with the national team. Just because you have not heard of them does not mean that they are not famous past players. Many of the ones you deleted also appeared and achieved fame in MLS and other leagues around the world. Batman2005 23:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The list is bloated. Many no-names make world cup rosters, but are never famous. I absolutely disagree. Plasticbadge 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Projected Starting Line-Up

I have a problem with the inclusion of this feature. Sports Illustrated lists what they believe will be the starting line up, which is all well and good. But when you look at this page [3] it talks about a completely different formation, different look, etc. Should we make ANOTHER section for this one? Additionally, this one [4] says that changes to the US roster aren't out of the question, specifically John O'Brien, who if not healthy could be replaced. O'Brien who hasn't played more than 15 minutes in a game for months is listed as a starter in a story written about 4 months ago? I think its crystal ball to try to predict starters for the tournament in this way, even with the source. Every article you read is going with a different starting formula...Gibbs at left back, Lewis in the middle, Beasley on the right, 5 midfielders, 3 defenders, Ching or Johnson up top with McBride, O'Brien starting, O'Brien on the bench, O'Brien not even in Germany. I think it needs to be deleted, and then readded when the world cup begins with the actual starting line up. I'm going to remove it now, and direct people here to the talk page to discuss further. 68.78.15.99 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are at least 4 or 5 different "projected starting lineups" out there, Wynalda did one, ussoccer.com did one, fifaworldcup.com did one, i don't think its fair to include one without including all the others. It's too much speculation so i support NOT including it until the tournament starts. Batman2005 19:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
agreed too much inherent speculation for my tastes, Batman2005 has a fair point, too many predictions out there, best left till the first game and then input it as "World Cup starting line-up" or something like that. I've even seen predictions where Convey is on the left with Beasley coming off the bench, or Donovan on the right flank with Johnson and McBride up front. 75.2.7.200 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC) contribs
This appears to be Batman2005 talking to himself. Jooler 20:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
NO Jooler, 7 people live in my house with me, all soccer fans. I post under my username unless i've forgotten to sign in, i can't speak for the other people in my house. But you can continue to try to attack me and bring me down that way if you want, just goes back to your immature and juveline ways from before. Batman2005 20:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

1930 squad

I don't want to start an edit war about this with one [not with another one currently in progress], but the defence of the 1930 British (I think they were all Scots) "ringers" seems to be over-egging the pudding a bit. The para bangs on about their lack of experience as professional players, but I think that perhaps this lacks context. The Amateur game has always been extremely strong in Britain. more research is needed. Jooler

1930 World Cup placing (cont.)

Batman, please change your tone. You are being confrontational and very close of breaking WP:NPA. Please be Civil. Also, I'd like to point out that the 3rd place team is NOT considered to be a better football team than the 4th, as you mention in your post. It is just a WC placement. FIFA only considers the Ranking to determine a "better" football team, although its accuracy is dubious and calculation method is under constant criticism. Case in point, neither Turkey nor South Korea are even in the top 10 despite reaching Semi-finals in 2002 and Argentina is 9 despite having lost in the 1st round in the same tournament.

Having said that, I believe that both of you have good points either way. I understand Jooler's reluctancy (is that even a word?) to designate a 3rd place holder when no game was played and I understand Batman's argument for the US to be 3rd based on a FIFA page. My proposition is this: -Use "Joint 3rd". -Explain immediately underneath the reason for this decision in a neutral and factual way (example, to be wikified: In 1930 the FIFA WC didn't feature a 3rd place match, therefore both losing semi-finalists are considered third).

I'm unwilling to perpetuate this argument, if we can't agree here then I'm prepared to let the RFC go forward and let a compromise be "bestowed upon us". I'll keep an eye on the page and I'll protect if an edit war starts again.

Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Sebatian, I thank you for helping us mediate this discussion, but don't tell me how to speak or in what tone, the only personal attacks that have been levied on this page occured when Jooler called me petulant. I've agreed to the compromise that you set forth, he has not. I never said the 3rd place team was better, hell, with the vast talent in sports today you can't say that ANY team is better than any other, because on any given day one team will win and the other will not. I'm totally ok with the compromise, Jooler continues to push his POV and try to disregard fact, i wonder why that is. Batman2005 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman, I'll answer your points and then I won't post again unless Jooler agrees to the compromise.
a) You wrote this:

"DRAWING OF LOTS" i'm sure that's the most fair way to determine the better soccer team....

You did say that it was about the "better soccer team" and that's what I was answering.
b) You use the words "dumb representation" referring to his notes, use caps (equal to shouts) and continue using putdowns (like "Jooler World Cup") and such. That is construed in WP as a Personal Attack, and lack of civility. Jooler may or may not be guilty of the same issues. God knows I have blocked him for it in the past, but he has subdued his tone substantially and arguing his points in a more constructive way, IMO.
c) I am not telling you to change your tone. I was, as a Wikipedia Administrator, advising you to change it since it can be construed as aggressive, therefore violating several WP rules. You can be blocked for it, and I was warning you of that.
In summary, I'm out of this discussion. If Jooler agrees (as you just have) then I'll make the changes and be done with it. Otherwise, I'll let RfC keep its due course, watch the page for edit wars and mainly stay out of sight unless it becomes necessary to intervene as an administrator.
Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion he's arguing his points like a child and should say so for the common good. His unwillingness to compromise further shows it. And the "Drawing of Lots" bit was to show that FIFA has arbitrary and unfair ways of deciding contests. When the Drawing of Lots is used to determine who advances to the second round it IS being used to determine who is the better side. Batman2005 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Jooler's position

