The United States slunk out of the Copa America without a point to their name, and watching them play you couldn’t help but wonder if it had been worth them coming in the first place.

The U.S. lost all three games, the only team to do so apart from Ecuador who at least gave the impression they wanted to be there.

Like Mexico, the U.S. took part by invitation. Unlike the Mexicans, however, they opted to bring a second-string side of inexperienced players into the Copa America cauldron.

There are good reasons why the U.S. could not bring their best team to a tournament played just after they had won the CONCACAF Gold Cup. But the question remains, if they were not interested in competing, or were unable to do so, why did the U.S. accept the invitation?

Adam Spangler at This Is American Soccer argues that it was still the right decision to play in the tournament, but the South American authority CONMEBOL was reportedly far from impressed by the under-strength U.S. team. Jeff Carlisle at ESPNSoccernet calls the whole thing a wasted opportunity.

What do you think? Should the U.S. have skipped the tournament rather than bring a below-strength team?

Brian Homewood is covering the Copa America in Venezuela for Reuters

After averaging four goals a game in the first three days of the competition, the Copa America has quickly gone off the boil. The last three games have produced one goal between them, itself a very dubious penalty won and converted by Robinho.

Much of the blame for this must lie with the competition’s format, which contrives to eliminate only four of the 12 teams in the group stage.

Another problem is that, due to the demands of television, the final matches in each group are played one after the other, rather than simultaneously — thus flying in the face of a standard rule introduced in the rest of the world to stop farces such as West Germany’s notorious 1-0 win over Austria in 1982.

Most teams have therefore gone into their final group game knowing what they need to do to qualify.

On Tuesday, Venezuela and Uruguay met in Group A in Merida, both knowing that a draw would suit them. Venezuela, already qualified, would finish top of the group while Uruguay would qualify as one of the best third-placed teams. Not surprisingly, a tame 0-0 was played out amid jeers from the 42,000 crowd.

On Wednesday night, Chile faced Mexico also knowing that a draw would send them through as a third-placed team. (Quick note: there are three groups of four with the top two and the two best third-placed teams going through). A point for the Mexicans, meanwhile, would keep them top. Another 0-0 draw ensued.

With that game out of the way, Brazil also needed a draw against Ecuador, a team who had to win to stay alive. Brazil won 1-0, somewhat fortuitously.

Thursday’s matches are likely to be even more of a damp squib as the eight quarter-finalists have already been decided. When Paraguay and Argentina meet in Barquismeto, it will merely be to decide who finishes first and second. And Colombia and United States, both eliminated, will be playing for a consolation win.

Is it time for a change in format?

Brian Homewood is in Venezuela to cover the Copa America

The Copa America is facing an imported refereeing controversy after hosts Venezuela notched their first win in the competition since 1967.

Ten days ago, Mexican referee Benito Armando Archundia was involved in a furious row when he disallowed a Canadian equaliser in the Gold Cup semi-final against hosts United States.

The Canadians were livid, not just at the decision but the fact that Archundia had been appointed at all, given that his own country Mexico were playing in the other semi-final.

You might have expected the authorities to tread carefully and keep Archundia out of the spotlight for a while yet on Saturday he popped up again at the Copa America, a competition which makes the Gold Cup look like a vicar’s tea party in comparison.

Once more, his match involved the tournament hosts, Venezuela, in a game against Peru they could not afford to lose. And you’ve guessed it — Archundia got into trouble again.

The tournament had been free of refereeing problems until Archundia decided to dismiss Peru’s Pedro Garcia in the 14th minute for elbowing, when all Garcia appeared to do was try and stop himself being kicked from behind by Giancarlo Maldonado.

Archundia then turned down a Peruvian penalty appeal — with Venezuela 1-0 ahead — and lost control altogether at the end of the game, which ended with ugly scuffles. Not content with that, he decided to go for a touch of the unusual when he booked Venezuela’s Alejandro Cichero for playing keepy-uppy — which he deemed ungentlemanly conduct.

South America has a good supply of officials used to dealing with the unique pressures of refeering on the continent. So bringing in an outsider seemed unnecessary in the first place.

