germany v england, historical comparison

[arminius]

In my opinion England has always been a vastly overated football team, so let's see how they shape up historically against europe's true alltime superpower......the results may shock some.

WORLD CUP

CHAMPIONS........GERMANY 3....ENGLAND 1
FINAL................GERMANY 7....ENGLAND 1
SEMI FINAL........GERMANY 10...ENGLAND 2
LAST 8..............GERMANY 14...ENGLAND 7
QUAL/ENTERED..GERMANY15/15..ENGLAND11/14

EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP

CHAMPIONS.......GERMANY 3.....ENGLAND 0
FINAL...............GERMANY 5.....ENGLAND 0
SEMI FINAL.......GERMANY 6.....ENGLAND 2
LAST 8.............GERMANY 7......ENGLAND 7

COMBINED WORLD CUP/EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP

CHAMPIONS......GERMANY 6.....ENGLAND 1
FINAL..............GERMANY 12...ENGLAND 1
SEMI FINAL......GERMANY 16....ENGLAND 4
LAST 8............GERMANY 21....ENGLAND 14

[nachi88]

This is a non starter... Germany is much better in every department you mentioned... though the english have a strong team now, by the time of the wc, we'll be better and more fine tuned. And that too, the one wc they won was a 'lucky' one. But even if we count that as a no objectionable victory, English has won it only at home.

But then again, its the english who look to this like a rivalry. We dont take it as one. Its a matter of emotion for them, not us.

A debatable discussion would be dutch and english NT.

[rebirth No15]

I think the Germans are better even though the English are very strong the Germans seem Underrated to me no one seems to mention them.

[nachi88]

I think the Germans are better even though the English are very strong the Germans seem Underrated to me no one seems to mention them.

Thats the way we like it. No point bragging about yourself and then losing. Better to keep a low profile and perform when it matters.

[Lance Knight]

its a conspiracy i tell you

[Tottenham Dave]

England V

Germany 01/09/2001 W 5-1
Germany 07/10/2000 L 0-1
Germany 17/06/2000 W 1-0
Germany 26/06/1996 D 1-1
Germany 19/06/1993 L 1-2
Germany 11/09/1991 L 0-1
Germany 04/07/1990 D 1-1
Germany 14/05/1938 W 6-3
Germany 04/12/1935 W 3-0
Germany 10/05/1930 D 3-3


West Germany 09/09/1987 L 1-3
West Germany 12/06/1985 W 3-0
West Germany 13/10/1982 L 1-2
West Germany 29/06/1982 D 0-0
West Germany 22/02/1978 L 1-2
West Germany 12/03/1975 W 2-0
West Germany 13/05/1972 D 0-0
West Germany 29/04/1972 L 1-3
West Germany 14/06/1970 L 2-3
West Germany 01/06/1968 L 0-1
West Germany 30/07/1966 W 4-2
West Germany 23/02/1966 W 1-0
West Germany 12/05/1965 W 1-0
West Germany 26/05/1956 W 3-1
West Germany 01/12/1954 W 3-1


East Germany 12/09/1984 W 1-0
East Germany 29/05/1974 D 1-1
East Germany 25/11/1970 W 3-1
East Germany 02/06/1963 W 2-1



England Wins 14

Germany (combined) wins 9

Draws 6


For a correct "historical comparison"

[Tottenham Dave]

While we are "comparing historically" lets do European Club wins too, after all, that's the 'bread and butter'

Winners of the Cup Winners' Cup
by Country

England 8
Spain 7
Italy 7
Germany 5
Belgium 3
Scotland 2
Ukraine 2
Portugal 1
Slovakia 1
Georgia 1
Netherlands 1
France 1

UEFA Cup Winners by Country


England 10
Italy 10
Spain 9
Germany 6
Netherlands 4
Sweden 2
Portugal 1
Hungary 1
Croatia (then Yugoslavia) 1
Belgium 1
Turkey 1
Russia 1


European Cup Winners by Country

England 10
Italy 10
Spain 10
Germany 6
Netherlands 6
Portugal 4
Scotland 1
Romania 1
Yugoslavia (now Serbia) 1
France 1

[arminius]

While we are "comparing historically" lets do European Club wins too, after all, that's the 'bread and butter'

Winners of the Cup Winners' Cup
by Country

England 8
Spain 7
Italy 7
Germany 5
Belgium 3
Scotland 2
Ukraine 2
Portugal 1
Slovakia 1
Georgia 1
Netherlands 1
France 1

UEFA Cup Winners by Country


England 10
Italy 10
Spain 9
Germany 6
Netherlands 4
Sweden 2
Portugal 1
Hungary 1
Croatia (then Yugoslavia) 1
Belgium 1
Turkey 1
Russia 1


European Cup Winners by Country

England 10
Italy 10
Spain 10
Germany 6
Netherlands 6
Portugal 4
Scotland 1
Romania 1
Yugoslavia (now Serbia) 1
France 1
o.k first off i'm comparing national teams not club teams so it looks like your grasping at straws here, yes england has had a lot of club sucsess i'll give you guys that.....in head to head matches germany has a superior record in competitive matches, meaning matches in wc or euro, the majority of englands victories came in friendlies, in other words we win the majority of the important matches and you win the majority of the meaningless matches.

[Tottenham Dave]

My apologies, my understanding was that this was a thread where England and Germany were compared in footballing terms historically.

