Europe vs S. America

[Bosanac]

Alright, let's get to voting..



This is strickly for National teams.





Europe: Heart of football.


South America: Always strong at football, passionate supporters, football legacy.






So, the question is in which continent is it easier to qualify to the World Cup?



PS: I know you're all going to say Europe is harder, but think of this. The best players of South America play in Europe. They have to travel back to South America for every single game, without having much time to practice or relax. Right after the game, they have to go back to Europe to play league games.



South America or Europe?



Vote, and give reasons ;)

[forza AC MiLAN]

i think it's easier to qualify in south america, because i feel european soccer is INTENSE and REALLY COMPERTITIVE. it's probably the same ith south-american soccer, but i just feel that way :)

[Dado_Prso_09]

agreed
europe

[Bosanac]

i think it's easier to qualify in south america, because i feel european soccer is INTENSE and REALLY COMPERTITIVE. it's probably the same ith south-american soccer, but i just feel that way :)



You think so?


That's a newbie opinion, I have to say ;)


Check this out



10 Teams in South America

Argentina (ARG)
Bolivia (BOL)
Brazil (BRA)
Colombia (COL)
Paraguay (PAR)
Uruguay (URU)
Venezuela (VEN)
Chile (CHI)
Ecuador (ECU)
Peru (PER)


Just think for a second, that you're not Brazil or Argentina.. Look at those teams (all strong), only top 4 qualify


So leave out BRA and ARG, you have only 2 spots left and 8 teams fighting for it.

[brazuca5copas]

I will not give any credit for your opinios, because Europeans qualy always has just 1 difficult group, the olthers is ridiculous, look at this:

South America

Brazil
Argentina
Uruguay
Chile
Ecuador
Paraguay
Colombia
Venezuela
Peru (in 2700 m)
Bolivia (in 3600 m)

Except Brazil and Argentina, the olthers has the same level to fighting agaisnt themselfs, to achieve 2 places.


Now look Europe

Bósnia
Bélgica
Espanha
Lituânia
San Marino
Sérvia e Montenegro

We don't have San Marino in the qualy. :mad2:

[Panathinaikos2]

We have stronger teams here in Europe. France, England, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Croatia, Tukey, Denmarck, Sweden, Check Republic, Spain, and Portugal. We have other good teams too.

[Ilovefootie]

You think so?


That's a newbie opinion, I have to say ;)


Check this out



10 Teams in South America

Argentina (ARG)
Bolivia (BOL)
Brazil (BRA)
Colombia (COL)
Paraguay (PAR)
Uruguay (URU)
Venezuela (VEN)
Chile (CHI)
Ecuador (ECU)
Peru (PER)


Just think for a second, that you're not Brazil or Argentina.. Look at those teams (all strong), only top 4 qualify


So leave out BRA and ARG, you have only 2 spots left and 8 teams fighting for it.

Totally agree with you. In SA it's harder to qualify. Remember brazilian winner team of 2002 struggled to qualify for Japan.

[ItalianBoy]

Brazuca you are a joke. For starters, your qualifications are far easier simply because you get the same teams all the times. In Europe, we are seeded. Teams like San Marino get to fight against not just Croatia and Serbia, but with Italy, Spain, England, Germany, Holland, Portugal, and France and so on. Don’t make us laugh man, Bolivia tied Brazil and they are last in the group! The only two world class teams in your round are Argentina and Brazil. It is also the same teams over and over. We all know that they will qualify. Yet, explain to me how Ecuador can beat Brazil 3-0 and in the WC Italy beats them 2-0…so Italy is better than Brazil? Bolivia dominated Brazil…I said Bolivia, the last team in the group… PHULEEEEEEZE!

[soccerates]

I will not give any credit for your opinios, because Europeans qualy always has just 1 difficult group, the olthers is ridiculous, look at this:

South America

Brazil
Argentina
Uruguay
Chile
Ecuador
Paraguay
Colombia
Venezuela
Peru (in 2700 m)
Bolivia (in 3600 m)

Except Brazil and Argentina, the olthers has the same level to fighting agaisnt themselfs, to achieve 2 places.


Now look Europe

Bósnia
Bélgica
Espanha
Lituânia
San Marino
Sérvia e Montenegro

We don't have San Marino in the qualy. :mad2:


Here's a prime example of an irrelevant argument due to the nature of selectively using a small sample out of context. Brazuca is saying that the European qualifications are nonsense because not all teams can play each other. I suppose that Brazuca forgot, or does not know his georgraphy in that Europe has something like 51 teams in the qualifications and thus playing all is impossible.

Also South America has it's fair share of garbage, and those teams are what you guys are supposed to rack in your points against.

Your quote: "Except Brazil and Argentina, the others has the same level to fighting agaisnt themselfs, to achieve 2 places", illustrates this perfectly.

What it seems you are saying is that besides Brazil and Argentina the others have the same level so it doesn't matter who is submitted of them.

Excuse me, but that doesn't make the S.American qualifications any harder. The typical suspects always make it, and Argentina/Brazil aren't at risk of drawing a tougher group and being eliminated like both the Dutch and Czech's were in 2002, and possible Spain, Czech, etc this time.

Of course your typical argument is that Spain and Czech are "big shits" :rolleyes: which is why your opinions are thus the same!

[snakies]

shit i meant to vote for SA. of course its easier to qualify in SA, its ***king obvious

[DKulla]

good points italianboy and soccerates!


:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[muji]

South Americans hands down. They have respect of the world and always succeed in the big stages. Europe may be the heart of soccer but i prefer Europe club wise, international wise hard to get over S.America due to success and talent coming through, but then again that's just my opinion.

[chuncho_azul]

South Americans hands down. They have respect of the world and always succeed in the big stages. Europe may be the heart of soccer but i prefer Europe club wise, international wise hard to get over S.America due to success and talent coming through, but then again that's just my opinion.

i agree with this statement. strongly.

its so hard qualifying for WC in SA

[brazuca5copas]

Excuse me, but that doesn't make the S.American qualifications any harder. The typical suspects always make it, and Argentina/Brazil aren't at risk of drawing a tougher group and being eliminated like both the Dutch and Czech's were in 2002, and possible Spain, Czech, etc this time.

Of course your typical argument is that Spain and Czech are "big shits" :rolleyes: which is why your opinions are thus the same!

Spain - Czech = Chile - Paraguay

You want compare Spain and Czech with Brazil or Italy or Argentina or Germany. The risk to Spain is the same to Chile, they are both in the same level, look the history.

[brazuca5copas]

We have stronger teams here in Europe. France, England, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Croatia, Tukey, Denmarck, Sweden, Check Republic, Spain, and Portugal. We have other good teams too.

But they are divised in many groups and plays against ridiculous National like Madedonia, Faroe, San Marino, Israel, Malta, Moldávia, Liesthenstaishgfdgewtd, :lol: , Chipre, Luxeburgo ...

The bigs NEVER fight agaisnt themselfs. Always fight against poor nationals.

[wolverine]

It's just a matter of personal choice. SA has two great teams and Europe has 5 or 6. But then SA is a smaller continent and has far less countries than Europe.

Though Europe has given great players like Zidane, Beckenbauer, Platini, Cryuff and Esubieo there's none to match Maradona and Pele or even Ronaldo.Though I wud rate Zidane on par with Ronaldo, Ronaldo wud've passed Zizou next year.

Moreover if u want to sell football to the world u need to have Brazil and Argentina in it.

[plato-ny]

WC 1986 until WC 2002: do you know how many South American teams, other than Brazil and Argentina, have made it to the quarterfinals??? ZERO.

You know how many European teams have made it to the quarterfinals and beyond during that same period??? SEVERAL. I guess the South American teams, minus Brazil and Argentina, cant compete against the "weak" European teams.

WC 1982 and before there was no quarterfinals. Only division play and then directly in to the semifinals.

WC 1974 until WC 1982: do you know how many South American teams, other than Brazil and Argentina, made it to the semifinals? ZERO

During that same period, you know how many European teams made it to the semifinals and beyond? SEVERAL.. Again, the South American teams, minus Brazil and Argentina, couldnt compete against the "weak" European teams back then as well.


Now, WC 1934 until WC 1970, not including 1942 and 1946 because of World War II, other than Brazil and Argentina, how many different South American teams made it to the semifinals? Uruguay had a great team until 1970 and won Cups and made it to the semis a few times but have not been close since then. Thats 30 years now. Chile made it to the semifinal once during that time.

Again, many different European teams made it to the semifinals and beyond during that time. And its not because of quantity but because of quality. The results speak for themselves. The Eurocup has more quality teams, overall, than Copa America. Only Brazil and Argentina could win a Eurocup.

[flamengo4ever]

wow dude, you should get a trophy for doing all that research on who went to the semis, the quarters, and so on. but the last time i checked it's not important who goes to the semis, the quarters, and so on, but who WINS! and it happens that south american teams have WON nine times with three different teams, and with all your buttload of more than 50 "quality" european teams you have won 8... :rolleyes:

[plato-ny]

wow dude, you should get a trophy for doing all that research on who went to the semis, the quarters, and so on. but the last time i checked it's not important who goes to the semis, the quarters, and so on, but who WINS! and it happens that south american teams have WON nine times with three different teams, and with all your buttload of more than 50 "quality" european teams you have won 8... :rolleyes:

The point was not how many WC's the South American teams have won. But, it was the fact that Brazil and Argentina have been the ONLY 2 dominant south american teams while Uruguay, who was great in the past, has not been a big team in 3 decades.

The european teams, and many different ones, are continuously dominating the other South American teams, minus brazil and argentina, in the last 30 years in WC play. Not my opinion. Just a fact.

Since 1950 WC, only Brazil and Argentina have won WC's from South America and they have always been great. Those two. While four different European teams have won WC's.