My final word till we get more opinions - Sebastian. Batman still contends that the USA is officially placed 3rd and Yugolslavia 4th, and yet he is prepared to have the article say something else entirely i.e. that the USA came joint 3rd. It appears to me that he is prepared to ditch his core argument as long as the text doesn't follow that set out by me. Now on the face of it there is little to choose between saying joint 3rd and saying quarterfinalist semifinalist, and I will freely admit that my innate stubbornness is a factor in my position, but I firmly believe that my arguments are well founded and right, and so rather than settle for your suggested compromise I would rather let the RFC process continue and see some opinions from others. To summarise my position The core facts of my argument are as follows :-
  • In 1930 there was no 3rd place match, but there were two losing semi-finalist.
  • At that time was no provision for separating 3rd and 4th place. Goal difference was not in use then. Goal average was used on occasion in other competitions but it was not used in the World Cup finals until 1962 where it was used as a last resort after a play-off and before the drawing of lots.
  • In common with other sporting knockout competitions e.g. the Wimbledon Championships or the FA Cup there was no 3rd or 4th place only 2 losing semi-finalist.
  • I contend that it makes no sense to use any modern criteria to try to separate the teams retrospectively for the following reasons.
    • Goal difference and 3 points for a win were brought into play in league football in order to encourage attacking play (and goals) and it thus obviously has a direct influence on how many goals teams scores or attempts to score once a win is secured..
    • If the teams had been aware that the number of goals scored would affect their final placing, I suspect the scorelines might have been somewhat different.
    • If we want to use modern criteria, Why should we stop at the use of goal difference, why not assign 3 points for a win instead of 2 and re-rank the teams accordingly?
  • Batman contends that the pdf document is an "official" document and can be used to retroactively re-assign the finishing places of the teams for the 1930 competition.
  • I contend that the document is entirely without context and it gives us no indication of its intended use and has no bearing whatsover on the actual way the 1930 competition finished. Aside from the above comments regarding the futility of using modern criteria, there are unresolved questions regarding the nature and purpose of the rankings shown.
    • I note that in the 1934 World Cup, this document ranks Argentina 9th France 10th and the Netherlands 11th when they all lost their first round matches 3-2 and should theoretically all be at the same level. Without any context or criteria with regards to how the person who wrote this document came to the decision to rank the teams in that order I come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that they are actually in alphabetical order.
    • I suggest that this being the probable case with regard to the 1934 competition, then we might postulate that for the 1930 competition this page lists Yugoslavia following the USA for exactly the same reason.
    • Without any context we must speculate and it is possible to speculate wildly as indeed Batman does by suggesting that it might be in the order of who had the largest penises.
    • I therefore contend that without any context this document is of no value.
  • Sebastian brings it to our attention that on FIFA's website they display "World Cup honours" for each nation where the context is very clear.
    • For Poland we find that it lists them being placed 3rd in 1974 and 1982.
    • For Yugoslavia we find that it lists their achievement in 1930 as "Semi-finals".
    • Similarly for the USA we find that it lists their achievement in 1930 as "Semi-finals".
      • Note that the 1930 positions stands in contrast to Poland’s 1974 and 1982.
    • I suggest that for consistency we should take this as our lead rather than some anonymous document that could have been produced for all manner of reasons.
  • I point out that our pages don't attempt to rank the losing quarterfinalists as 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th. Instead we simply put "best result: quarterfinals" e.g. Mexico national football team.
    • Similarly in other knock out competitions we list the round in which teams went out. My Wimbledon comparison did not meet with approval last time, so this time take a look at Millwall F.C. and their FA Cup performance listed as semi-finalist. There is no 3rd place in the FA Cup and this is exactly the same as the situation in the World Cup of 1930.
  • So as far as I'm concerned putting "best result: semifinals" for the USA in 1930 as is already done on the Yugoslavia national football team page is entirely consistent with the way such statistics are dealt with on other pages.
This is my position. Jooler 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Jooler, I am prepared to compromise because the nature of compromise is "give and take" i'm willing to give a little bit of ground to end this argument before it starts to take up even more room on this page. It's not "abandoning my core argument" it's called....Compromise, something you seem to be unwilling to even consider. Batman2005 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
He shouldn't have to consider it, because he's right. In that graph you are forced to put in a 3 and 4. it doesn't make it so, and neither does logic. But I'm glad you are willing to compromise. I read the article fresh today and it looks good at this moment. I'm glad you guys were able to work it out. Now I have to continue reading every soccer (sorry rest-of-the-world) article I can find in preparation of watching USA kick some ass (hopefully :)) Oreo man 22:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Batmans Position...duh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh BATMAN!

  • The document I provided is from the world governing body of soccer, which reserves the right, however arbitrarily or upsetting to certain members of the population, to rank teams for the World Cup as they see fit. The source is NOT without context, as it clearly states in the linking address what it is, and it clearly shows that FIFA considers the United States as being the 3rd place team Jooler says its without context as to how the teams were ranked. The point is, FIFA doesn't have to say how they rank teams. If FIFA chose to go with average height we'd have to accept it as FIFA's official position, that's what you get with governing bodies, they can make any determination they want and the community has to live with it.
  • Additionally, it is altogether pointless to bring up other sporting bodies as FIFA is not responsible for ranking Wimbledon or other sports, only soccer. Which is what they have done with this document.
  • I further believe that the only reason that Jooler is showing such fervent disregard for FIFA's list is that he's simply not a fan of United States soccer.
  • Furthermore, his continued contention that we do not rank the Yugoslavia, or Mexican teams by their final ranking is baseless, as with this source we're now able to do that.
  • He contends that FIFA might have used alphabetical order to determine the rankings, further up he said it might have been hairstyle. My response is simply that FIFA is in charge of making those decisions, not wikipedia editors and certainly not the general public. Only FIFA makes those decisions, and the source clearly shows their position.
  • As well, fifaworldcup.com is not maintained by the FIFA staff, it is an independent website that has been dubbed the official website of the world cup, not the FIFA website.
  • Also, he brings up the FA Cup, again...the rankings there are for the FA to decide, not FIFA.