I suggest you edit the thread title to read:

"Germany v England, historical comparison in select few games that Germany won only"

[arminius]

My apologies, my understanding was that this was a thread where England and Germany were compared in footballing terms historically.

I suggest you edit the thread title to read:

"Germany v England, historical comparison in select few games that Germany won only"
ahh yes the select few games, these are the results in competitive matches, as i said before meaning either world cup or euro.
1966 eng def ger 4-2ET wc final
1970 ger def eng 3-2ET wc quarters
1972 ger def eng 3-1 euro quarters 1st leg
1972 ger-eng draw 0-0 euro quarters 2nd leg
1982 ger-eng draw 0-0 wc 2nd round group
1990 ger def eng 5-4 pen.(1-1) wc semi's
1996 ger def eng 6-5 pen.(1-1) euro semi's
2000 eng def ger 1-0 euro 1st round
2000 ger def eng 1-0 wc qual.
2001 eng def ger 5-1 wc qual.

as you can see in the matches that actually count for something germany has the advantage....you have a good record against germany in friendlies, who cares.

[Tottenham Dave]

You're going to include penalty wins???

And you said I was clasping at straws.


There is nothing to choose on the pitch in terms of the teams if you are talking football.

1966 eng def ger 4-2ET wc final
1970 ger def eng 3-2ET wc quarters
1972 ger def eng 3-1 euro quarters 1st leg
1972 ger-eng draw 0-0 euro quarters 2nd leg
1982 ger-eng draw 0-0 wc 2nd round group
1990 ger DRAW eng 5-4 pen.(1-1) wc semi's
1996 ger DRAW eng 6-5 pen.(1-1) euro semi's
2000 eng def ger 1-0 euro 1st round
2000 ger def eng 1-0 wc qual.
2001 eng def ger 5-1 wc qual.


I make that 3 wins for England, 3 wins for Germany and 4 draws in "meaningfull" games. In the rest, both national, and club, we win hands down.

You have better records in the tournaments, but easier routes through them.

2002 was the first time you have met Brazil in a WC!!!
We meet them every time!!!

[Tottenham Dave]

And if Germany ever beat England 5-1 in England, you can talk.

[arminius]

You're going to include penalty wins???

And you said I was clasping at straws.


There is nothing to choose on the pitch in terms of the teams if you are talking football.

1966 eng def ger 4-2ET wc final
1970 ger def eng 3-2ET wc quarters
1972 ger def eng 3-1 euro quarters 1st leg
1972 ger-eng draw 0-0 euro quarters 2nd leg
1982 ger-eng draw 0-0 wc 2nd round group
1990 ger DRAW eng 5-4 pen.(1-1) wc semi's
1996 ger DRAW eng 6-5 pen.(1-1) euro semi's
2000 eng def ger 1-0 euro 1st round
2000 ger def eng 1-0 wc qual.
2001 eng def ger 5-1 wc qual.


I make that 3 wins for England, 3 wins for Germany and 4 draws in "meaningfull" games. In the rest, both national, and club, we win hands down.

You have better records in the tournaments, but easier routes through them.

2002 was the first time you have met Brazil in a WC!!!
We meet them every time!!!
And your gonna ignore the penalty defeats, why are'nt i suprised...fact is we knocked you out of those tornaments, we were cool under pressure while you guys shit your pants, good to see beckham is continuing this great english tradition.....your comment about 'when we win 5-1 then we can talk' is everything iv'e come to expect of you losers, typical english, ignore your entire sorry history of finishing behind germany and just focus on your little crumb of glory.....here's another fact to digest, from 1970 to 1998 germany finished ahead of england in every world cup and euro, that's 15 consecutive major tornaments over a period of 28 years.....it's no wonder you guy's make such a huge deal about anytime you can get the better of germany......keep cherishing those crumbs.

[Tottenham Dave]

Enjoy your hollow victories, and your lucky draws.


5-1.

[nachi88]

Enjoy your hollow victories, and your lucky draws.


5-1.

Now that you mention it, that 5-1 game and the 66 wc are the only things ur NT has ever achieved. Beating Germany is a thing of national pride for your NT. For us , beating England is just another game.We dont celebrate it anymore than beating scotland or beating argentina or anyone. Its just another game. We have no emotions attached to that one. Even with a talented team, you always manage to mess up.

[Tottenham Dave]

So if we are so insignificant, why does this guy seem to feel the need to post about us in every other thread he contributes in?

I read on here he's an Australian.

Hmm, an Aussie, who loves Germany. All he needs now is a Scottish Granny and he can truely hate us from every angle.

He posted a set of stats comparing the two countries in footballing terms.
I posted a complete set of statsthat show that England have a better record against Germany.

[nachi88]

So if we are so insignificant, why does this guy seem to feel the need to post about us in every other thread he contributes in?

I read on here he's an Australian.

Hmm, an Aussie, who loves Germany. All he needs now is a Scottish Granny and he can truely hate us from every angle.

He posted a set of stats comparing the two countries in footballing terms.
I posted a complete set of statsthat show that England have a better record against Germany.

no one dismissed you as an insignificant footballing nation. you are probably right now one of the strongest footballing teams. But if you dismiss our wins by saying 'fluke' , ' lucky', 'cheating','hollow wins', 'easy routes' etc, you sure are hitting a raw nerve.

The stats he posted are those of world cup and european championships and are correct. they do indicate that we are a better team, especially when it comes to performances in major tournaments. I dont think you can disagree on the point that is being conveyed.Statistics dont lie.
Also we were discussing international football, if im not mistaken. Your facts of club football are correct though. Also a better head to head record doesnt necessarily indicate the stronger side.