[Bosanac]

The thing that I would like you guys to focus on is that is it harder for an avarge team in South America to qualify to the World Cup, than an average team in Europe. I'm going to have a look at the non-qualified teams from 2 regions. Now I don't want comparisons that include Denmark or Greece (who are a little better than the average European non-qualifier)

From Europe..
Scotland, Romania and Israel



From South America..
Columbia, Chile and Venezuela



Now, for what group of those three teams would be harder for to qualify to the World Cup?


My pick goes to South America.. Those teams have to fight Brazil, Argentina including other very strong teams. As for Europe, who they're up against? Netherland, France and Italy including other also strong teams


Now Brazil and Argentina are 5 star, while Netherland, France and Italy are 4 star teams. I can easily say that it's harder for South American teams.


The thing we have to add is though, the stadiums in Europe are much better. Higher class of governments, better service.. etc But standard is very poor in South America, it's much harder to play under low standards than high standarts.

[flamengo4ever]

of course the european teams have always dominated because there has always been more european teams and therefore have more chances... and until south america somehow gets 40 more countries added to the continent we should not judge the two confederations by who advances throught out the playoffs because europe will always have the advantage...

you cant say that europe has more quality teams than south america. you only have about 9 (England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Czech Rep., Sweden, and Holland) out of 51. why havent you won 9 WCs? we have 3 out of 10, brazil, argentina, and uruguay (and dont say uruguay is not a good team, they have great players, but they have simply been stuggling these past few WCs which is a normal thing for a team to get overconfident). and if you did exclude uruguay, brazil and argentina would have won 7 which is more than thier share.

[cannuman]

Well European Champions Greece did not Qualify. Last WC 2002 we did not see Netherlands...Spain has big problems in qualifing maybe they won't, same with Czech. Turkey - 3rd last WC now maybe will not go to Germany. Would Germany Qualify if they had to play the wualy games?...

But Brazil and Argentina always qualify....If they will play in Europe Qualifyng grups will they qualify for sure? i don't think so...Do u guys who voted for SA think so?

[flamengo4ever]

what the heck makes you think brazil and argentina would not qualify in europe?

[wolverine]

WC 1986 until WC 2002: do you know how many South American teams, other than Brazil and Argentina, have made it to the quarterfinals??? ZERO.

You know how many European teams have made it to the quarterfinals and beyond during that same period??? SEVERAL. I guess the South American teams, minus Brazil and Argentina, cant compete against the "weak" European teams.

WC 1982 and before there was no quarterfinals. Only division play and then directly in to the semifinals.

WC 1974 until WC 1982: do you know how many South American teams, other than Brazil and Argentina, made it to the semifinals? ZERO

During that same period, you know how many European teams made it to the semifinals and beyond? SEVERAL.. Again, the South American teams, minus Brazil and Argentina, couldnt compete against the "weak" European teams back then as well.


Now, WC 1934 until WC 1970, not including 1942 and 1946 because of World War II, other than Brazil and Argentina, how many different South American teams made it to the semifinals? Uruguay had a great team until 1970 and won Cups and made it to the semis a few times but have not been close since then. Thats 30 years now. Chile made it to the semifinal once during that time.
Again, many different European teams made it to the semifinals and beyond during that time. And its not because of quantity but because of quality. The results speak for themselves. The Eurocup has more quality teams, overall, than Copa America. Only Brazil and Argentina could win a Eurocup.
First and foremost SA had jus 4 teams in the WC till '98 against Europe's 12 or 13. So the probability of the Euro teams reaching the semis is more. And sometimes the SAs play against each other in the knockout phase, so the prob becomes lesser for SA. So it ha got to do a lot with quantity also.

Consider this:

'70 - uruguay eleminated by brazil in the semis.
'78 - argentina, brazil and peru ended up in the same grp in the 2nd phase.
'82 - argentina, brazil ended up in the same grp in the 2nd phase.
'86 - uruguay(2nd round elimintnated by argentina)
'90 - colombia(2nd round eliminated by cameroon)
'98 - chile(eliminated by brazil in 2nd round) and paraguay (eliminated by France in the 2nd round)
'02 - paraguay(eliminated by germany)

This is one reason y the chances of u seeing other teams from SA besides arg and bra in the quarters or semis are less.

SA has 2 dominant teams (from 10) and Europe has around 5 or 6 (from 52).
The WC head to head for the SA teams (minus Argentina Brazi)l vs Euro teams (minus Ita, Ger, Holl, Port, Fra and Eng) is 16-10-20. So its not that bad as u think, without Argentina/Brazil. And if u take Arg & Brazil (alone) against all of Europe it becomes 62-33-46.

The fact that a team like Greece beat France once and Portugal twice to lift the Euro shows its standard. Whats the probability of Greece beating Brazil/Argentina or even Uruguay or Paraguay twice in a Copa ?? Its jus my opinion but I believe its ne'er gonna happen. Jus see how many lesser Euro teams and SA minus Arg - Bra has reached the finals after '70.

[cannuman]

what the heck makes you think brazil and argentina would not qualify in europe?
I say u can be sure they qualify in SA but in Europe it would be harder. They must beat Croatia etc who they tied last time?! Maybe they had to meet Italy, Netherlands, Portugal in same grup? U sore they will finish top of the group before Italy of Netherlands?

[wolverine]

Well European Champions Greece did not Qualify. Last WC 2002 we did not see Netherlands...Spain has big problems in qualifing maybe they won't, same with Czech. Turkey - 3rd last WC now maybe will not go to Germany. Would Germany Qualify if they had to play the wualy games?...

But Brazil and Argentina always qualify....If they will play in Europe Qualifyng grups will they qualify for sure? i don't think so...Do u guys who voted for SA think so?
This is b'cos of the stupid meaningless WCQ criteria followed by UEFA. The grp like Italy's and Portugal's were utter crap while it gets too hard in some grps. Most of the grps will have two good teams and the bottom 3 or 4 are for getting beaten. So if a good team makes a mistake there is less chance of making up for it (the situation is even more dangerous if its a slip up against the whipping boys of the grp). In SA if u get a grp consisting of Bolivia, Brazil and Equador with only the winner qualifying then it gets tight here also.

Instead if UEFA can have a two legged knock out with the weakest teams. Select the best among them and put them with the good teams. The no of grps will be less but the good teams will get to face of each other and make amends for prior slip ups.

Holland played bad and got beaten by Ireland and that's Hollands mistake. The same Ireland reached Korea by the skin of their teeth, only due to away goals rule against Iran (thanks to the crossbar and some bad finishing by Iran).

If Spain doesn't qualify its due to their pathetic finishing, there's no other xcuse for a team that needed 6 mins injury time to tie Bosnia and 6 mins injury time to beat Lithuania.

And abt Greece, well if a team cannot score in 6-7 consecutive games how do u xpect them to qualify ??

[flamengo4ever]

I say u can be sure they qualify in SA but in Europe it would be harder. They must beat Croatia etc who they tied last time?! Maybe they had to meet Italy, Netherlands, Portugal in same grup? U sore they will finish top of the group before Italy of Netherlands?

sure, they would have trouble qualifying in a group with teams like those you mentioned, but usually in qualifying for the WC in Europs there are not so many strong teams packed into one group. but if they were in a group like the groups that Italy, England, Portugal, Croatia, Netherland, and France (groups 1,3,4,5,6,8) were in then they would definitely have no problems advancing...

[bboy treble]

south americas wcq is not seeded

its way harder in south america

you guys assume that the teams that are not argentina and brazil are weak
when in fact they are decent better than the san marinos etc

if you do wanna look at facts there are supposedly 2 good SA teams and 3 historically

and between them 9 WC

europe has 8 WC between 4

plus there are only 4 spots available to SA while europe gets like 14

so you tell me who has the better talent

[Fan]

I accidentally voted for Europe. But IMO South America is much harder. I've just watched the Uruguay vs. Argentina match, and oh my, they play with so so much more agressiveness than the Europeans. If a #5 team in South America can play like this, just imagine what the other four teams can do.

And to the comment about Argentina/Brazil/Ecuador/Paraguay/Uruguay not qualifying in Europe is absolutely ridiculous. Europe may boasts many great teams, but does it look like Brazil/Argentina are pushovers? I don't believe any team can totally dominate those two, not even Holland. Paraguay, Ecuador, and Uruguay might not qualify for top spots in Europe, but surely they can get second. Just look at it people, besides Czech Republic, all of the other 2nd place teams are either a bit disappointing or outright lame.

[usaistheshow]

the concacaf and the conmebol should be joined into one qualifying group to give more competition

[brazuca5copas]

It's just a matter of personal choice. SA has two great teams and Europe has 5 or 6. But then SA is a smaller continent and has far less countries than Europe.

what 5 or 6 great national has Europe ? it's 4 ! Germany, Italy, England and France. No one else !!!!!!! 4 big nationals to 13 vacants

In South America are 3, and not 2 : Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay (Uruguay like England has been champion years and years and years ago but are still big)

So Europe has 4 big nationals to 13 vacants
South America has 3 bigs to 4 vacants - and a stupid vacant divise with Oceania. And then you guys want to say that is more difficult the euro quali. What a joke !!!!!! :lol:

[brazuca5copas]

WC 1986 until WC 2002: do you know how many South American teams, other than Brazil and Argentina, have made it to the quarterfinals??? ZERO.

You know how many European teams have made it to the quarterfinals and beyond during that same period??? SEVERAL. I guess the South American teams, minus Brazil and Argentina, cant compete against the "weak" European teams.

WC 1982 and before there was no quarterfinals. Only division play and then directly in to the semifinals.

WC 1974 until WC 1982: do you know how many South American teams, other than Brazil and Argentina, made it to the semifinals? ZERO

During that same period, you know how many European teams made it to the semifinals and beyond? SEVERAL.. Again, the South American teams, minus Brazil and Argentina, couldnt compete against the "weak" European teams back then as well.