My point is very simple, Jooler continues to say that the source is without context, while completely ignoring the context of the source. An official document from the world governing body of soccer who organizes and runs the world cup has ranked the United States as the 3rd place team and Yugoslavia as the 4th place team in the 1930 World Cup. Now if wikipedia is going to start writing its own version of history, then this is the last time I'll ever edit this site. It's not the Wikipedia World Cup as much as some people would like it to be so, we don't decide here who is ranked where and we certainly don't shouldn't disregard official documents that can be found by visiting the FIFA site and doing a little searching. Wikipedia is about verifiability, all this junk about the FA Cup, Tennis, and the like is pure nonsense, if we found an official listing from the tennis governing body saying "so and so finished 3rd at Wimbledon in 1974" then we would certainly accept that as true. We'll find no source more reputable about World Cup placing than FIFA, there's the source, it should be included exactly as it is. HOWEVER, I've made an attempt to compromise, because unlike Jooler I believe in stuff like that. Jooler makes no attempt to compromise and continues to push him anti-usa point of view on the editors to this page. I was simply trying to cut the argument out and give both sides a small victory. I'm willing to compromise, hell we can even say "Best Result - Semifinals, retroactively 3rd place" and provide the sourcing material that way. But again, i suspect Jooler won't compromise.

There's my position, like I said, it would be ridiculous to go against the World soccer governing body just because they retroactively assigned rankings. Remember, they're allowed to do that, they're FIFA and its the FIFA World Cup, they could say that Brazil was second in 2002 if they wanted to and none of us could do a damn thing about it. Batman2005 01:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman, as my last footnote to your previous opinions. fifaworldcup.yahoo.com IS A FIFA OFFICIAL SITE, maintained by FIFA and sponsored by Yahoo. As you can see at the bottom of any page, ãll copyrights belong to FIFA. Sebastian Kessel Talk 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sebastian, perhaps you should heed your own advice and not "personally attack me" remember as you said mr. pot kettle, typing in all caps is construed in wikipedia as a personal attack. I'm curious...is it ok for Admins to do it and nobody else? And fifaworldcup.com is not a FIFA site, it is a site hosted by yahoo, and webmastered by the german organizing committee who, while not an actual branch of FIFA, work under the watchful eye of FIFA to put on the World Cup, FIFA reserves the rights to all forms of media from the world cup, including...the official website. Batman2005 12:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Elisson