Before you accuse me of anything, I'll tell you that after my NT, its probably England, Croatia and Ukraine i'll root for in the comming wc.

[Tottenham Dave]

But if you dismiss our wins by saying 'fluke' , ' lucky', 'cheating','hollow wins', 'easy routes' etc, you sure are hitting a raw nerve.


I'm sorry but a topic that has:

In my opinion England has always been a vastly overated football team

as it's opening line, and then followed from yourself with:

This is a non starter... Germany is much better in every department

will also hit a nerve.


If you want to do a comparison between England and Germany, then you do it in games against each other, not their records against other teams.

[arminius]

So if we are so insignificant, why does this guy seem to feel the need to post about us in every other thread he contributes in?

I read on here he's an Australian.

Hmm, an Aussie, who loves Germany. All he needs now is a Scottish Granny and he can truely hate us from every angle.

He posted a set of stats comparing the two countries in footballing terms.
I posted a complete set of statsthat show that England have a better record against Germany.
no scottish granny but if i go way,way back on my mothers side there is a small irish connection.

[arminius]

I'm sorry but a topic that has:

In my opinion England has always been a vastly overated football team

as it's opening line, and then followed from yourself with:

This is a non starter... Germany is much better in every department

will also hit a nerve.


If you want to do a comparison between England and Germany, then you do it in games against each other, not their records against other teams.
To do a comparison you look at the whole picture, as you see their records in the major championships aren't even comparable it's so one sided, even bringing in head to head matches we still get the better of you in competitive matches....you have a better record in friendlies, congratulations on that.

[Tottenham Dave]

To do a comparison you look at the whole picture, as you see their records in the major championships aren't even comparable it's so one sided, even bringing in head to head matches we still get the better of you in competitive matches....you have a better record in friendlies, congratulations on that.


If you want to compare two teams, you compare them against each other.
Not their matches against other teams.

Friendlies?

What are they?

You think when the players meet up with each other before the match they say "Who cares? It's only England/Germany"


???

[arminius]

If you want to compare two teams, you compare them against each other.
Not their matches against other teams.

Friendlies?

What are they?

You think when the players meet up with each other before the match they say "Who cares? It's only England/Germany"


???
friendlies don't really mean a whole lot, for starters there's no trophy's at stake and for the most part the intensity's not at the same level as a wc or euro match.
Also you'll see coaches experimenting with different styles and formations as well as testing out players...plus many clubs won't even release players during the season to play in certain matches.....wasn't long ago australia walloped you guys 3-1 in a friendly, would this happen in a world cup match?
though i'd love to see it, i doubt it.

[Tottenham Dave]

I respect your opinion.

[nachi88]

I respect your opinion.

good to see everyone agree and have peace around :thumbsup:

[soccerates]

In my opinion England has always been a vastly overated football team, so let's see how they shape up historically against europe's true alltime superpower......the results may shock some.

WORLD CUP

CHAMPIONS........GERMANY 3....ENGLAND 1
FINAL................GERMANY 7....ENGLAND 1
SEMI FINAL........GERMANY 10...ENGLAND 2
LAST 8..............GERMANY 14...ENGLAND 7
QUAL/ENTERED..GERMANY15/15..ENGLAND11/14

EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP

CHAMPIONS.......GERMANY 3.....ENGLAND 0
FINAL...............GERMANY 5.....ENGLAND 0
SEMI FINAL.......GERMANY 6.....ENGLAND 2
LAST 8.............GERMANY 7......ENGLAND 7

COMBINED WORLD CUP/EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIP

CHAMPIONS......GERMANY 6.....ENGLAND 1
FINAL..............GERMANY 12...ENGLAND 1
SEMI FINAL......GERMANY 16....ENGLAND 4
LAST 8............GERMANY 21....ENGLAND 14

Hey Arminia, how about current strength. IS Germany a better team than England in recent outtings? Just curious...

[soccerates]

This is a non starter... Germany is much better in every department you mentioned... though the english have a strong team now, by the time of the wc, we'll be better and more fine tuned. And that too, the one wc they won was a 'lucky' one.

But Germany making the final of 2002 was not lucky? How was England winning in 1966 lucky? They beat you 4-2, even if the 3rd goal is disputable, they still played the whole game well, well enough to score 3 perfectly legitimate goals vs Germany. How is this lucky? You're looking at things through your skewed and rosey colored glasses again.


But even if we count that as a no objectionable victory, English has won it only at home.

So. Italy, Argentina, France, Uruguay, Germany and England have ALL won at home. Only Brazil has not. If you say England is lucky for winning at home then you have to say that the rest are too. Secondly you're one to talk givent that Germany has a blood-doping scandal around their 1954 win, and in 1990 needed referee help, giving two made up red cards to Argentina and awarding a fake penalty kick against Voller to give Germany their cup. Two victories are tainted, and if we accept your view that winning at home is lucky, then Germany's only really legitimate final was lucky too.


But then again, its the english who look to this like a rivalry. We dont take it as one.

Really? Why then did a German start this thread as a matter of comparison between two countries? That's competitive behavior which indicatesa rivalry.


Its a matter of emotion for them, not us.

Which is why you've come up with all sorts of rationalizations for making comparisons between the two. That doesn't add up. Furthermore, watch Arminius degenerate in the future of this thread, resorting to name-calling and probably making the variety of bigoted comments he made in the Mannshaft vs Azzurri thread you started.

