Counterattack

Counterattack: Is Hex-Topping USA The Best In CONCACAF?

Both teams drew 2-2 on the final day of World Cup qualifying, meaning the United States topped the Hexagonal table by one point over Mexico. Does that mean the Americans have a better team? Goal.com associate editors Allen Ramsey and Zac Lee Rigg discuss.

Oct 15, 2009 2:02:12 AM

Photo Gallery

Zoom

riot - Mexico-USA (Mexsport)

Related Links

Question: The USA is first in CONCACAF, but are they the best?

Allen Ramsey: I think it's pretty simple. You win the Hex, you get the right to be called top dog in CONCACAF for the time being. Now look, I know Mexico won in Azteca, and that they've looked like a different team since Javier Aguirre took over, but that doesn't take away from the fact the the U.S. won the group. To me, the team at the top of the table at the end of the day is the best team. Results are all that matter, and the U.S. did the job. All Mexico had to do was top T&T tonight and my position would have been different. They didn't. That's all there is to it.

Zac Lee Rigg: I think that league tables are an excellent way for showing which team was the best over the course of time it took to play the league or, in this case, the Hex. They can't, however, say which team is the best at any one specific time or predict how well teams will do in the World Cup. Since Aguirre and Cuauhtemoc Blanco have returned to the Mexican team, they've been the best in CONCACAF and have the highest chance of doing some real damage in the World Cup come summer 2010.

Ramsey: I think you're right about them being the best in CONCACAF in that time frame, but it's still way to early to tell if that will matter in 2010. The only result that is separating the two teams right now is Mexico going into Costa Rica and running the Ticos off the pitch. Sure, they rolled up El Salvador in Azteca, but the goals came late and honestly the U.S. scored a third in their home match with the Salvadorians that got called back. In that same time frame, the U.S. went to Honduras and got a result. Luck plays a part for sure, but you can't say the U.S. doesn't deserve to be considered the top team in the region right now.

Mexico won the Gold Cup in convincing fashion, but even their fans know that wasn't anywhere close to the best team the U.S. can field and that Mexico fielded a fairly strong side. The argument about bringing your top team is stupid when you've got a group of players who were in need of a rest at that time. Honestly, on a neutral field, it's probably a coin flip, but winning the Hex gives the nod to the U.S.

Rigg: I wouldn't argue that the U.S. deserves to be considered ONE of the top teams in CONCACAF, but saying it unilaterally is a bit premature for me. I'm getting a bit bogged down in all your citing of results, so I'll just explain a little bit why I think Mexico has a better team. Since Aguirre took over, he's blended experience and youth really well.

The best example of that is how well Blanco and Giovani Dos Santos link up. Temoc is old enough to be Gio's father, but that doesn't stop them from effortlessly making space for each other to do real offensive damage. A modern attack based on movement and vision is backed by a cultivated, wily midfield. Behind that is a once-again steady defense, that is only going to improve when Rafael Marquez is fit again.

Of any of the CONCACAF teams, Mexico is the one best equipped to beat top European and South American teams; it's the side with the highest ceiling.

Ramsey: But then again, haven't they been that all along? The ceiling is great; can they get there? I'm not convinced. Nobody in their right mind would argue talent-for-talent that the U.S. is better than Mexico. Nobody. But that's not what we're doing here. What we're doing here is talking about who is the better team.

You say Mexico is the best equipped to top a top flight European team. I disagree.

What happens to this Mexico team when they face a team that can come out of the shell and knock the ball around the pitch better than they do? I hate to tell you this, but Mexico is still not good enough to go blow for blow with the top teams in the world. But they will try to, and it will be their downfall once again. The U.S. is a team that seems to understand its limitations and they play to their strengths. I honestly can't say who will do better in South Africa (we'll have a better idea after the draw) but I like the U.S.'s chances as much as I like Mexico's. Either team could do very well, or get a tough draw and get bounced. But for me, like I said before, it's flip of the coin. There isn't really a dominant side, but there is a side that topped the Hex, and that side is the U.S.A.

Rigg: The U.S. plays a well-disciplined ballgame: sit back, stay compact, hit on the break, wear the better team out. I'm not knocking it. It'll churn out a shock result every once in a while even, like the Spain win. But it can't do it consistently, as shown by the Czech Republic game, the Ghana game, the Italy game, the Brazil games. You get the idea. Mexico comes out and plays honest. It won't beat the elite teams in the world (no body in CONCACAF will), but it'll punch its weight more consistently. And right now, that's tipping the scales in its favor when compared to the lighter U.S.

Counterattack runs every Thursday on Goal.com

See who the 15 most under-rated players are in the October issue of Goal.com Magazine.