Firstly, I support all of Jooler's points. Secondly, Batman, why don't you read the official FIFA website All-time Awards page, and click yourself to the FIFA World Cup All-time Awards page, and then scroll through the page? Notice how every World Cup from 1934 and on has four actual "Awards" for finishing positions, while the 1930 WC only has two "Awards" for finishing positions, first and second place, implying that neither Yugoslavia, nor USA were either third or fourth, they were simply losing semi-finalists. Would you care to explain that? If FIFA would have retroactively handed out the 3rd place to any of the teams, wouldn't that be mentioned somewhere? – Elisson • Talk 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ellison, I sure would care to explain that for the 5th or 6th time. Visiting www.fifa.com takes you, as you obviously know, to the FIFA website. Then by clicking through the same site...onto "FIFA Facts" takes you to a page with all the PDF documents, then by clicking "FIFA World Cup - All Time Rankings 1930-2006 brings up the PDF Document that i have used as a source. And it is mentioned somewhere...curiously on the page I linked as a source. I mean, it doesn't say "attention wikipedia editors but we've ranked the USA 3rd and Yugoslavia 4th in the 1930 world cup." it's more subtle, you've gotta just look at the listing and find the information there. There you go, I have explained again. And i have looked through the FIFA pages you mentioned, several times actually, and I can't presume to know what FIFA was thinking, nor can you or Jooler for that matter. On a side note...does anyone else find it both odd and shocking that Pele never led a World Cup in scoring? Batman2005 02:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Why would that pdf be a more reliable source than the actual awards handed out at the tournament? Also note the difference between ranking and award, while USA in some strange way (alphabetical, probably) has been ranked as number 3 in the document, they never finished third, and were never given, at the time or retroactively, any third place award. Their finishing position was "losing semi-finalists", not "bronze medalists" or "third placed", because in that case they would have been noted as such on the page I linked to. – Elisson • Talk 17:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Look please at the 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990 tournament, if there was a tangible difference between "ranking" and "award" then wouldn't a discrepency have happened at some point in the past 16 years? Or has FIFA started to "get it right." You'll notice that for the past 16 years those teams have all lined up according to finishing position, be it based on games, goals, or if FIFA chooses, alphabetical order. Again, FIFA decides, they decided to produce the PDF ranking the United States 3rd at the end of the 1930 world cup, thus we can logically assume that they consider the United States the 3rd place team in that cup. Why should we lend more credence to your awards page than the pdf? Just because you like it as a better source? This is part of the reason I was willing to compromise (unlike other editors) and say that it was a joint 3rd place, or say semifinals, but link to the pdf document that I have provided. I also disagree that they would have been listed that way in the awards page. To do so would indicate that at the time of the World Cup in 1930 there was a 3rd place game, which is historically inaccurate, however, it's not unfeasible that FIFA looked through their history and chose to rank teams based on....alphabetical order, goal differential, etc. The point is we don't know exactly what they're thinking, which again....is why i'm willing to compromise and include the document i've linked. You all presume to know all about how FIFA is doing business, which is wrong, you have no idea what FIFA is thinking or doing, nor do I. Which is again why I say lets compromise. Batman2005 18:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Additionally Ellison, look below at the Hat Trick source I found, why are you not arguing about its reliability as a source? It's from the exact same website as my rankings source...so why are you not arguing about me using it? Is it somehow more reliable? Or is it possibly because it shows United States soccer in a less favorable light? I'm not attacking you, but it already appears that Jooler has a bias against American soccer, do you as well? If you say not then i'll take you at your word for it, but I wonder why the rankings source is being deemed "worthless" or "without context," but this hat trick source is not. Batman2005 18:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
1) My name is Elisson (note the number of l's and s's).
2) Why I'm not arguing against the hat trick thing? Because I've seen no source that contradicts that view.
3) This is not about reliability, this is about being able to understand what a document is telling us and what it isn't telling us. The document you link to "ranks" USA as number 3, whithout telling why, and without telling if they were awarded a third place or not. Other documents, of which I have linked to one, tells us that USA were not awarded a third place, and neither was Yugoslavia.
4) Why are you not asking why I am biased against Yugoslavian football, which is as much "disfavored" as the U.S. when I say no team was awarded a third place? And no, I am not biased for or against anything. I just want the truth, and the truth is that USA and Yugoslavia hasn't been awarded any third places for their semi-final losses in 1930.