Talk about contradictory, trying to paint yourself and not creating a rivalry, but being the author of two threads that make wide-sweeping generalizations and comparisons in the process. Sheesh.... :rolleyes:

[soccerates]

Thats the way we like it. No point bragging about yourself and then losing. Better to keep a low profile and perform when it matters.


ROTFLMAO...yet another contradiction. It was you and Arminius that were the main contributors to the Mannshaft vs Azzurri thread, one that you started, and again the main contributors in this thread...bragging about having superior records of the past. WOW, that's a great way to keep a "low profile" nachi. :boo: Super!! :p

[soccerates]

England V

Germany 01/09/2001 W 5-1
Germany 07/10/2000 L 0-1
Germany 17/06/2000 W 1-0
Germany 26/06/1996 D 1-1
Germany 19/06/1993 L 1-2
Germany 11/09/1991 L 0-1
Germany 04/07/1990 D 1-1
Germany 14/05/1938 W 6-3
Germany 04/12/1935 W 3-0
Germany 10/05/1930 D 3-3


West Germany 09/09/1987 L 1-3
West Germany 12/06/1985 W 3-0
West Germany 13/10/1982 L 1-2
West Germany 29/06/1982 D 0-0
West Germany 22/02/1978 L 1-2
West Germany 12/03/1975 W 2-0
West Germany 13/05/1972 D 0-0
West Germany 29/04/1972 L 1-3
West Germany 14/06/1970 L 2-3
West Germany 01/06/1968 L 0-1
West Germany 30/07/1966 W 4-2
West Germany 23/02/1966 W 1-0
West Germany 12/05/1965 W 1-0
West Germany 26/05/1956 W 3-1
West Germany 01/12/1954 W 3-1


East Germany 12/09/1984 W 1-0
East Germany 29/05/1974 D 1-1
East Germany 25/11/1970 W 3-1
East Germany 02/06/1963 W 2-1



England Wins 14

Germany (combined) wins 9

Draws 6


For a correct "historical comparison"

Totenham Dave, I must warn you - you are using stats and facts to back up your "historical comparison" between these two nations. This is a big "no-no" in Arminius and Nachi's world, where they beleive head-to-head results between two nations is irrelevant and that titles are the only indicator of strength between two nations, ie; it doesn't matter if they didn't meet in those finals, and such but that the only way to measure the strength of two nations is through their international records. They aren't able to understand that the only thing that can be said is that Germany is certainly more successful overall, but in head-to-head they simple don't match up. If you would like a good laugh at their tactics,and see what you're in for I suggest you read the laughable debate tactics of Arminius especially inthe original thread that these two started:

http://forums.soccerfansnetwork.com/showthread.php?t=29549

If you like debating simpletons, Arminius is your best target. He'll eventually degenerate his "debate" tactics to name-calling and will invariably make some bigoted comments about the English along the way.

Heads up.

[soccerates]

o.k first off i'm comparing national teams not club teams so it looks like your grasping at straws here, yes england has had a lot of club sucsess i'll give you guys that.....in head to head matches germany has a superior record in competitive matches, meaning matches in wc or euro, the majority of englands victories came in friendlies, in other words we win the majority of the important matches and you win the majority of the meaningless matches.

LOL, this is the first time you acknowledge head-to-head as being significant. Congratulations on your upgrading, but I must say that selecting a specific context in which Germany has the advantage is a weak comparison. Overall, England is better than Germany too in head-to-head, as Italy is. :rolling:

[soccerates]

My apologies, my understanding was that this was a thread where England and Germany were compared in footballing terms historically.

I suggest you edit the thread title to read:

"Germany v England, historical comparison in select few games that Germany won only"

LOL...he won't understand you, he'll begin his slippery-slope argumentation, which will be augmented with various non-sequitors and finally degenerate to ad hominem, then repeat that his adversary has "illogical, mentally weak, and crippled ideas". He'll do this all without using a period in his whole rant once. He forgot that sentences start with capitals, and doesn't believe in seperating his ideas with proper structure.

It'll be fun ;)

[soccerates]

And your gonna ignore the penalty defeats,

There is no such thing. Penalties only determine who goes through to the next round, or who wins. The game is officially recorded as a TIE, not that I expected you to get your facts straight :(


why are'nt i suprised...

Because for the most part you don't know what you are talking about.


fact is we knocked you out of those tornaments, we were cool under pressure while you guys shit your pants,

Really? Were you the designated cleaner? And as expected you begin to degenerate towards argumentum ad hominum.


good to see beckham is continuing this great english tradition.....your comment about 'when we win 5-1 then we can talk' is everything iv'e come to expect of you losers, typical english,

Enter the bigoted comments, also as expected :( ...ho hum


ignore your entire sorry history of finishing behind germany and just focus on your little crumb of glory.....here's another fact to digest, from 1970 to 1998 germany finished ahead of england in every world cup and euro, that's 15 consecutive major tornaments over a period of 28

You keep talking about "digesting" facts, so I'm curious as to why you are unable to digest the fact that England (and Italy) both own Germany in head-to-head? Why is this?


years.....it's no wonder you guy's make such a huge deal about anytime you can get the better of germany......keep cherishing those crumbs.

The same crumbs of past-glory that you keep making a point of mentioning?!?

[soccerates]

Now that you mention it, that 5-1 game and the 66 wc are the only things ur NT has ever achieved. Beating Germany is a thing of national pride for your NT. For us , beating England is just another game.

