For every step taken, there’s been a step back — no matter who has been the coach. The team made a breakthrough in 1994 when it reached the knockout stage for the first time in the expanded World Cup era.1It was expanded to 24 teams in 1982 and to 32 teams in 1998. It followed that by crashing out in 1998. The Americans stunned Portugal in the group stage in 2002 and made its first modern-era quarterfinals with a win over Mexico in the round of 16. It followed that by being a complete also-ran in 2006. So if the heroics in 2010 and 2014 — when the team fought through tough groups to survive and advance in dramatic fashion — gave the U.S. any confidence, it has just been completely wiped out. 7/23/00Qualifier1799Costa Rica157167.6 DATESTAGEU.S. ELOOPPONENTOPP. ELOHOME?WIN PROB. 10/10/17Qualifier1761Trinidad & Tobago138982.7% 5/31/85Qualifier1558Costa Rica1505✓70.7 Only includes matches that were at the World Cup or World Cup qualifying level (i.e., excludes continental championships, friendlies and minor tournaments). Games played in neutral locations denoted with a dash.Source: eloratings.net A chart of the U.S. team’s Elo rating over the past two decades shows not so much steady growth but a series of peaks and valleys with, at the moment, no overall progress to speak of. This is not to say that money and size are everything in international soccer. The two biggest countries in the world by population — China and India — have made the World Cup just once (China in 2002), whereas Iceland, a country of just 340,000, will play in its first next summer. But the U.S is different. It has spent the last decade talking about long-term plans for soccer development. The U.S. Soccer Federation increased its staffing and pay for national team coaches and introduced new youth initiatives to build a better team from the ground up. It is hard to see the results of these ambitions on the field. We’re launching a sports newsletter. 🏆 Join the squad. Subscribe 3/25/16Qualifier1749Guatemala146074.8 9/1/17Qualifier1789Costa Rica1741✓70.1 All newsletters 5/11/69Qualifier1455Haiti1453✓64.3 6/14/02World Cup1832Poland1653—73.7 9/1/01Qualifier1791Honduras1734✓71.2 Before coach Bruce Arena gets too much of the blame, it’s important to remember that it was the failures of the team under his predecessor, Jurgen Klinsmann, that put the Americans in this position in the first place. The team lost to Mexico and Costa Rica last November in this qualifying cycle, which led to Klinsmann’s ouster. And, ultimately, losing those points made what should have been a meaningless game against Trinidad a must-win. Earlier last year, the same Klinsmann team also inexplicably dropped a game to Guatemala in the group stage of qualifying, the second-worst loss by Elo.The advantages the U.S. squandered are many. America finally has a legitimate men’s soccer superstar in Christian Pulisic, but he alone could not score two goals for the team. (He got one.) And it’s not just a question of talent: The U.S. towers over these CONCACAF opponents when it comes to resources. Trinidad and Tobago, after all, has a population of 1.2 million — or roughly the size of the greater Hartford metro area. Here is how the 12 countries that made the group stage of the 2018 CONCACAF World Cup qualifying compare in gross domestic product and population — it probably won’t be hard to spot the U.S. 10/15/08Qualifier1813Trinidad & Tobago153373.8 6/22/06World Cup1797Ghana1682—66.0 The worst USMNT World Cup losses everMatches for which the U.S. men’s soccer team had the highest probability of winning (according to Elo ratings) but ultimately lost, 1885-2017 No one still believes that we will win.On Tuesday night, it all fell apart for the U.S. men’s national soccer team. A seven tournament, 24-year streak of consecutive World Cup berths was snapped in cartoonishly heartbreaking fashion.Coming into the match, American fans were rightfully confident. All it would take to qualify for the World Cup was a win or a tie against Trinidad and Tobago, a team that had nothing to play for but pride and only one win in nine matches in the final qualifying group. And even if somehow the U.S. lost, Honduras and Panama would both need victories over the top two teams in the group, Mexico and Costa Rica, to complete the elimination. If the USMNT lost and only one of Honduras or Panama won, the US would be headed for a playoff against Australia. By ESPN’s Soccer Power Index, the United States had a 93 percent chance of reaching its eighth consecutive World Cup.Then the U.S. conceded two goals in the first half — first an own goal and then a blistering 35-yard strike — despite giving up little in the way of high-quality chances. And despite a halftime switch to bring on Clint Dempsey and line up two attackers behind strikers Bobby Wood and Jozy Altidore, the U.S. could not create the chances to level the score. USMNT fans could only watch in horror, and Panama and Honduras both clawed back first-half deficits to knock the U.S. out of World Cup qualification.U.S. men’s soccer is obviously no stranger to embarrassment and heartbreak on the international stage. In the 1998 World Cup and the 2006 World Cup — the last two on European soil — it combined for one tie and five losses. In 2015, the team was stunned at home in the Gold Cup semifinal by Jamaica, which at the time was ranked 76th in the world by FIFA. But what happened Tuesday night may stand alone.Looking only at World Cup matches and qualifiers, it was the worst loss in USMNT’s history based on the Elo rating system. Going into the game, Elo gave the U.S. an 83 percent chance of beating Trinidad and Tobago, making the Americans huge favorites even after accounting for the fact that they were playing on the road. Going back to 1885, the American men had never lost a match at that level when they had such a high probability of winning. And it came with all the chips on the table. You cannot blame U.S. soccer fans for being a little woozy this morning.