Please answer two questions: Why is the U.S. team not listed as third place award winners in the section I linked to, and secondly, it very much seems that you are biased for American soccer, is that so? – Elisson • Talk 18:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Pardon my spelling mistake, it was not intentional. My simple point is this...that document that I linked to shows that FIFA ranks the united states as 3rd in the world cup in 1930. Be that as it may, when you look at 2002 it ranks South Korea and Senegal as 3rd and 4th. That's obviously based on world cup performance because after that tournament in the FIFA World Rankings they were not ranked that highly. I cannot answer your question as to why the United States is not listed as 3rd, just as YOU cannot answer why they are listed as third in my link. I can say that FIFA does not have to tell us why they rank teams. FIFA reserves that right as the governing body, if they rank a team as 32nd in the world after they've won a world cup we're not at liberty to say they're first just because we think that's how it should be.
  • My interest in American soccer is that I am a fan, i was not alive in 1930 nor do I particularly believe that is relevant. However, there IS a way to present this material to satisfy both sides..I am willing to do that at the expense of US Soccer, yourself and Jooler have made no attempt to compromise on any points and have pushed (for reasons passing understading) to disregard official FIFA documents...that stand to put US Soccer in a less favorable light. So tell me...how am I not supposed to draw the conclusion i've come to? Are you willing to compromise? I am. I propose the following "1930 Result - Semi-Finals, ranked 3rd" with of course the link to the document. We can...in the body of the article say "the united states finished as semi-finalists during the 1930 tournament and were ranked 3rd by FIFA, presumably on goal differential or alphabetical order or whatever." I suspect though that neither you or Jooler will find that an acceptable compromise as it even mentions the official documents i've provided as a source. Batman2005 18:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something here. You said "when you look at 2002 it ranks South Korea and Senegal as 3rd and 4th" - Turkey not Senegal beat South Korea in the third-place play off. So Turkey finished 3rd and South korea finished 4th. Jooler 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right jooler that was my mistake. Batman2005 19:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd put semi-finalists for 1930, but I'm not going to say any more on the subject as this trivial matter is already on WP:LAME once from an edit war in the World Cup article, and I think we can all agree that heading that way for a second time would be foolish. Oldelpaso 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For me its a matter of precedent, if we start disregarding FIFA now, what else is next? Disregarding the NBA on matters about American Professional Basketball? Disregarding the IOC on Olympic matters? And Oldelpaso, its not LAME, what's LAME is users trying to rewrite history in their own viewpoint. Batman2005 23:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC) god i hate it when i do that.
We are not disregarding FIFA, as said, I am in favour of following FIFA's official statements that can be seen on their webpage, which is that no third place award was handed out to any team in the 1930 World Cup, while a third place award was handed out to a team in all other World Cups. We are not rewriting history, we are following history. And history says what I just have written. – Elisson • Talk 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You ARE disregarding FIFA! Good lord man...how can you just pass off an official document from the exact same website you're claiming to use as a source? History clearly shows (through the source) that the USA was placed 3rd in the World Cup You're doing it simply because you don't like what it says. Simply because its not what you want it to say! You guys say its without context, yet you've made no attempt to tell us why for every world cup it lists the winners on down in the official order of results. You'll no doubt agree that for the 2002 World Cup 1-4 are the exact way that the results ended up right? Yet you cannot/will not accept the same to be true for the 1930 World Cup. And why is that? Because no game was played? What's your answer to the fact that FIFA can assign 3rd place to anyone they want simply because they are FIFA. You have the burden of proof to say "no, this source is wrong for reason X and Y." You can't just pass it off as contextless. The context is in the source. Teams, placing, the fact that for every other World Cup the teams lines up as.....wait for it.....the places were awarded. You no doubt agree with that, its just you have a problem with where the places were awarded in the 1930 world cup. There's no game to determine who finished 5th in the world cup....yet FIFA has placed that...where's the big uproar to say "oh no, that's not right, it was really Mexico/USA/Senegal/England? You simply don't want to acknowledge the source. Batman2005 00:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please read the FIFA World Cup awards page again. Notice how every single tournament has awarded a team with a third and a fourth place, except one tournament, the 1930 one. Does that tell you anything? Then read the FIFA World Cup page on the U.S. team again. Notice how their honours include a semi-final in 1930, while other teams have honours including third places. Does that tell you anything? – Elisson • Talk 00:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
See the source i've given...where it clearly shows the USA as 3rd....does that tell you anything? No?? Ok then, i'm through with this, see below. Good luck with your USA bashing and continued POV edits on wikipedia. I'm through with it, and you. Batman2005 00:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This whole argument could have been avoided if all of you'd just thought about it, it says FIFA World Cup rankings, it is a rankings system, like the FIFA World Rankings, it ranks the teams based on their performance, not their final position. Philc TECI 19:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