Then why have you made a point of contributing in this thread if it's no big deal to you?!? Doesn't add up, kind of contradicts your behaviors...


We dont celebrate it anymore than beating scotland or beating argentina or anyone. Its just another game. We have no emotions attached to that one.

Even I don't think you're dumb enough to believe this.

[soccerates]

no one dismissed you as an insignificant footballing nation. you are probably right now one of the strongest footballing teams. But if you dismiss our wins by saying 'fluke' , ' lucky', 'cheating','hollow wins', 'easy routes' etc, you sure are hitting a raw nerve.

The stats he posted are those of world cup and european championships and are correct. they do indicate that we are a better team, especially when it comes to performances in major tournaments. I dont think you can disagree on the point that is being conveyed.Statistics dont lie.

Yes, and I explained in the Mannshaft vs Azzurri thread that you started, that if you want to examine the strengths between two countries (not their championship titles) the only way to do it is head-to-head, and even in this one England is stronger than Germany. As you say; "Statistics don't lie." Do you think the Arminian one will be able to "digest" this, or have his "poodle" explain it to him?!?
:rolling:

[soccerates]

no scottish granny but if i go way,way back on my mothers side there is a small irish connection.

Wait a minute, in the Mannshaft vs Azzurri thread you tried telling me that your mother is Italian. Caught in another lie, or did your mother have Irish grandparents?...lol

[soccerates]

To do a comparison you look at the whole picture,

Wrong. You're committing the error of slothful induction, where the proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.

slothful is another name for laziness. You're thinking is incomplete, clearly.

www.dictionary.com
Slothful - Disinclined to work or exertion; lazy. See Synonyms at lazy.

If you say you are comparing success in World Cup or Euro Cup competitions that's one thing. But if you want to compare the two teams against each other you can only use head-to-head.

You need to take a basic science class and have the scientific method explained to you before you'll understand this. That is, if you possess the intelligence to get into a basic University at some point in your future, jr.

[nachi88]

But Germany making the final of 2002 was not lucky? How was England winning in 1966 lucky? They beat you 4-2, even if the 3rd goal is disputable, they still played the whole game well, well enough to score 3 perfectly legitimate goals vs Germany. How is this lucky? You're looking at things through your skewed and rosey colored glasses again.



So. Italy, Argentina, France, Uruguay, Germany and England have ALL won at home. Only Brazil has not. If you say England is lucky for winning at home then you have to say that the rest are too. Secondly you're one to talk givent that Germany has a blood-doping scandal around their 1954 win, and in 1990 needed referee help, giving two made up red cards to Argentina and awarding a fake penalty kick against Voller to give Germany their cup. Two victories are tainted, and if we accept your view that winning at home is lucky, then Germany's only really legitimate final was lucky too.


Talk about contradictory, trying to paint yourself and not creating a rivalry, but being the author of two threads that make wide-sweeping generalizations and comparisons in the process. Sheesh.... :rolleyes:

As I said before, head to head neednt necessarily show which is stronger of two teams. The meain flaw in a head to head is that there are many other teams in a tournament, and a good result has to be obtained against them all, and not just 'one team'.
Secondly Im not author of both the threads that you mention. Check carefully before you write.
Also, You so easliy discredit us of wc 90 and wc 54. But what about your two wc's in the 30's won with mussolini overt influence on the referee and the game. You have failed to mention that.

PS: italia 90 was a well deserved victory. Cant blame us if the argies played rough in the final. The Argies apparently played very rough against brasil too, and there is an allegation of their coach mixing some 'substance' in brasilian drink to make them dizzy. you can find more about this in brasil forum.

[Tottenham Dave]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tottenham Dave
I respect your opinion.



good to see everyone agree and have peace around

I didn't agree with his opinion, I just respected it.

[Tottenham Dave]

Soccerates,

good luck in the WC.

Both our teams are due some luck ;)

[The Little Bird]

Yes, and I explained in the Mannshaft vs Azzurri thread that you started, that if you want to examine the strengths between two countries (not their championship titles) the only way to do it is head-to-head, and even in this one England is stronger than Germany. As you say; "Statistics don't lie."
:rolling:

So with that logic Hungary are a stronger side than Brazil? :confused:

[Dutchfan]

Little Bird ("Garrincha"?) - as with Arminius and with 621380, you don't know what you're talking about. Not that I expect you to realize it. Tottenham Dave (he who says he likes Arsenal best???) - In case you haven't already figured it out, trying to argue logically with Arminius or with 621380 is nothing more than an exercise in futility. Unless you like to have fun arguing with simple minds! Soccerates - YOU DA MAN!! GO GET 'EM!!!

[soccerates]

As I said before, head to head neednt necessarily show which is stronger of two teams. [.quote]

Actually you are wrong. It ABSOLUTELY shows who is stronger of the two teams, because it is a direct indication of which team can gain a result over the other over a long period of time. It can be called a longitudinal study in sceintific terms. If you ever presented your arugment to a scientist he would undoubtably tell you that the only way to know whether two materials are stronger is by direct comparison of strength in a study which pits them against each other. Again (this is probaly close to the 15th or 16th time), Germany is more SUCCESSFUL overall, but success in one-off tournaments that happen every four years has many flaws to validity. Head-to-head is more valid, period.

[QUOTE=Dutchfan] AThe meain flaw in a head to head is that there are many other teams in a tournament, and a good result has to be obtained against them all, and not just 'one team'.