Of course !!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE 13 PLACES IN THE WORLD CUP, WE ONLY 4 (ONE MORE SHARED WITH OCEANIA)
You must be shame about South America with 5 national has more world cups than Europe that has 13. It's patethic !!!!!

[brazuca5copas]

The thing that I would like you guys to focus on is that is it harder for an avarge team in South America to qualify to the World Cup, than an average team in Europe. I'm going to have a look at the non-qualified teams from 2 regions. Now I don't want comparisons that include Denmark or Greece (who are a little better than the average European non-qualifier)

From Europe..
Scotland, Romania and Israel



From South America..
Columbia, Chile and Venezuela



Now, for what group of those three teams would be harder for to qualify to the World Cup?


My pick goes to South America.. Those teams have to fight Brazil, Argentina including other very strong teams. As for Europe, who they're up against? Netherland, France and Italy including other also strong teams


Now Brazil and Argentina are 5 star, while Netherland, France and Italy are 4 star teams. I can easily say that it's harder for South American teams.


The thing we have to add is though, the stadiums in Europe are much better. Higher class of governments, better service.. etc But standard is very poor in South America, it's much harder to play under low standards than high standarts.

Thank's ! Someone with brain !

[brazuca5copas]

Well European Champions Greece did not Qualify. Last WC 2002 we did not see Netherlands...Spain has big problems in qualifing maybe they won't, same with Czech. Turkey - 3rd last WC now maybe will not go to Germany. Would Germany Qualify if they had to play the wualy games?...

But Brazil and Argentina always qualify....If they will play in Europe Qualifyng grups will they qualify for sure? i don't think so...Do u guys who voted for SA think so?


Meu Deus, que burro.

What's the strange in Greece, Neitherlands, Spain be out of the world cup ?It's completely normal, like Chile , Paraguay and Colombia when not quali. It's the same ***k thing.

[brazuca5copas]

I say u can be sure they qualify in SA but in Europe it would be harder. They must beat Croatia etc who they tied last time?! Maybe they had to meet Italy, Netherlands, Portugal in same grup? U sore they will finish top of the group before Italy of Netherlands?


Yaeh, would be really hard defeat San Marino, and we would have probabily troubles agaisnt Faroe :shocked:

[Fan]

what 5 or 6 great national has Europe ? it's 4 ! Germany, Italy, England and France. No one else !!!!!!! 4 big nationals to 13 vacants

In South America are 3, and not 2 : Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay (Uruguay like England has been champion years and years and years ago but are still big)

So Europe has 4 big nationals to 13 vacants
South America has 3 bigs to 4 vacants - and a stupid vacant divise with Oceania. And then you guys want to say that is more difficult the euro quali. What a joke !!!!!! :lol:

You dare put France and Germany as in the 4 big nationals in Europe right now? Wow, I'm really speechless. I'm not sure if your basis is banking on their past reputations, but are we really talking about what France and Germany has done recently?

[philipas]

I find it ironic that Brazilians would complain that larger European countries have an easier road to the WC when Brazil with nearly 200 000 000 people is almost FIVE times bigger than its closest South American competitors eg. Colombia or Argentina with around 40 000 000 people.

Brazil has a a much greater source of quality players than any NT in the world because of it's population and you can't bring China and India or whoever else into comparison because they don't have the same football history, tradition or following as Europe and South America.

If you are going to complain that certain European NT's have an easier road to the WC because they're competing with much smaller countries, then you should look at Brazil's enormous advantage as well.

Your statistics and logic are seriously flawed.

[usaistheshow]

I find it ironic that Brazilians would complain that larger European countries have an easier road to the WC when Brazil with nearly 200 000 000 people is almost FIVE times bigger than its closest South American competitors eg. Colombia or Argentina with around 40 000 000 people.

Brazil has a a much greater source of quality players than any NT in the world because of it's population and you can't bring China and India or whoever else into comparison because they don't have the same football history, tradition or following as Europe and South America.

If you are going to complain that certain European NT's have an easier road to the WC because they're competing with much smaller countries, then you should look at Brazil's enormous advantage as well.

Your statistics and logic are seriously flawed.

:rolleyes: so a country's population determines whether a team is good or not? and if China and India had a history of soccer tradition then they would now be five-time world champions? Brazil is good at soccer because the Brazilians they know they HAVE to be good. i've lived here in Brazil (and the US) and the people here have the sport of soccer as one of their only ways of obtaining pride for their country. they are not as privileged as the US and most European countries are. the economy is always messed, the poverty is overwhelming, thousands of people cant find decent jobs, and the politics are corrupt. so soccer (and the annual carnaval in Rio :) ) is their way of escaping the sadness of the rest of the country that disappoints them. when the Seleção plays a game the country stops to watch and if it is a victory (especially vs Argentina) it is complete satisfaction knowing that their team has won yet another time. but if they lose, it is as if they had just lost a 100 years war. so philipas, brazil does not get their advantage from having 200,000,000 people, but for having 200,000,000 FANS. and besides, these people are naturally gifted with raw talent and are juggling a ball once they learn to walk.

[philipas]

:rolleyes: so a country's population determines whether a team is good or not? and if China and India had a history of soccer tradition then they would now be five-time world champions? Brazil is good at soccer because the Brazilians they know they HAVE to be good. i've lived here in Brazil (and the US) and the people here have the sport of soccer as one of their only ways of obtaining pride for their country. they are not as privileged as the US and most European countries are. the economy is always messed, the poverty is overwhelming, thousands of people cant find decent jobs, and the politics are corrupt. so soccer (and the annual carnaval in Rio :) ) is their way of escaping the sadness of the rest of the country that disappoints them. when the Seleção plays a game the country stops to watch and if it is a victory (especially vs Argentina) it is complete satisfaction knowing that their team has won yet another time. but if they lose, it is as if they had just lost a 100 years war. so philipas, brazil does not get their advantage from having 200,000,000 people, but for having 200,000,000 FANS. and besides, these people are naturally gifted with raw talent and are juggling a ball once they learn to walk. Now you're bringing social, political and economic reasons into it. Even more resons than "just population" as you would say.

My point is that Brazil has an enormous source of talent coming from a big population (200m), tradition (juggle b4 walking) and passionate following (200m fans) in football. You just proved my point. :)

[Bosanac]

Now you're bringing social, political and economic reasons into it. Even more resons than "just population" as you would say.

My point is that Brazil has an enormous source of talent coming from a big population (200m), tradition (juggle b4 walking) and passionate following (200m fans) in football. You just proved my point. :)



Don't get me wrong, but I think it's just stupid to put Brazil into this.


It's easy to qualify for Brazil and Argentina, just as it is for Netherlands or France (even though they struggled)


Look at the average teams, no reason to run a big ass pointless discussion on who have 'better' teams. Look what they play among each other, other than comparing teams among the regions. That's no way to decide the outcome of this poll, you're just creating useless arguments!



Back to the actual discussion..

[Panathinaikos2]

Brazuka you should take out France and England and put in Netherlands and Check republic as your top 4. Europe has more better teams than south america. The qualifictation in Europe is easier than South America but after wards its the best national teams that compete for the trophy. Not to mention it doesn't matter how many world cups you win it matters how good you play each year in the world cup. Right now I see Netherlands as the best country in Europe and will probly win this years world cup. Most of the nations in Europe have a preety decent national team and even Scotland has a decent team. South America has only 2 great teams and out of all the countries in South America only 3 are decent. Not to mention I like watching Euro cups more than Copa Americas becuase there are more National Teams meaning more action and flavor and the tournament is more intense while your cup has only a few nations and it isn't as exciting.

[Panathinaikos2]

By the way the world cup is rediculas. I think for the qualifications every team should be in different continental zones so it wont seem like another copa america or something.

[RaulMadrid7]

I voted for Europe.

South America does have a couple of very powerfull countries, obviously Brazil and Argentina are part of them, but Europe overall is far far far... more powerfull than South America. First of all there is a reason why FIFA put so many spots for Europe since the competition is so tough. Second of all there is a reason why all of the best South American countries come to Europe to play in the leagues, simply because they are competitive more than anywhere else in the world.

Germany
Ukraine
Holland
Poland
England
Croatia
Italy
Portugal
Sweden
Serbia and Montenegro
France
Spain

etc.... etc.... it's very obvious if you know what you are talking about, Europe is the ultimate superpower as a continent.

[Czech]

I say Europe, Why ?? I am European. but thats not all. Altough S.A. has great players from Brazil and Argentina I think thats all they have. We the EU have a lot more countrys to pick from, resulting in EU winning, altough it would be a very good and close game !!!

[Bosanac]

Alright, see what you guys did?


Ran a stupid big discussion on who have better teams while that's not what this thread is about. Therefore people misunderstand and vote for the wrong reasons.


Look for the avarage teams prospective, not the big guns.

[A3eMurderer]

Brazil, Argentina and perhaps Uruguay (although unfortunate not to qualify) are the only teams in South America, the others are crap. All European countries that have currently qualified for the WC:
Germany
Ukraine
Netherlands
Poland
England
Croatia
Italy
Portugal
Sweden
Serbia and Montenegro
France

Are all better than the South American countries that were left out. Of the South American countries that did qualify, only Brasil and Argentina could beat them. Europe is the largest confederation, and has the vast majority of strong teams. It makes no sense to put more than 3 competitive teams in a qualification group. UEFA wants the strongest possible representation in the world cup and not in qualification where most countries don't even perform to half their abilities.

I don't even know why I'm contributing to this, it's a stupid thread and the answer is obvious.

[philipas]

Brazil, Argentina and perhaps Uruguay (although unfortunate not to qualify) are the only teams in South America, the others are crap. All European countries that have currently qualified for the WC:
Germany
Ukraine
Netherlands
Poland
England
Croatia
Italy
Portugal
Sweden
Serbia and Montenegro
France

Are all better than the South American countries that were left out. Europe is the largest confederation, and has the vast majority of strong teams. It makes no sense to put more than 3 competitive teams in a qualification group. UEFA wants the strongest possible representation in the world cup and not in qualification where most countries don't even perform to half their abilities.

