FIFA rankings are horribly flawed. The ELO rankings have us in the mid 20's, which is about correct. As far as a top 50 player, Tim Howard might make that list if you allow for GK's. No field player would make the top 100, sadly. Also, you have to somehow weigh that subjective list for club v country. For example, Dempsey plays much better for Fulham than the USMNT. Is it because of tactics? His team mates? Coaching? Donovan has top 100 talent, but is missing any sort of competitive fire (he's my least favorite player on the 'Nats of any consequence) and has been a failure in Europe all three times he's been there. Altidore and Bradley might well be a top 50/100 guys in a year or two. Adu has top 50 talent but can't see the field anywhere, and the reasons for that might be anything from attitude to the clubs he's been at. There's also a difference in performance from those who went through the USSF's developmental system in Bradenton and those who did not. As a general rule, those who didn't (Torres, Sacha, Benny, Jozy, and Dempsey) all are technically superior players when compared to their peers who went through Bradenton (Eddie Johnson, DMB, Donovan, Gooch, and a host of guys you will never, ever hear from). The USSF has a horrid developmental system that's skewed towards upper middle class kids, ignored technical ability in favor of measurables, and discourages individual flair in favor of effort and workrate. What's worse is that when the players reach the senior Nat level, the USSF seems to favor "their guys" when it comes to callups and such. A player from outside that development system has to work twice as hard to break through and is less likely to get a second chance should he fail to impress in a camp or match. Until that changes, we'll be stuck in the third tier of soccer nations.