First Hat Trick in a World Cup...

I have changed that sentence a bit to reflect that FIFA's official view is that Patenaude only scored 2 goals in the game he is said to have scored 3 in, and that FIFA only credits him with two. Thus making the first World Cup Hat Trick achieved by Guillermo Stabile of Argentina. [5] Here is my sourcing material.

Someone (anon IP) has changed this to say that FIFA have changed their mind on this, quoting the Soccer Hall of Fame. Now FIFA seems to contradict itself on this. That DYK panel doesn't read like FIFA suddenly changed its mind on the subject and the match report that links off of that very same page (along with all other FIFA documents) still credits Florie. The US Soccer Hall of Fame says that FIFA have changed their minds, but if that is the case then surely there will be a press release somewhere, or a media report, or indeed a mention on RSSSF. I've made a Google news search, a web search and a newsgroup search using lots of different possibilities and I've found nothing. The US Soccer Hall of Fame (which is a small museum in Upstate New York) has made mistakes about other things, so I don't think we can trust this single source, so i'm reverting back. Jooler 05:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The official 2006 FIFA World Cup site in association with Yahoo lists Pertenaude with the first hat-trick. This was cited, so read sources before you revert. Also you reverted far more than that. Bad Jooler. Uris♥ 13:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Quote from the 2006 FIFA World Cup site: FIFA and a number of other sources give America's Bertram Patenaude the honour of having scored the first World Cup hat trick (17 July 1930, against Paraguay)
Duh! - Read the reference in the text and read what I wrote above before reverting. From a link on the very same page - the official match report [6] - Like I said it contracdicts the DYK panel. But reading the DYK panel it doesn't read like FIFA changed thier minds, which makes me think that its is misreporting. Show me a press release or a media report about the change. Jooler 15:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
We also have list of hattricks too. Jooler
Okay guys look at this. The DYK seems to have been taken from this article in the FIFA Magazette - World Cup edition published on (FIFA.com) 17 Nov 1999 - see here - Now the hatrick pdf file post dates it. So the former info must be incorrect. Jooler 16:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the "FIFA changing its mind" wording, but do not revert info that is not included in your edit summary. You keep reverting several more edits claiming you are reverting just the hat-trick info. That is a no-no on Wikipedia. Uris♥ 16:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting stuff that cannot be substantiated. The article currently says "The Argentine newspaper La Prensa recently did extensive research into the matter" This is claimed by the US Scocer Hall of Fame page, which had already proved unreliable. Searching the newspaper's website reveals nothing. Extensive research my eye; all they have to do is look at the back issues. RSSSF say - "Even the game report in the Argentina daily La Prensa supports the US claim". I would hazard a guess that the people at the US Soccer Hall of Fame have seen the incorrect info I highlighted above, read the RSSF stuff and tried to put two and two together. Please add only substantiated NPOV information and not erroneous factoids. Jooler 18:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. You reverted more than what you are currently discussing... reverting all the edits by the IP instead of just the one (about this hat-trick) that you had disagreed with. Not a big deal though, all is fixed now. Uris 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Uris please don't knee-jerk revert the references. Please discuss the following if you want to re-insert them. I have already shown that the Hall of Fame is an unreliable source, as it claims that FIFA recently changed it's position and yet no reliable press relase or media statement confirms this. The DYK panel from FIFA is a copy of the link shown above that was originally published in 1999. This predates the hattrick page because that page includes hattricks from the 2002 World Cup. All other FIFA links apart from the DYK panel and the original publication do not credit the hattrick. Jooler 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the article to accurately the fact that FIFA has "generally maintained" that Partenaude scored two goals in the game, but at least twice in its official materials has stated that he scored the first hat-trick. Thanks for your help, Jooler. Uris 23:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You're basically using a misprint to misrepresent FIFA's position. This is to say the least disengenous. Those two sources , the first of which I found for you are cut and paste jobs. The oldest of those sources has already proven to be incorrect. Jooler 23:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It was not a "misprint", unless you can prove otherwise. FIFA has released materials that are not consistent. The facts about this are accurately stated as best as we know. Uris 23:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget About It...