I don't even know why I'm contributing to this, it's a stupid thread and the answer is obvious. LOL...well I'll just add this.

I didn't make this discussion about the 'better' teams.

My point is that some posters claim it is easier for European teams to qualify because they're taking on smaller, weaker teams. My reply to that is that the same can be said about Brazil and even Argentina.

The rest I agree with A3e...

[brazuca5copas]

Brazuka you should take out France and England and put in Netherlands and Check republic as your top 4. Europe has more better teams than south america. The qualifictation in Europe is easier than South America but after wards its the best national teams that compete for the trophy. Not to mention it doesn't matter how many world cups you win it matters how good you play each year in the world cup. Right now I see Netherlands as the best country in Europe and will probly win this years world cup. Most of the nations in Europe have a preety decent national team and even Scotland has a decent team. South America has only 2 great teams and out of all the countries in South America only 3 are decent. Not to mention I like watching Euro cups more than Copa Americas becuase there are more National Teams meaning more action and flavor and the tournament is more intense while your cup has only a few nations and it isn't as exciting.

Ok, so, let me see if I understand you. We have to put out the countries with world cup title (France and England) and put in those nationals that you think is better, (Netherlands and Check republic), no matter if they has or not WC title, for you, win a world cup is easy, diffcult is lose it. Great point !
So, according your point of view, big national doesn't win world cups.
You know, I worry about you man, search some doctor.

[brazuca5copas]

You dare put France and Germany as in the 4 big nationals in Europe right now? Wow, I'm really speechless. I'm not sure if your basis is banking on their past reputations, but are we really talking about what France and Germany has done recently?

what is a big national when we talk about quali ? I suppose are the nationals that have tradition. What is tradition ? I suppose is who has world cup title, or good results. So, the answer is NO, we NOT talking about what France and Germany has done recently, but what they did to deserves a "big national" title.
Btw, Germany done so much recently. Was "just" the world cup finalist.

[DKulla]

lol

he is saying that the czech and the netherlands are stronger than england and france at the moment.

I think the Netherlands is very strong at the moment. Czcech could be stronger if they had nedved.

[Panathinaikos2]

You know, I worry about you man, search some doctor.Thank you for your concern :lol:

[brazuca5copas]

I voted for Europe.

South America does have a couple of very powerfull countries, obviously Brazil and Argentina are part of them, but Europe overall is far far far... more powerfull than South America. First of all there is a reason why FIFA put so many spots for Europe since the competition is so tough. Second of all there is a reason why all of the best South American countries come to Europe to play in the leagues, simply because they are competitive more than anywhere else in the world.

Germany
Ukraine
Holland
Poland
England
Croatia
Italy
Portugal
Sweden
Serbia and Montenegro
France
Spain

etc.... etc.... it's very obvious if you know what you are talking about, Europe is the ultimate superpower as a continent.

Let' see your list of the european superpowers.

Germany - yes, has 3 WC
Ukraine - what did Ucraine in soccer history ?
Holland - Poor national, isn't bad, but always had Brazil in your way. But doesn't have any WC anyway.
Poland - :shocked: I will pretend I not read this, ok ?
England - yes, Big national
Croatia - No, never won nothing
Italy - yes, big national
Portugal - No, never won nothing
Sweden - No, never won nothing
Serbia and Montenegro - Look how easy is become superpower to europeans head: enter in the Spain group and just win some match. Great ! You already deserves be inclued as a big national, no matter if your country was born yesterday.
France - yes, won in 98.
Spain - My favoritie pathetic national :lol: :lol: I love Spain. If Spain is a superpower, I am Santa Claus :ronaldo:

[brazuca5copas]

lol

he is saying that the czech and the netherlands are stronger than england and france at the moment.

I think the Netherlands is very strong at the moment. Czcech could be stronger if they had nedved.

But we can't considere big national for the moment, because tomorrow the moment will be San Marino, and after Faroe, and then Venezuela. So let's put in this way, big nationals is who already have at least one world cup.

[brazuca5copas]

Brazil, Argentina and perhaps Uruguay (although unfortunate not to qualify) are the only teams in South America, the others are crap. All European countries that have currently qualified for the WC:
Germany
Ukraine
Netherlands
Poland
England
Croatia
Italy
Portugal
Sweden
Serbia and Montenegro
France

Are all better than the South American countries that were left out. Of the South American countries that did qualify, only Brasil and Argentina could beat them. Europe is the largest confederation, and has the vast majority of strong teams. It makes no sense to put more than 3 competitive teams in a qualification group. UEFA wants the strongest possible representation in the world cup and not in qualification where most countries don't even perform to half their abilities.

I don't even know why I'm contributing to this, it's a stupid thread and the answer is obvious.

OMG, this ***k STUPID list again ? I give up !

[brazuca5copas]

Thank you for your concern :lol:

You're welcome !!!!!! :D

[usaistheshow]

I voted for Europe.

South America does have a couple of very powerfull countries, obviously Brazil and Argentina are part of them, but Europe overall is far far far... more powerfull than South America. First of all there is a reason why FIFA put so many spots for Europe since the competition is so tough. Second of all there is a reason why all of the best South American countries come to Europe to play in the leagues, simply because they are competitive more than anywhere else in the world.

Germany
Ukraine
Holland
Poland
England
Croatia
Italy
Portugal
Sweden
Serbia and Montenegro
France
Spain

etc.... etc.... it's very obvious if you know what you are talking about, Europe is the ultimate superpower as a continent.

well if it isnt another one of those biased europeans... :rolleyes:

the reason there are so many european teams that are allowed to qualify is because there are 51 one of them, and so they try to evenly distribute the percentage of the teams (altho they shouldnt have so many that are able to qualify from concacaf). you say the give more competition...well there sure hasnt been much competion against south america's total of 9 world cups won and europe's 8

[plato-ny]

what is a big national when we talk about quali ? I suppose are the nationals that have tradition. What is tradition ? I suppose is who has world cup title, or good results. So, the answer is NO, we NOT talking about what France and Germany has done recently, but what they did to deserves a "big national" title.
Btw, Germany done so much recently. Was "just" the world cup finalist.

Also, in fairness to Germany, they have made, at least, the quarterfinals of every WC since 1950, the last 9 WC's. Better than any other team as far as consistency.

[Dutchfan]

South America, baby! Overall, better ball skills, and the very fact that South America has won more World Cups than has Europe, when nowadays only two teams from South America are really any good, tells me that South America is better. Someone used the argument earlier that so many European teams got to the quarterfinal round or further last World Cup, while only ONE South American team did. True. But which team ended up WINNING the tournament, eh? To me that's pretty impressive, that only ONE South American team got past Round One, but THAT South American team ended up winning the tournament anyway. So who's stronger? The confederation that had more teams there in the first place and had more teams advance past Round One? Or the one that had the eventual champion? You tell me. My pick: the one that had the eventual champion and the one that's had MORE OVERALL CHAMPIONS THAN ANY OTHER CONFEDERATION, baby!

[Panathinaikos2]

Its harder to qualify for copa americas but euro cups are more exciting. Deal?

[Dutchfan]

Deal. And as you can tell, I like Europe, too. At least, CERTAIN teams from Europe! But overall I'll ALWAYS prefer the South American style of play to the European one - to me, it makes futbol worth watching. I mean, honestly, what would you rather watch if you are a "neutral" - Brasil's jogo bonito when it's in full force? Or play the likes of Greece's, the current European champions? I don't know about you, but I'd take jogo bonito over the play of teams like Greece, ANY DAY!!

[Panathinaikos2]

Deal. And as you can tell, I like Europe, too. At least, CERTAIN teams from Europe! But overall I'll ALWAYS prefer the South American style of play to the European one - to me, it makes futbol worth watching. I mean, honestly, what would you rather watch if you are a "neutral" - Brasil's jogo bonito when it's in full force? Or play the likes of Greece's, the current European champions? I don't know about you, but I'd take jogo bonito over the play of teams like Greece, ANY DAY!!I'm greek :mad2:

[Panathinaikos2]

Anyways even though it's harder to qualify for a copa america that does not neccesarly mean there better than Europe at football but Europe isn't better than South America either. Just becuase they have different styles of play i'll just try to end the argument and say you cant compare the two continents and that they are both great at soccer and thats all that matters becuase I mean honestly why would anyone care which continent is better than which?

[Panathinaikos2]

But anyways they should just make every country play every other countrys rather than qualifictation rounds based on continental zones.

[Dutchfan]

I'm greek :mad2:I figured with a "handle" like "panathinaikos" you were Greek! Though I've seen people with "deceptive" handles before! (Including mine! I am a fan of the Dutch national team, but I'm NOT Dutch!) Anyway, it wasn't meant as an offense towards you! I have no problem with Greece or anything Greek, except for...well, never mind! As I've posted before, Greece won Euro 2004 fair and square, in my estimation, but even YOU have to admit that their style of play was BOOOOOORRRRRRRIIIIIINNNNNGGGGGG, right? (And when they played Brasil in the Confederations' Cup this last summer, they were beaten rather soundly 3 - 0, remember?)

[Dutchfan]

But anyways they should just make every country play every other countrys rather than qualifictation rounds based on continental zones.Ooooooh boy, I've been through this already with some other people! Okay, I'll keep it short this time: I respectfully disagree with you. Even if the BEST teams from some confederations are weaker than teams that DON'T make the World Cup from other confederations, the World Cup should have at least SOME representatives from EVERY confederation on earth, in my opinion - otherwise, why call it the "World" Cup?