But such controversies are nothing new. Remember the 1966 World Cup when England v Argentina was refereed by a German and Uruguay v Germany by an Englishman. Naturally, the South Americans were less than impressed when their teams lost both games.

Brian Homewood is covering the Copa America for Reuters in Venezuela

Mexico’s 2-0 win over Brazil at the Copa America could signal the end of the international road for three players who had been regarded as fixtures in the team — defenders Ricardo Osorio and Carlos Salcido and midfielder Pavel Pardo.

The trio, all based with European clubs, pulled out of the Copa America saying they were tired. But without them, Mexico, who had stuttered to a 1-0 win over Guadeloupe and lost to United States in the Gold Cup, suddenly came to life.

Osorio, Pavel and Salcido were untouchables under previous coach Ricardo La Volpe, the gruff former Argentina goalkeeper who shocked stylists with his jacket-and-jeans combination at the last World Cup. So when La Volpe’s nemesis Hugo Sanchez took over at the end of last year, their future was immediately thrown into doubt.

Sanchez promised that there would no recriminations and kept his word by including them in the Gold Cup squad. However, as the tournament wore on, rumours abounded that the camp was split between “Huguistas” and “Lavolpistas”.

Osorio, Salcido and Pardo are all seen as hardline “Lavolpistas” and their absence in Puerto Ordaz on Wednesday seemed to give more harmony to the team. Rafael Marquez was the only survivor from the previous regime to play against Brazil — and he, in any case, is seen as a moderate Lavolpista.

Wednesday’s performance may prompt Sanchez to launch a purge of the Lavolpistas once and for all, especially as newcomers like Juan Carlos Cacho, Jaime Correa, Fausto Pinto, Johnny Magallon and, above all, the hugely gifted striker Nery Castillo all showed that they were more than up to the task. The other side of the coin is that Osorio, Pardo and Salcido all have the invaluable experience of playing in Europe.

“It is up to Hugo,” wrote Hector Huerta, a leading Mexican sports writer, after the game. “Either he submits himself to Lavolpism or he starts to make history with players who want to leave their soul on the pitch for the colours of Mexico.”

Brian Homewood is in Venezuela to cover the Copa America

Argentina are the slight favorites to win the Copa after Brazil’s top pair Kaka and Ronaldinho asked not to be picked, saying they needed a rest.

That’s the widely-held view. Which team do you expect to win? Send a comment with the link below.
Follow the games in Spanish on Reuters Latin America news site Pictured right: Venezuela’s Ricardo Paez (11) celebrates with teammate Edder Perez after he scored their second goal against Bolivia in Match 2. Pictured left: Bolivia’s Gonzalo Galindo (L) fights for the ball with Venezuela’s Leonel Vielma. REUTERS/Jorge Silva (VENEZUELA)

Brazil’s 2-0 defeat by Mexico was by no means the first shock for fans at the Copa America.

It is hard to imagine a World Cup or European Championship semi-final venue being changed at a fortnight’s notice, yet when the South American Football Confederation (CSF) switched the Copa America semi-final from Caracas to Maracaibo on Monday, two weeks before it is due to be played, nobody batted an eye-lid.

The CSF appear to pride themselves on being masters of improvisation. In 1997, when the competition was held in Bolivia, there was a fantastic rule that the final would be played in La Paz at 3,600 metres above sea level if Bolivia qualified and at low-lying Santa Cruz if they did not.

In 2001, the tournament, due to be held in Colombia, was postponed and relocated because of security fears. Then, under pressure from sponsors and the Colombian government, it went ahead as scheduled at eight days’ notice. Argentina, who had already told their players to go on holiday, pulled out and Honduras took their place.

In the light of this, a mere semi-final venue switch, officially for security reasons, raises few eyebrows. But where do the supporters fit into the middle of all this?

The CSF does not appear to be overly concerned about this minor detail. The local organising committee have very kindly told supporters that they’re tickets will be valid at the new venue, although they would have to travel 750 kilometres to a city where the limited number of hotel rooms have been been booked for months.

It is no wonder that the organisers failed to fill the stadium for Tuesday’s opening game between Peru and Uruguay.

Brian Homewood is covering the Copa America in Venezuela