You know what, just forget about it, but whatever the hell you guys want to put, i've got a headache and I'm sick of saying the same damn thing over and over and over and over and over again and it being completely disregarded by people looking to push their POV/USA bashing and rewrite history in the face of official sources that they choose to ignore. So for all I care just put 219th for the 1930 world cup if you like, i'm sick of it. I'm done here, i've got better things to do. Batman2005 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And I've given you several sources that shows that FIFA does not recognize USA as having recieved the third place award in the tournament (no matter that you've found some recently created document ranking countries on loose grounds that has got no information about how the ranking was done). Notice how the award link I've provided states "Discover all the trophies awarded since the creation of football’s supreme event." If USA is not included in that award list, that simply means that they were given no award. Should I disregard that because you want to push your USA POV? Rewrite history? There was no third place award given to USA in 1930. Who really is the one who wants to rewrite history? – Elisson • Talk 00:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm through with you, i'll speak to you no further, you obviously hate the united states, go away, stop speaking to me and enjoy your POV. Batman2005 00:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget that except hating U.S.A., I'm also hating Yugoslavia and I've got a really serious anti-Yugoslav POV! :D – Elisson • Talk 00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As comments were requested, let me just say that it looks to me, from looking at all official sources, that putting the USA and Yugoslavia as "semi-finalists" is the only correct thing to do. The one pdf that seems to give the USA the third place is clearly just ordered alphabetically. Fram 12:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This issue is now resolved.

References

This article has 5 references using one system, and one using another. Furthermore, of the first five, only two show up at the Notes section at the bottom (notes 1 and 2). So now we have three references missing, and one in a different format (which starts the numbering all over again). Perhaps the people that have added those references can try to work something out? Fram 13:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. I think. – Elisson • Talk 14:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1994 World Cup

This part troubles me "The United States struggled in international soccer for the next 40 years. In 1988 the United States was controversially awarded the 1994 World Cup, even though it had not qualified for a World Cup since 1950" Now how were they awarded the Cup 4 years early? -- mando 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

mando I'd say that part needs a rewrite, without a source talking about how the selection was controversially received it sounds like original research. For all intents and purposes the 1994 World Cup is still regarded as one of the most finely run, I know FIFA was suprised about how it was received, much the same as they were in 2002 when Japan/South Korea did so well, I think 1994 definitely set the ground work for places like South Africa and Japan/South Korea to host even though they're not seen as "traditional powerhouses." So...my opinion is remove the part about it being controversial until we have a source and just mention when it was awarded. Batman2005 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Arena Photo

Here is the photo that used to be in the article, the original uploader left a LOT of trapped white space that made the article look REALLY bad, If someone can readd it and see to it that it makes everything line up real nice it would be great. Batman2005 01:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The uploader had zero whitespace. The image was 200px, someone unexplicably changed it to 95px. Uris♥ 13:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

URIS, look at the photo of Bruce Arena...see all that white space...that's what I'm talking about, it needs to go, it looks AWFUL! I tried altering the size to shrink it down, it didn't work so I moved it to the talk page...if we can put the photo there without all the white space next to it then great. Otherwise remove it as its looks terrible.Batman2005 15:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no white space in the photo. Perhaps check it on another monitor? Uris♥ 15:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


When I'm looking at the Head Coaches section there's the photo all the way to the right and then way down the page is where the listing starts. Thats not happening on yours? weird. Batman2005 15:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I just checked in Internet Explorer 6.0 and you're right. It's an IE-specific problem, but 80% of users still use that. I'll work on it... just a sec, I'll report back. Uris♥ 15:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey its cool, no worries..i don't really care actually. Batman2005 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Batman, I just moved it a little and it looks better... but not perfect. I'll work on it a little more during the England-Paraguay game since we know that's going to be a yawner. Uris♥ 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Games over man, wanna know who won? Batman2005 15:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Still had England-Paraguay on my mind... meant Sweden-Trinidad, but that doesn't seem to be such a yawner afterall, at least not yet. 0-0 at the halfway point. Uris♥ 16:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_States_men%27s_national_soccer_team_Archive_1_5693.html"