[bboy treble]

this is stupid, the facts are there

europe feilds so many of these "great teams" and then get smoked by 2 from south america

over all south america owns football right now and historically regardless wether or not euros can admit it

you are basing your supposed facts on opinion

"poland is better than paraguay" you cant say shit like that

also you say europe is hard but all your "awesome" teams are seeded

and as for more entertaining .... i disagree euro was full of 1-0 results (YAWN)

where as copa had 6-1's and 3-2's high scoring fun packed games

europe cant match the entertainment of tango and samba football IMO

dont get me wrong italy and germany are still good

[Dutchfan]

this is stupid, the facts are there

europe feilds so many of these "great teams" and then get smoked by 2 from south america

over all south america owns football right now and historically regardless wether or not euros can admit it

you are basing your supposed facts on opinion

"poland is better than paraguay" you cant say shit like that

also you say europe is hard but all your "awesome" teams are seeded

and as for more entertaining .... i disagree euro was full of 1-0 results (YAWN)

where as copa had 6-1's and 3-2's high scoring fun packed games

europe cant match the entertainment of tango and samba football IMO

dont get me wrong italy and germany are still goodTHAT'S A GOOD ONE!!! :Pound:

[Ronni]

I think the difference is not that huge as some of you try to affirm. Perhaps it's a little bit more difficult in S.A. because the teams are stronger at their own pit and weaker outside (altitude, fans...), what makes it more difficult to get back points lost in bad games. Ok, but they have more games ...

Let's just get practical. If we want to find out which qualifying is more difficult, we should simply analyze which one of both is able to bring the most weak teams to the World Cup. So let's use an index such as "probability of getting further" in the World Cup. Of course ... since we're analyzing which qualy is easier and not which continent has the strongest "big teams", we have to consider only the probability of getting from the first to the second round of the WC.

Let's consider the last 5 tournaments.
In these WC-Finals South America brought 22 teams to the WC. Europe brought 71. From the 22, in S.A. 16 got to the second round. From the europeans, 49 made it.
So we get a sort of "probability-of-getting-further" index of 73% for S.A. and 69% for Europe. That's not such a big difference - I'd say "technical draw".

However I consider the fact that the home-effect in S.A. is stronger than in Europe. See teams like Ecuador Qualy-2006, that wins almost all games in Quito and loses almost all others. Or see Chile at Qualy 2002 - in Santiago they could beat WC-Runners-up Brazil (qualy) and some weeks later WC-Winners France (friendly), and still they finished last of 10 in S.A. A "middle-force" in Europe like Yugoslavia (S/M), Belgium or Austria is not that strong at home (but also not that weak as visitors!).
Considering this fact, we can admit that in S.A. not the really strongest teams get to the finals, but the most effective at home - but they won't play the finals at home! So S.A. as a whole is always "underperforming" in the finals. This means that the 73% is less than it should be (Colombia would probably have made it better than Ecuador in 2002, or Uruguay better than Bolivia 1994 and so on).

Again, the difference is not that big. These are the two continents where the teams have to be in a good shape to get there. The others - Concacaf 58%, Africa 29% and Asia 21% (considering that in this period taken of 5 WCs, Concacaf and Asia had 2 middle-forces each which played home - what set them higher on the index due to their few qualy-places) are really the ones where you get there with no problems "once you have a real team".

[nachi88]

Deal. And as you can tell, I like Europe, too. At least, CERTAIN teams from Europe! But overall I'll ALWAYS prefer the South American style of play to the European one - to me, it makes futbol worth watching. I mean, honestly, what would you rather watch if you are a "neutral" - Brasil's jogo bonito when it's in full force? Or play the likes of Greece's, the current European champions? I don't know about you, but I'd take jogo bonito over the play of teams like Greece, ANY DAY!!

Again, this cannot be generalised. Brasil didnt play 'jogo bonito' in the world cups after 1970 - 1998.

Brasil's victory in wc94 was on a defensive team, alomost like a Greece, Italy or Germany gameplan. Dutch team played more 'jogo bonito' in the same period, they probably do so even now.

Brazucas- Ok, I agree with you that qualification for wc in South America is not easy, but, in the last 50 years, how many teams other South American than Brasil and Argentina have even made it to the semi finals of a world cup???

[usaistheshow]

Again, this cannot be generalised. Brasil didnt play 'jogo bonito' in the world cups after 1970 - 1998.

Brasil's victory in wc94 was on a defensive team, alomost like a Greece, Italy or Germany gameplan. Dutch team played more 'jogo bonito' in the same period, they probably do so even now.

Brazucas- Ok, I agree with you that qualification for wc in South America is not easy, but, in the last 50 years, how many teams other South American than Brasil and Argentina have even made it to the semi finals of a world cup???

if brazil was not playing jogo bonito from 1970-94 then what were they playing? i'm guessing you dont really know what jogo bonito means...it does not meaning winning if that's what you think.

it's already been stated so many times before on this discussion, but i'll say it again... the main reason for south american countries not dominating in the playoffs of the WC besides brazil and argentina is because europe has more representation. the euro teams are 50% of the teams participating, and the SA teams are about 15%. besides...teams like paraguay, columbia, uruguay are eliminated by much stronger teams than they are (germany, brazil, france, italy, etc)

[Ronni]

I don't consider this question is that obviously answered like most of you think. In my opinion the difficulty of both qualies are more or less on the same level. Perhaps with a little bit pending for the Conmebol as being the harder one, but not much.

Well, there should be a way to prove this. And there is one: the World Cup finals. Obviously the easiest qualies allow less competitive teams to get to the finals. So all we have to do is to compare how competitive these teams are!
The question is "where is it easier to qualify", so we don't care which confederation has the strongest "big teams". This means we have to consider the first round in the finals, and not the champions.
Let's take the last 5 World Cups in order to have a statistically significant mass of data. Since then the forces in modern football haven't changed that much in both continents.

We can define a "probability of getting forward"-index as being how many teams could get to the second round in the World Cup out from the qualified ones. In this way, in the latest 5 WCs, UEFA qualified 71 teams, and 49 passed to the second phase. CONMEBOL qualified 22, and 16 got through.
This gives us an index of 69% for Europe and 73% for South America. This means, qualified south american teams are a little bit more likely to get to the next round than european ones. So they have to be stronger to pass the qualies.
But I would consider 69% and 73% a statistical draw. The big difference you have comparing to 29% of Africa, 21% of Asia and 58% of Concacaf - although for the latest 2 we must remember they had in this period 2 organizing nations each, which already give them better results since the amount of qualified teams in these regions is not that big.

Back to UEFA and CONMEBOL, I would make another consideration: the forces from CONMEBOL are less representative in the World Cup since the home-factor in this region is much stronger, for many reasons - mainly after the 3-points-for-victory rule. Not qualified teams like Colombia or Chile, like "big" ones, are strong also away (see draws against Brazil and Argentina respectively), but again, they are not as strong at their own pitch like Ecuador or Bolivia ... This makes south american "medium" forces to be underperforming in the World Cup finals. Like in 1994, Uruguay would probably have made it better than Bolivia (but these won against Brazil in La Paz!), or in 2002 (and 2006!) Colombia was possibly better than Ecuador. So even the CONMEBOL 73% could be considered higher.

But as I said, the difference doesn't seem to be that significative.

[cannuman]

brazuca5copas, just answer If brazil and Argentina will play in Europe Qualifyng grups will they qualify for sure? i don't think so

[brazuca5copas]

brazuca5copas, just answer If brazil and Argentina will play in Europe Qualifyng grups will they qualify for sure? i don't think so

This question is serious ? Man, we win confederations cup, copa america and world cup, and you have doubt if we can qualify in Euro quali ? :lol:
I will make a question for you , in what Euro qualy group you think Brazil or Argentina could not quali ? A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H .... which ?

[usaistheshow]

cannuman, you've already asker others that same question before on this forum... if brazil or argentina had to qualify in europe would they make it? the answer is yes, and if they didnt it would be a very huge surprise, because out of all those teams over there the only ones they would have problems with would be Italy, the Netherland, England, Germany, France, and maybe Portugal.

but what if teams like Italy, the Netherlands, or England had to qualify in SA??? it would be harder for them, because they would not be separated into groups with one strong team and seven week teams, they would have to play Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay twice.

[wolverine]

brazuca5copas, just answer If brazil and Argentina will play in Europe Qualifyng grups will they qualify for sure? i don't think so
They wud've qualified easily with if they were in the grps of Italy, Portugal, England, Sweden, Spain, France or Turkey (instead of these teams) and worst case as one of the best 2nd places if they came in Holland's group.

Italy and Portugal had absolute crap groups.

France, England and Spain had easy groups but they messed it up real bad. France had all sorts of problems (even now). Spain didn't know how to finish and England had goal keeping problems. Its their mistake. The groups look tight not 'cos their opponents played to the level of these 3 countries but 'cos these 3 countries played below their potential. Do u seriously think that Brazil or Argentina (or even Uruguay, Paraguay, Equador) will drop points at home to the likes of Israel, Switzerland, Bosnia or Austria ???

Turkey's group was a group of equals which again wudn't have posed any problems for either Brazil or Argentina and so wud've Sweden's grp.

Only Holland's grp might've caused some challenge if any, (courtsey Czech) but again worst case, they wud've qualified as best runners up.

Even if u include the teams I mentioned above like Italy, Holland etc they wud've qualified as best runners up (again the only problematic grp being Holland's).

UEFA serioulsy need to redo their WCQ so that the good teams don't miss out due to a mistake here or there. Apart from the fact that Brazil and Argentina are in a league above the rest, the South American WCQ looks very easy for them 'cos they get to play every team and the top 4.5 goes thru. So strong teams in general cud still comeback from a slip up here or there (eg Uruguay). Instead of the current campiagn if we had groups of 3 each in SA with the winner going then SA WCQs will also 'appear' to be as hard as the euro WCQs seem to be now.

[wolverine]

ast 5 World Cups in order to have a statistically significant mass of data. Since then the forces in modern football haven't changed that much in both continents.