Actually your argument is reversed. Because there are many teams in tournament, and they are "one-off" (one game and you advanced or DO NOT), it is not a good indication of who's stronger, ESPECIALLY teams that do not square off. There were about 4 teams specifically (and possibly more) that were stronger than Germany in the last world cup - Argentina, England, Italy, and Spain...but none of them met Germany. You can't say that Germany would have made the final had they met them. Tournaments like this are thus not good representations of relative strength. What is more of a better representation is LEAGUE style, where ALL teams play each other TWICE over a designated period (a year, or season). Then you have a better indication of who's better. For example, both Milan and Juve dropped games to less talented teams this season, but over the long hauld they proved their strength by finishing 1 and 2. THEY PLAYED ALL THE TEAMS THOUGH. This situation does not exist in World Cup or Euro...SO...again...while Germany is historically more successful in the long-haul, you can't make a direct correlation of their strength vs another team unless you compare those teams exclusively. This is quite straight forward.


Secondly Im not author of both the threads that you mention. Check carefully before you write.

Read what I said again. I said you authored the Mannshaft vs Azzurri thread, and are contributing to this one, so your assertion that you have no interest, or it's "no big deal" is in direct contradiction to your interest in these threads. You clearly do care, and it is a big deal since you contribute to both.


Also, You so easliy discredit us of wc 90 and wc 54.

I said both victories are tainted in scandals. In 1990 Germany had a great team, I don't dispute, however they needed two red-cards (disputable) against a very weak Argentina and a made-up penalty on a Voller dive to win the cup, and in 1954 they blood-doped, giving them an unfair physiological advantage over a superior Hungary.


But what about your two wc's in the 30's won with mussolini overt influence on the referee and the game. You have failed to mention that.

No, you need to re-read what I've written. I've addressed that numerous times. The accusations that Mussolini interfered in those cups are all speculation, propoganda, and gossipy. There are absolutely no facts, or evidence that this happened. You are certainly free to believe it, as many others are, but until there is evidence it has no basis in reality. Speculation is NOT evidence. I can say that Joao Havelange interfered in _______ such and such cup, or that Sepp Blatter interfered in 2002 (which there is much speculation that he did, and even letters from presidents of other soccer organizations outlining his corruption to win Fifa presidency), but those two are mere speculation.


PS: italia 90 was a well deserved victory.

Argnetina received two red-cards that were very un fair, and Voller dove to win a penalty to win Germany the Cup. That was not deserved. Their play up until that point was pretty good though.


Cant blame us if the argies played rough in the final.

I'm not blaming YOU or Germany specifically. I'm saying the ref handed out two red-cards that were questionable and definitely a made-up penalty when it was clear that Germany couldn't beat a 9-man Argentina.


The Argies apparently played very rough against brasil too, and there is an allegation of their coach mixing some 'substance' in brasilian drink to make them dizzy. you can find more about this in brasil forum.

There is more than mere speculation that the Argies put tranquilizers in their drinking water and gave it to Brazilians who stupidly drank it. I say more than speculation because Maradona has come forward and said it happened. Of course the Argentine federation and coaching staff has denied it, but why would Maradona say it if it weren't true? Was he maybe paid-off to say it? I don't know, don't care. It's the same as the 1954 doping scandal. A German player has come forward and said that whole team blood-doped, then the German federation and it's hired doctor said...no, it was "vitamin c and glucose" to cover-up what a player himself said. This is more than a mere assertion, it is a player himself. Regardless, the cloud of doubt was cast over that player and he was accused of lying etc. Somehow I doubt it. It's good hard cold evidence to me. Hungarian players were in awe at how fresh Germany still was late in the game and after being down 2 goals, that they were still running around like they had not exerted themselves at all. Especially given that Hungary thrashed them in the earlier rounds. Then a player comes forward and says they blood-doped. It all makes sense since blood doping increased your red-blood-cell count by sometimes 50%, which means you can carry 50% more oxygen to your working muscles, which means you have super-human endurance and can keep working at a higher rate than other players.

There are dangers with blood doping...liver disease for one, your heart works harder for another...so in the long-run it is very hard on your system and taxes it very strongly, but in the short-term it increases your productivity quite a bit. When a team has lost it's wind, and you can keep running at them, you'll create more chances and eventually wear them down. Germany did this to Hungary in that final.

[soccerates]

So with that logic Hungary are a stronger side than Brazil? :confused:

Not at the moment. You can argue that they were in the early 30's, 40's and 50's since they had better results, but overall (*as I've explained in another thread*) the sample size (that means number of games they've played in) is not large enough to draw reasonable conclusions from. If Hungary had played Brazil over 100 times it would be, as Argentina has. Argentina has a better record than Brazil, so one can say that historically while Brazil has more trophies, in head-to-head they are no better than Argentina. These are prefectly rational and reasonable conclusions, and are more accurate than a team who has only played another team 2 or 3 times...sample size is too small. The only conclusion that can be made in these conditions is that Team A was better than Team B on the date of _________, etc.

[soccerates]

Soccerates,

good luck in the WC.

Both our teams are due some luck ;)


I'm pretty confident that both England and Italy would be very bad news for Germany without them receiving assistance from the ref. Both Italy and England have beaten Germany squarely in recent outtings and Italy has another "friendly" (no such thing exists between these two countries) vs Germany in December. I'll respect whatever happens in that game as relative strength between the two as it currently stands.

[Tottenham Dave]

Tottenham Dave (he who says he likes Arsenal best???) - In case

:D

That was a joke!