Mounts Bay arrives swiftly to TCI, redeployed to help in illegal Haitian migrant defence Turks and Caicos, September 7th, 2017 – Providenciales- The RFA Mounts Bay today told the BBC that they are feeling the effects of Hurricane Irma, and are about 200 miles away from us … the ship, a part of the Royal Naval Fleet is deployed to the Caribbean to assist, with humanitarian relief in the islands including the British overseas territories.By Deandrea Hamilton Recommended for you Related Items:#magneticmedianews, #MountsBay Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApp Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApp
Explore further (Phys.org) —A team of Israeli, Spanish and German researchers has for the first time created a map of gene expression in Neanderthals and Denisovans and has compared them with modern humans. In their paper published in the journal Science, the team describes how they applied epigentics to the study of our two closest known ancestors and discovered variations that might account for their differences in body shape and susceptibility to some modern neurological diseases. More information: Reconstructing the DNA Methylation Maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan, Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1250368ABSTRACTAncient DNA sequencing has recently provided high-coverage archaic human genomes. However, the evolution of epigenetic regulation along the human lineage remains largely unexplored. We reconstructed the full DNA methylation maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan by harnessing the natural degradation processes of methylated and unmethylated cytosines. Comparing these ancient methylation maps to those of present-day humans, we identified ~2000 differentially methylated regions (DMRs). Particularly, we found substantial methylation changes in the HOXD cluster that may explain anatomical differences between archaic and present-day humans. Additionally, we found that DMRs are significantly more likely to be associated with diseases. This study provides insight into the epigenetic landscape of our closest evolutionary relatives and opens a window to explore the epigenomes of extinct species. A Neanderthal skeleton, left, compared with a modern human skeleton. Credit: American Museum of Natural History © 2014 Phys.org Journal information: Science This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. Scientists know that it’s not just our DNA structure that determines how we look and what we’re capable of doing, there’s another factor involved—the expression of our genes—they can be turned on or off at some point, allowing or preventing certain traits from developing. This process is known as DNA methylation—where methyl group chemicals attach to DNA and prevent them from behaving as they would otherwise. In this new effort, the researchers looked at methylation in Neanderthals and Denisovans to learn more about how they might have been different from us.Studying methylation in preserved fossils involves noting the way the methyl chemical cytosine decays over long periods of time. Unmethylated cytosines decay to one type of chemical while unmethylated cyctones decay to another. By measuring the amounts of the two resultant chemicals found in fossilized bone fragments, the researchers were able to create methylation maps of Neanderthals and Denisovans, which they then compared with similar maps for modern humans.The comparisons revealed differences in approximately 2000 different regions, though one in particular stood out—an HoxD cluster that prior research has shown plays an important role in the development of body structure—a finding that could help explain the shorter, stouter limbs (and other features) of our extinct cousins. Interestingly, the team also found that some of the highly methylated regional areas that appear in modern humans do not appear in either Neanderthals or Denisovans, regions that have been associated with neurological disorders such as schizophrenia and autism—a finding that may help shed some light on their source.Unfortunately, the maps created by the research team are still incomplete, they only had a few bone fragments to work with—they’re hoping future studies (and fossil finds) will reveal more. In the meantime, they plan to conduct similar work on other species, such as horses, to help reveal the types of methylation that occurred as they were domesticated. Citation: Researchers create methylation maps of Neanderthals and Denisovans, compare them to modern humans (2014, April 18) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-04-methylation-neanderthals-denisovans-modern-humans.html New insights into why humans are more susceptible to cancer and other diseases