We can define a "probability of getting forward"-index as being how many teams could get to the second round in the World Cup out from the qualified ones. In this way, in the latest 5 WCs, UEFA qualified 71 teams, and 49 passed to the second phase. CONMEBOL qualified 22, and 16 got through.
This gives us an index of 69% for Europe and 73% for South America. This means, qualified south american teams are a little bit more likely to get to the next round than european ones. So they have to be stronger to pass the qualies.
One more thing u shud consider is that the other SA teams which reach the 2nd grp mostly get eleminated by either Arg/Brazil or the stronger Euro teams. U might've go way back in history to given an instance were the 3rd team from SA got eleminated by the lesser teams from Europe after round 1. This 'draw' factor combined with the 'numerical' disadvantage is the reason y SA gets less teams from quarters. If u've Italy-Paraguay and Sweden-Croatia matches in the 2nd round then the advantage is obviously for Europe, to have more numbers in the quarter finals.

[Palhinha1]

HAHAHAHA! this was good, but it is easy to answer! what it is more difficult? 4 vacant and plus one in the play offs (with the Oceania) for 3 champions of the world or 10 vacant more 3 in the play offs for 4 champions of the world? hahahahha!

[usaistheshow]

HAHAHAHA! this was good, but it is easy to answer! what it is more difficult? 4 vacant and plus one in the repescagem (with the Oceania) for 3 champions of the world or 10 vacant more 3 in the repescagem for 4 champions of the world? hahahahha!

??? :confused:

[brazuca5copas]

HAHAHAHA! this was good, but it is easy to answer! what it is more difficult? 4 vacant and plus one in the play offs (with the Oceania) for 3 champions of the world or 10 vacant more 3 in the play offs for 4 champions of the world? hahahahha!


Agreed !!!!! They have 13 places for 4 champions and South America just 5 for 3 champions, and then they still think them quali is more difficult , what a joke :lol:

[wolverine]

Though I've seen people with "deceptive" handles before! (Including mine! I am a fan of the Dutch national team, but I'm NOT Dutch!)
Yep ... a fan of the Dutch national team who has a Chilean background and is a US citizen !!!!! Talk abt "deceptive" handles :D :)

[plato-ny]

I figured with a "handle" like "panathinaikos" you were Greek! Though I've seen people with "deceptive" handles before! (Including mine! I am a fan of the Dutch national team, but I'm NOT Dutch!) Anyway, it wasn't meant as an offense towards you! I have no problem with Greece or anything Greek, except for...well, never mind! As I've posted before, Greece won Euro 2004 fair and square, in my estimation, but even YOU have to admit that their style of play was BOOOOOORRRRRRRIIIIIINNNNNGGGGGG, right? (And when they played Brasil in the Confederations' Cup this last summer, they were beaten rather soundly 3 - 0, remember?)

Yes Dutchfan, our style of play was boring. But, it got us a cup. We did not win any games in penalties, whereas, if Holland was playing in penalties, we all know Holland would lose, which is a part of their legacy.

Now, Brazil beat us 3-0 in the Confederations Cup, just like, in the Confederations Cup final, defeated the only team that can challenge them in the WC: Argentina, whom they beat, in your words, "soundly", 4-1.

Finally, lets look recent play between Brazil and Holland:

07-JUL-98 Brazil vs. Netherlands 1:1 a.e.t (1:1, 0:0) 4:2 PSO 1998 FIFA World Cup France

31-AUG-96 AMSTERDAM (Netherlands) Netherlands vs. Brazil 2:2 (0:1) Friendly 1996

09-JUL-94 DALLAS (USA) Netherlands vs. Brazil 2:3 (0:0) 1994 FIFA World Cup USA

20-DEC-89 ROTTERDAM (Netherlands) Netherlands vs. Brazil 0:1 (0:0) Friendly 1989 (a year after Holland won the Euro 1988)

2 official losses in the World Cup, 1 tie at home and, a year after winning Euro 1988, a loss at home to Brazil.

Looks like Holland hasnt faired well against Brazil, either.

[Panathinaikos2]

Well to me Euro teams are better than south american teams. The qualification to the world cup from Europe is easy but that doesn't mean Euro teams suck so whats the point. Yes South America is harder to qualify but that becuase you have to beat Argentina and Brazil twice while the rest are realy easy. You guys have only two good teams while we have many. Bottom line is you have harder qualifications but Europe has better teams. And even though you guys have one more trophy above us we have a better competition record in the world cup than south american teams. Continue to rely on only 2 teams to make your continent proud while we dont even need to worry about a European team not winning a world cup since they always do great internationaly meaning we dont realy have to prove much realy.

[Panathinaikos2]

this is stupid, the facts are there

europe feilds so many of these "great teams" and then get smoked by 2 from south america

over all south america owns football right now and historically regardless wether or not euros can admit it

you are basing your supposed facts on opinion

"poland is better than paraguay" you cant say shit like that

also you say europe is hard but all your "awesome" teams are seeded

and as for more entertaining .... i disagree euro was full of 1-0 results (YAWN)

where as copa had 6-1's and 3-2's high scoring fun packed games

europe cant match the entertainment of tango and samba football IMO

dont get me wrong italy and germany are still goodThats becuase the south american teams suck so much to have conceded 6 goals while European teams are stronger becuase they have a better defence than them not to mention they strike good as well.

[Dutchfan]

Yes Dutchfan, our style of play was boring. But, it got us a cup. We did not win any games in penalties, whereas, if Holland was playing in penalties, we all know Holland would lose, which is a part of their legacy.

Now, Brazil beat us 3-0 in the Confederations Cup, just like, in the Confederations Cup final, defeated the only team that can challenge them in the WC: Argentina, whom they beat, in your words, "soundly", 4-1.

Finally, lets look recent play between Brazil and Holland:

07-JUL-98 Brazil vs. Netherlands 1:1 a.e.t (1:1, 0:0) 4:2 PSO 1998 FIFA World Cup France

31-AUG-96 AMSTERDAM (Netherlands) Netherlands vs. Brazil 2:2 (0:1) Friendly 1996

09-JUL-94 DALLAS (USA) Netherlands vs. Brazil 2:3 (0:0) 1994 FIFA World Cup USA

20-DEC-89 ROTTERDAM (Netherlands) Netherlands vs. Brazil 0:1 (0:0) Friendly 1989 (a year after Holland won the Euro 1988)

2 official losses in the World Cup, 1 tie at home and, a year after winning Euro 1988, a loss at home to Brazil.

Looks like Holland hasnt faired well against Brazil, either.Hey, there's no real shame in losing to Brasil in men's soccer (unless you're Argentine ;) ), so I don't feel too bad about the Dutch having lost to Brasil as often as they have (though had I known ahead of time how lousy Brasil would play against France in the Final of World Cup '98, I would have wished even more that The Netherlands had beaten them in the semifinal round!), so if you're trying to make me feel bad about the Dutch having lost as often as they have to the Brasilians in men's soccer, I ain't biting! As for Greece, I acknowledged that they won Euro 2004 fair and square, did I not? I just stated that their style was boring! Now, would I rather have a team I like play boring soccer and win titles than play exciting soccer and NOT win titles? Well, ideally I'd like to have both exciting soccer AND titles, but given the choice, I guess I'd take the unexciting soccer and titles! So I guess the Dutch are doomed forever!! :lol:

[usaistheshow]

Well to me Euro teams are better than south american teams. wow what a thoughtful OPINION You guys have only two good teams while we have many. many? out of 51 you have at the most 8 and SA's two teams of Brazil and Argentina are usually beating Euro teams, and if we do lose at least they make it look pretty :) And even though you guys have one more trophy above us we have a better competition record in the world cup than south american teams that is because Euro has more representation. Continue to rely on only 2 teams to make your continent proud while we dont even need to worry about a European team not winning a world cup since they always do great internationaly meaning we dont realy have to prove much realy
continue to rely on your Eurocup to make you proud, because that's the only way your not going to play against SA teams that would definitely dominate if they participated in that tournament (brazil beat greece 3-0 in the confeds cup after greece's "awesome" Eurocup in portugal) and what other great things do Euro teams do internationally besides their 8 WC titles obtained by 4 different teams? :confused:

[plato-ny]

[QUOTE=usaistheshow](brazil beat greece 3-0 in the confeds cup after greece's "awesome" Eurocup in portugal) QUOTE]

Brazil defeated Argentina in the Confederations Cup final 4-1. So, does that mean Argentina stinks? No. It means that Brazil is the best right now.

[Panathinaikos2]

Those 8 you pointed out are the wonderful teams in Europe but the rest are also good. Serbia is realy good at football and Croatia is good as well. Scotland is decent and good at times and even Russia can be extremly well. You can't just say Europe only has 8 good teams becuase there are many other countrys in Europe that are also decent in football that can defeat your other decent teams in Brazil. In my oppinion only two countrys in South America are actually good and Argentina one of the two has been beaten alot of times by European nations. The rest of your countrys teams becides Brazil and Argentina are "ok" that can be beaten by even Poland.

[Panathinaikos2]

continue to rely on your Eurocup to make you proud, because that's the only way your not going to play against SA teams that would definitely dominate if they participated in that tournament (brazil beat greece 3-0 in the confeds cup after greece's "awesome" Eurocup in portugal) and what other great things do Euro teams do internationally besides their 8 WC titles obtained by 4 different teams? :confused: Greece also tied Brazil 0-0 once and they only played Brazil like two times. I apologise if i'm wrong that we played Brazil only two times. By the way it's better to have 4 teams make your continent proud in a World Cup besides having 2 while the rest of your teams suck. Even the countrys that don't even ein World Cups are still good enough to beat Argentina and Brazil like Netherlands and Chech Republic.

[plato-ny]

Euro play involves more stiff competition whereas South America, in the last 30 years of WC play, have ONLY 2 teams, the same 2 teams, along with Uruguay, that have dominated 90% of Copa America titles. In Euro, different teams win the Eurocup, which is equivalent to the WC minus Brazil and Argentina. Brazil and Argentina can compete in a Eurocup. Many of the big Euro teams, if they played in Copa America, would ONLY have trouble with Brazil and Argentina and not with the other teams.