[nachi88]

:D

That was a joke!

hahahaha.. tottenham fan supporting arsenal.... wow... what is the world comming too. In that case Tottenham dave, you might as well support Germany NT

j/k. :D

[Dutchfan]

I'll give you this nachi: at least you appear to have SOME sense of humor! Credit to you!

[The Little Bird]

Not at the moment. You can argue that they were in the early 30's, 40's and 50's since they had better results, but overall (*as I've explained in another thread*) the sample size (that means number of games they've played in) is not large enough to draw reasonable conclusions from. If Hungary had played Brazil over 100 times it would be, as Argentina has. Argentina has a better record than Brazil, so one can say that historically while Brazil has more trophies, in head-to-head they are no better than Argentina. These are prefectly rational and reasonable conclusions, and are more accurate than a team who has only played another team 2 or 3 times...sample size is too small. The only conclusion that can be made in these conditions is that Team A was better than Team B on the date of _________, etc.

The list of competitive games you gave for England versus Germany wasn't large enough to draw reasonable conclusions from, in relation to which side is better. This topic is going nowhere.

[nachi88]

The list of competitive games you gave for England versus Germany wasn't large enough to draw reasonable conclusions from, in relation to which side is better. This topic is going nowhere.

exactly, but both teams have played in a sufficeinetly large number of tournaments , and based on the achievemnets of theirs in these tournamenst we can clearly say that german nt is better, atleast in terms of achievements.

[soccerates]

The list of competitive games you gave for England versus Germany wasn't large enough to draw reasonable conclusions from,

LOL, Little Bird you're trying to mimick my posting style, and while that's flattering, your conclusion is innacurate. The sample size that Tottenham Dave game is definitely large enough to draw a reasonable conclusion from...you can try to argue anything less than 10 is not large enough, but England and Germany have played each other 30 times. That's certainly large enough. As Dave pointed out, England has 14 victories to Germany's 9.



in relation to which side is better. This topic is going nowhere.

You're right, the head-to-head is conclusive so there's really nothing left to debate.

[soccerates]

exactly,

Nope, it's definitely large enough.

[nachi88]

Nope, it's definitely large enough.

ok, now a serious question to you....

what do you exactly consider a " valid sample space"?? 5? 10? 15? who decides??
Another question is, why cant the world cups and euro cups as a whole be considered one event, rather and individual matches.. you definately have 20+ sample space if you do that, and can draw the necessary conclusions.. from our 3wc and euro cup victories.

If i throw a dice 20 times, maybe i can get 10 times no. 6. i get no. 5 4 times. This doesnt mean that there is more chance of no.6 occuring than no.5. That doesnt make no. 6 more likely to happen the 21st time i threw the dice, they are all equiprobable, I think you understand what im trying to say. Same way.. England Germany, on paper are almost level teams... and in competitive tournaments we have better record.

[soccerates]

ok, now a serious question to you....

what do you exactly consider a " valid sample space"?? 5? 10? 15? who decides??

"Sample size" not "space", regardless of the semantics, I already answered that anything less than 10 is probably not large enough.



Another question is, why cant the world cups and euro cups as a whole be considered one event,

1 - they are considered one event
2 - Individual matches between two teams are the best measure of strength between two teams
3 - I already explained why one-off tournaments, generally, are not a good indicator of true strength...they are too short, and not everyone plays each other. They can only determine a "champion" of that event.

[The Little Bird]

Head-to-head is certainly not conclusive. Thats ludicrous. Especially when the majority of games you've mentioned are friendlies. Only the most biased person would argue that friendlies should be included in head-to-head comparisons. I can hardly be bothered to elaborate as this whole topic has just turned into nonsense. Stupid comments from both sides. And I mimick no-one's posting style. :) The fact is that Germany are, historically speaking, a better footballing side. England, for all their head-to-head success, have not achieved nearly as much. Playing well and losing gets you nothing at the end of the day. However, at the moment they possess a far stronger depth of quality players, and it's been like that for some time now. PS. Whoever brought up the success of clubs in their argument deserves a slap in the face.

[nachi88]

the little bird, good line of reasoning.

There is a similar discussion going on in world soccer section of the forum, under a thread named - der mannschaft vs azzuri. There too head to head is taekn as a tool of reference in measuring who is better of the two.

[soccerates]

Head-to-head is certainly not conclusive.

Go ahead and elaborate on this, because head-to-head is simply a measurment of one teams capabilities over the other, that's it. No one said it was a determining statistic for everything.


Especially when the majority of games you've mentioned are friendlies.

What's ludicrous is to suggest the word "friendly" even exists between two rivals like Italy and Germany, or Germany and England, or even Brazil Argentina. It's a term that is overused, as if to say that the players are actually thinking "Well, today is just a friendly, so I'm going to ***k the dog all day and not try at all."

Friendlies are used equally in determining standings for both Fifa and ELO (oldest rating system in use). They don't skew the results because this supposed "friendly" isn't determining a qualification standing or cup standing.



Only the most biased person would argue that friendlies should be included in head-to-head comparisons.

Really? That's clearly your opinion. But let's expand on that for a moment shall we? What you are saying is the personel at FIFA and their ranking system is biased? Yeah, I'm soooo sure. You're saying the same thing for eloratings.net

check out their site, and tell me that they don't use friendlies to determine standings.

Are you going to stay consistent and declare that they are biased as well? Or will you retract that outdated and uninformed opinion?


I can hardly be bothered to elaborate as this whole topic has just turned into nonsense. Stupid comments from both sides. And I mimick no-one's posting style. :) The fact is that Germany are, historically speaking, a better footballing side.

No, the facts are that Germany is the more successful football side. Period. Anything else is opinion, not fact.

www.dictionary.com

Fact - a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality


Opinion - a. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion”

Fact - Germany is the most successful European Footballing Nation in terms of World Cup and Euro Cup.

Opinion - Historically Germany is a stronger vs. England

And don't try to tell me that I'm biased in favor of England because I like England no more than I like Germany.


England, for all their head-to-head success, have not achieved nearly as much. Playing well and losing gets you nothing at the end of the day. However, at the moment they possess a far stronger depth of quality players, and it's been like that for some time now. PS. Whoever brought up the success of clubs in their argument deserves a slap in the face.

England is also stronger than Germany in their historical meetings. That's a fact. An opinion would be that I say England is thus Europes strongest team.

[soccerates]

the little bird, good line of reasoning.

There is a similar discussion going on in world soccer section of the forum, under a thread named - der mannschaft vs azzuri. There too head to head is taekn as a tool of reference in measuring who is better of the two.


Nachi, it is the ONLY measurment of who is better between the two...comparing the results between the two. There exists no other measurment that would be taken seriously by anyone who is trying to make a direct correlation. It's called Science. If you took your view to a scientist and asked him what he thought, he would disagree with you. He would have to remain objective and state the obvious:

1 - Germany = More Successful
2 - Italy = stronger than Germany when they face each other

THESE are TWO seperate arguments. I've laid it out for any reasonable person to look at objectively. Both are conclusive, and neither are determinant on the other.

I'm seriously surprised that after all this time you still fail to distinguis between the meanings of the words used.

What seems to be the problem?

[nachi88]

Soccerates-

The corelation you tlk about is correct. But there is also a co-relation between tournament performances and strength of national side. They are not distinct.

[soccerates]

Soccerates-

The corelation you tlk about is correct. But there is also a co-relation between tournament performances and strength of national side. They are not distinct.

Right, they are not dependant on the other.

[The Little Bird]

Soccerates, I'm just asking you to show common sense. Germany are the better side historically because they have been much more successful. They have proven themselves more adept at defeating a more diverse range of opponents(Thus progressing further in tournaments). ELO is a flawed ranking system. No ranking system is perfect. I can't believe you claim not to be biased when you disregard tournament perfromances over time and say only head-to-head encounters are conclusive.And please don't quote the dictionary. It's insulting.

[soccerates]

Soccerates, I'm just asking you to show common sense.

No you're not, your asking me (indirectly) to agree with your assessment, of which I've given you detailed reasons why I do not.


Germany are the better side historically because they have been much more successful.

I've already stated two obvious conclusions that are undisputable:

1 - Germany are more successful in tournaments as evidence of having more trophies

2 - Engand is better in head-to-head meetings

Why don't you try using common sense and realize that these are two different conclusions and neither are dependant on the other.


They have proven themselves more adept at defeating a more diverse range of opponents(Thus progressing further in tournaments). ELO is a flawed ranking system. No ranking system is perfect. I can't believe you claim not to be biased when you disregard tournament perfromances over time and say only head-to-head encounters are conclusive.And please don't quote the dictionary. It's insulting.

I don't disregard tournament performances exclusively. I disregard the use of tournaments to discuss relative strength between two teams, especially when those teams have failed to meet in many of the tournaments.

They're differnet topics, get it?

[philipas]

Soccerates, yet another thread where you're spreading your self proclaimed self righteousness.
I agree HEAD TO HEAD is not conclusive...
Give it a break... :fed-up:

[soccerates]

Soccerates, yet another thread where you're spreading your self proclaimed self righteousness.
I agree HEAD TO HEAD is not conclusive...
Give it a break... :fed-up:

You're too stubborn to upgrade your thinking. In terms of objectivity, head-to-head is the ONLY measurment that would be accepted to determine the strength between ONLY TWO TEAMS, not others and not in tournaments. We've been through this already. You're either too young, or to inexperienced in logical thought processes to understand.

I won't be giving it a break, and downgrade my thinking either. So maybe you should give it a rest, or do as I requested earlier and have the balls to back up your statements with evidence, otherwise the many errors you made in the other thread will be repeated here.

[soccerates]

Soccerates, yet another thread where you're spreading your self proclaimed self righteousness.

BTW, you're using the terms "self proclaimed and self righteousness" liberally and out of context, as if they actually mean something when using objective statistics to back up opinions. They are empty terms, not applied to anything I've done. You're again making assertions that you cannot back up with proof. What kind of fool enters a debate proclaiming to use reason and breaks all the laws of logic and argumentation? :cool:

At this point in time, you're the poster boy for this person. :boo:

Pin the tail on the Donkey anyone? :thumbsup:

There's nothing "self-righteous" about my opinions and the statistics are not self-proclaimed - they're accepted by all authorities on the subject. Stats are not opinion, they're absolute. The use of the stats can be claimed to be an opinion, but stats are not.

You're also the 'pot calling the kettle black' because instead of following a process of reason, you are making unsupported arguments, in which case "self-proclaimed" would be a very fitting description. Try looking outside of the glass house you live in, and accept that you might not know everything, and especially in this case you certainly don't know what you're talking about - you've gotten the terms and meanings of those words wrong, and are using them completely out-of-context.