Only Brazil and Argentina have done consistently well in WC play from South America. Uruguay was great up until 1970 WC and Chile made the semis once. Euro teams are consistently in the later stages of WC play. Yes, Europe has more representation, 13, as opposed to South America, 4.

The point is that the 3rd and 4th place teams in the SA division play, who qualify for the WC, are supposed to be the best teams after Brazil and Argentina in South America. Yet, throughout WC history, those same 3rd and 4th place teams in South America, who are beneath Brazil and Argentina, 90% of the time, dont qualify for the quarterfinals of WC play.

If those same 3rd and 4th place teams from South America were really very good, then those same 3rd and 4th place teams should beat the Euro teams in the World Cup, regardless of the number of Euro representation, shouldnt they? How do Brazil and Argentina continuously do well, historically, against the large number of big Euro teams, while the other South American teams, dont? Thats why the number of representation is overblown by SA fans.
And you should also realize that those 2 teams beat MANY different Euro teams. If many different Euro teams was the reason why SA soccer teams cant go far in WC, then wouldnt that prevent Brazil and Argentina from having great success in WC, too? Perhaps, Brazil and Argentina should play in Eurocup instesad of Copa America so they can have more of a challenge.

That was the reason why only those 2 SA teams could compete in a Eurocup. Brazil is the best in history with 5 and Germany and Italy each have 3, which is more than Argentina and Uruguay, each with 2, while England and France each have 1. South America has one cup more than Europe but SA has won with teams 3 diff. teams as opposed to Europe who has won the cup with 4 different teams. Also, Brazil is the only non-Euro team, in the last 4 cups, to have won a WC whereas 2 different Euro teams won the cup.

Also, right now, the best teams in SA after Brazil and Argentina, are, in order, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Columbia (based on SA division play). The best Euro teams, after the current top Euro teams, Holland and the Czech Republic, are France, Spain, Portugal and Sweden (based on the Fifa rankings).

Brazil and Argentina can compete with any of the Euro teams that I mentioned here but those other SA teams below them cannot. If Brazil and Argentina can compete with many different Euro teams at once, as history as shown, then this disproves the theory that the multitude of Euro teams are the reason why other SA teams, other than Brazil and Argentina, cant go far, The other SA teams should be able to compete if South America is so competitve, shouldnt they? Its always those 2 teams in the last several decades that are great against the big Euro teams and nobody else from SA, which also proves that Eurocup is more competitve than Copa America.

[Fan]

But we can't considere big national for the moment, because tomorrow the moment will be San Marino, and after Faroe, and then Venezuela. So let's put in this way, big nationals is who already have at least one world cup.

Uruguay has 2 World Cup titles, but does anyone consider them BIG now? Why are you looking at the past? This is the present. Please do not give that 2002 WC crap. Germany was lucky to be drawn against those teams.

Look at how they play when they are in the Euro 2000/2004. Look at what France has done in the qualifiers, tying time and time again against teams that are not so strong.

France won in 98/00 because they had a GOOD team back then. Germany won so many titles because they have great players in their times. But look at what they did in the Euros. No one considers Uruguay anything anymore, though they've won 2 titles. What do you think of that?

How can you base their strength on HISTORY????? That's ridiculous. Reputations depend on history, but present performances is the main point in considering whether or not a team is good right NOW.

[bboy treble]

there are so many factors involved you cant say

team A is better than team B cause they won 4-0 on saturday

thats retarded cause there are way too many factors to be concidered

this topic is so obvious tho SA owns europe and europe knows that

[wolverine]

Euro play involves more stiff competition whereas South America, in the last 30 years of WC play, have ONLY 2 teams, the same 2 teams, along with Uruguay, that have dominated 90% of Copa America titles. In Euro, different teams win the Eurocup, which is equivalent to the WC minus Brazil and Argentina. Brazil and Argentina can compete in a Eurocup. Many of the big Euro teams, if they played in Copa America, would ONLY have trouble with Brazil and Argentina and not with the other teams.
The reverse is also true. If Brazil and Argentina played in the Euro they'll also have trouble ONLY from the likes of Holland, Italy etc i.e the top 5 or 6 teams from Europe will have trouble with the top 2 from SA and vice-versa.


The point is that the 3rd and 4th place teams in the SA division play, who qualify for the WC, are supposed to be the best teams after Brazil and Argentina in South America. Yet, throughout WC history, those same 3rd and 4th place teams in South America, who are beneath Brazil and Argentina, 90% of the time, dont qualify for the quarterfinals of WC play.If those same 3rd and 4th place teams from South America were really very good, then those same 3rd and 4th place teams should beat the Euro teams in the World Cup, regardless of the number of Euro representation, shouldnt they?

How many times do I've to repeat this !!!!!! One reason for this is that, most of the times the 3rd team from SA get eliminated by either Brazil/Arg or the top 5 or 6 teams from Europe. For eg: If in the 2nd round we've Paraguay vs Italy and Sweden vs Croatia then definitely Europe has more chances of places in the quarters.

These are how the other SA teams got eleminated in the 2nd round in the last few cups:

'02 Paraguay by Germany
'98 Chile by Brazil, Paraguay by France
'90 Uruguay by Italy, Colombia by Cameroon
'86 Uruguay by Argentina.
'78 Argentina, Brazil and Peru in one group.

How do Brazil and Argentina continuously do well, historically, against the large number of big Euro teams, while the other South American teams, dont?
Arg and Brazil normally manage to avoid the top teams in Europe till the quarters or so.


Perhaps, Brazil and Argentina should play in Eurocup instesad of Copa America so they can have more of a challenge.
This wud definitely make the Euro more challenging.


Brazil and Argentina can compete with any of the Euro teams that I mentioned here but those other SA teams below them cannot. If Brazil and Argentina can compete with many different Euro teams at once, as history as shown, then this disproves the theory that the multitude of Euro teams are the reason why other SA teams, other than Brazil and Argentina, cant go far, The other SA teams should be able to compete if South America is so competitve, shouldnt they? Its always those 2 teams in the last several decades that are great against the big Euro teams and nobody else from SA, which also proves that Eurocup is more competitve than Copa America.
As I said, this is b'cos they tend to get one among these two or a stronger European side in the knock-out stage. It wud be tuff for Arg and Brazil also if they were to meet the likes of Italy, Holland etc in the 2nd round itself.


That was the reason why only those 2 SA teams could compete in a Eurocup. Brazil is the best in history with 5 and Germany and Italy each have 3, which is more than Argentina and Uruguay, each with 2, while England and France each have 1. South America has one cup more than Europe but SA has won with teams 3 diff. teams as opposed to Europe who has won the cup with 4 different teams. Also, Brazil is the only non-Euro team, in the last 4 cups, to have won a WC whereas 2 different Euro teams won the cup.

SA has two WC winning sides (xcluding Uruguay) and Europe (for their size) has 5 or 6. Nobody has disagreed wih this. The teams that won the Cup from Europe are its cream i.e the top teams. Infact though Holland has not won any cups, everyone would agree that they can challenge both Brazil and Argentina.

Now if u take the Euro Cup, 7 out of 12 times it has been won by Germany, France, Holland and Italy. Also when Spain and USSR won the Cup they had good teams which were among the top in Europe THEN. The only real surprise packages in Euro are 3 - Czechslovakia in '76, Denmark in '92 and Greece in '04. I dunno abt Czechslovakia in '76 but Denmark and Greece won purely 'cos they were strategically better than their opponents. Esp Greece, knew their strengths, defended well and capitalized on the one chance they got. I don't think even a hard core Greek will say that Greece played better than the other teams. It was a victory of strategy over skill. And there's nothing wrong in it, strategies have become an imp part in football. But as u might know by now that this works only once, as long as ur opponents don't know ur style of play. By the time of the Confed it was visible. In Copa America surprises are less 'cos nobody cares much abt defence or strategy its mostly attack (if u've seen the Copa. I've seen 3 or 4 editions). So atleast for me, the Copa is a better visual treat than Euro 'cos more goals get scored.

Bottomline is that skillwise SA has got it all, but strategical and mechanical football can be seen in Europe (xcept in the leagues where there is a SA or latin touch). As I mentioned in my first message here, its a matter of personal choice, I like skillful free playing football and hence SA is for me.

And abt the initial question posed by BOSNACC as to which region is easier to qualify ?? For the cream of both the continents i.e Arg, Brazil and the top 5-6 frm Europe its the same level of difficulty or I shud say easiness for both SA and Europe. For the remaining teams its easier for SA 'cos they get to play against all teams. Europe has made it hard for themselves due to their FLAWED qualifying system.

[Dutchfan]

Europe has made it hard for themselves due to their FLAWED qualifying system.No kidding! UEFA has THE LAMEST qualifying in the whole world, bar none!!! What kind of bullsh*t system is it that you have when you have teams like Albania, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Malta, Luxembourg, The Faroe Islands (you've GOT to #$%@ing kidding on THAT one!), Cyprus, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, and Macedonia playing in final qualifying groups that include teams like England, Italy, Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, The Czech Republic, and France? I'll tell you what kind - a BULLSH*T kind, that's what!! EVERY OTHER REGION, that I know of (except for CONMEBOL since it has only ten members to begin with), pares its teams down to final qualifying groups so that at least SOME of the weaker teams aren't playing in the final qualifying groups, BUT NOT UEFA!! So much for the Europeans being "superior"!!! In play they may be in some respects, but as far as organizing a qualifying tournament goes, Europe comes in at about sixth place out of the six regions!! What the hell is wrong with doing what all the other regions do, or if they don't want to be thought of as "copying" some other regions' format, then look to the Champions' League, instead! What's done in the Champions' League? Simple. The champions from countries such as Poland, Romania, and many of the above-mentioned countries have to start qualifying in August to even GET to the final 8 groups of 4 to have the chance to play for the title. So, what the hell is wrong with doing the same kind of thing in European qualifying for the World Cup? There's NOTHING wrong with it, in my view. So why doesn't UEFA do that? Beats me!! I guess they must not be very smart about it!

[Dutchfan]

I think the 10-team "supergroup" qualifying in South America is "okay," but I think having two groups of five would be better. How 'bout this: since, nowadays at least, it's practically a foregone conclusion that Brasil and Argentina make the World Cup, why not have two groups in CONMEBOL while keeping those two teams apart, and then putting the other eight teams in the two groups according to their ELO regional rankings (or whatever system CONMEBOL wants to use) at the time of the start of the qualifying season? For example, using the current ELO rankings, Brasil is #1 in CONMEBOL, followed by #2 Argentina. What I would do, then, is make one group Brasil, then #3 in the region, and #5, and #7, and #9, while Argentina would be in with the #4-ranked team in CONMEBOL, and the #6, the #8, and the #10. So if it were starting right now the two groups would look like this:

Group A

Brasil
Uruguay
Paraguay
Chile
Venezuela

Group B

Argentina
Ecuador
Colombia
Perú
Bolivia

The two groups of teams would each play their eight matches, with the group winners and the group runners-up (second place teams) going to the World Cup, and as in Asia's final groups, the two third-place teams would have a home-and-home total goals series to see who would play-off against a team from another region. Simple, not too long, and I think it makes sense! Go CONMEBOL!!

[cannuman]

This question is serious ? Man, we win confederations cup, copa america and world cup, and you have doubt if we can qualify in Euro quali ? :lol:
I will make a question for you , in what Euro qualy group you think Brazil or Argentina could not quali ? A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H .... which ?

well will Argentina qualy for sure If he plays Netherlands and Czech? And answer my question. Will Brazil and ARG qualy for sure if they paly in Europe?

[usaistheshow]

well will Argentina qualy for sure If he plays Netherlands and Czech? And answer my question. Will Brazil and ARG qualy for sure if they paly in Europe?

cannuman, would you please stop asking that question. it's been answered several times by me and others. the answer is YES!!!! the way the Uefa qualification is setup would be so easy for Brazil and Argentina to qualify. I know the Netherlands and the Czech Rep are good teams, but when has Brazil or Argentina ever had problems with those teams? and besides the way the Uefa sets up their system is so that there is one strong team and seven other weak teams who are at the mercy of the one all-powerful team.

[brazuca5copas]

I think the 10-team "supergroup" qualifying in South America is "okay," but I think having two groups of five would be better. How 'bout this: since, nowadays at least, it's practically a foregone conclusion that Brasil and Argentina make the World Cup, why not have two groups in CONMEBOL while keeping those two teams apart, and then putting the other eight teams in the two groups according to their ELO regional rankings (or whatever system CONMEBOL wants to use) at the time of the start of the qualifying season? For example, using the current ELO rankings, Brasil is #1 in CONMEBOL, followed by #2 Argentina. What I would do, then, is make one group Brasil, then #3 in the region, and #5, and #7, and #9, while Argentina would be in with the #4-ranked team in CONMEBOL, and the #6, the #8, and the #10. So if it were starting right now the two groups would look like this:

Group A


Brasil
Uruguay
Paraguay
Chile
Venezuela

Group B

Argentina
Ecuador
Colombia
Perú
Bolivia

The two groups of teams would each play their eight matches, with the group winners and the group runners-up (second place teams) going to the World Cup, and as in Asia's final groups, the two third-place teams would have a home-and-home total goals series to see who would play-off against a team from another region. Simple, not too long, and I think it makes sense! Go CONMEBOL!!


Dutchfan , Congratulations !!!!!! I never could imagine greats posts like yours from members of this forum.

[nachi88]

cannuman, would you please stop asking that question. it's been answered several times by me and others. the answer is YES!!!! the way the Uefa qualification is setup would be so easy for Brazil and Argentina to qualify. I know the Netherlands and the Czech Rep are good teams, but when has Brazil or Argentina ever had problems with those teams? and besides the way the Uefa sets up their system is so that there is one strong team and seven other weak teams who are at the mercy of the one all-powerful team.

7 weak teams? Can you point out one group with 7 weak teams?

its more like 2 very good teams, 3 average teams and 3 weak teams.

The average teams , at many a times are able to get a point of even 3 sometimes at their home games against the tough teams.

[brazuca5copas]

well will Argentina qualy for sure If he plays Netherlands and Czech? And answer my question. Will Brazil and ARG qualy for sure if they paly in Europe?

Argentina x Nertherland = equal result or Argentina victory. Argentina x Czech = Argentina.

[SE7E]

You think so?

That's a newbie opinion, I have to say ;)

Check this out

10 Teams in South America

Argentina (ARG)
Bolivia (BOL)
Brazil (BRA)
Colombia (COL)
Paraguay (PAR)
Uruguay (URU)
Venezuela (VEN)
Chile (CHI)
Ecuador (ECU)
Peru (PER)

Just think for a second, that you're not Brazil or Argentina.. Look at those teams (all strong), only top 4 qualify

So leave out BRA and ARG, you have only 2 spots left and 8 teams fighting for it.Great post.

[SE7E]

South Americans hands down. They have respect of the world and always succeed in the big stages. Europe may be the heart of soccer but i prefer Europe club wise, international wise hard to get over S.America due to success and talent coming through, but then again that's just my opinion.Great post too.

[SE7E]

The Eurocup has more quality teams, overall, than Copa America. Only Brazil and Argentina could win a Eurocup.You mean to tell me that Greece is better than Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay???

[nachi88]

You mean to tell me that Greece is better than Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay???

not now maybe, but surely it was a year ago.

Copa Champions Columbia didnt qualify for wc02, but that doesnt mean the competition standards can be questioned.

Euro cup is definately tougher than Copa America.

Out ide the 5-6 big European nations, I would still rate Sweden, Croatia and Serbia as better teams than Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay.

[SE7E]

Since 1950 WC, only Brazil and Argentina have won WC's from South America and they have always been great. Those two. While four different European teams have won WC's. Agreed in parts...

1) England and France IMO will never manage to win another WC unless it's hosted in their countries.
2) Italy hasn't done much since 82...
3) Germany (the true greatest of Europe) is the only option left, even though I think that The Netherlans and Portugal are the best teams in Europe right now.

[SE7E]

not now maybe, but surely it was a year ago.

Copa Champions Columbia didnt qualify for wc02, but that doesnt mean the competition standards can be questioned.

Euro cup is definately tougher than Copa America.Agreed.

Out ide the 5-6 big European nations, I would still rate Sweden, Croatia and Serbia as better teams than Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay.Still have my doubts, but that can be possible.

[SE7E]

Well European Champions Greece did not Qualify. Last WC 2002 we did not see Netherlands...Spain has big problems in qualifing maybe they won't, same with Czech. Turkey - 3rd last WC now maybe will not go to Germany. Would Germany Qualify if they had to play the wualy games?...

But Brazil and Argentina always qualify....If they will play in Europe Qualifyng grups will they qualify for sure? i don't think so...Do u guys who voted for SA think so?MAN! You can be sure if Brazil and Argentina had to qualify in Europe still they would manage to do it. You compare those teams with the SA Powers???

[wolverine]

7 weak teams? Can you point out one group with 7 weak teams?

its more like 2 very good teams, 3 average teams and 3 weak teams.

7 weak teams was a hyperbole but 2 very good teams ?? Grp 1 I agree, had Holland and Czech. Grp 2 had 4 good teams (very bad grouping), Grp 3 Portugal, Grp 4 France, Grp 5 Italy, Grp 6 England, Grp 7 Spain, Grp 8 had two good teams Croatia and Sweden. The strong teams messed up their groups, due to their below par performances rather than the superior performances of the other teams.

The average teams , at many a times are able to get a point of even 3 sometimes at their home games against the tough teams.
Happens in SA also.

[wolverine]

MAN! You can be sure if Brazil and Argentina had to qualify in Europe still they would manage to do it. You compare those teams with the SA Powers???
Don't be surprised if he asks this question again !!!!

[wolverine]

Out ide the 5-6 big European nations, I would still rate Sweden, Croatia and Serbia as better teams than Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay.
Nacchi I've nothing against ur opinion. But I'll give u my view abt it.

If u xclude the fact that these teams have some star names like Ibrahimovic, Kezman and Prso, they are on par with teams like Paraguay, Equador and Uruguay. The head to head encounters b/w them favours Paraguay and Equador against the trio and Sweden and Serbia against Uruguay.

My guess is that u wud've taken the WCQs as the basis for ur inference. As I've been saying the UEFA WCQs are flawed. How many good teams did they play ?? Has any one of these teams played the likes of Holland, Portugal etc in the WCQs??

Historically Sweden and Croatia has got a 3rd place. But that's no indication of the present situation. The 3rd places came during their golden generation. Croatia went to the WC last time and got beaten by first-timers Equador. In another thread there are a lot of ppl who luv to see Equador in their grp (hoping for a cakewalk!!!!!!) I've serious doubts abt that, last time they were first timers but this time they've that xperience and also (from what i've read) some good players. Anyway lets see.

[cannuman]

cannuman, would you please stop asking that question. it's been answered several times by me and others. the answer is YES!!!! the way the Uefa qualification is setup would be so easy for Brazil and Argentina to qualify. I know the Netherlands and the Czech Rep are good teams, but when has Brazil or Argentina ever had problems with those teams? and besides the way the Uefa sets up their system is so that there is one strong team and seven other weak teams who are at the mercy of the one all-powerful team.

U remember WC2002? Argentina played Sweden, England and Nigeria..how did they do? Can u still be sure they would qualify? They will sure qualify in SA with 4.5 sports.

[usaistheshow]

U remember WC2002? Argentina played Sweden, England and Nigeria..how did they do? Can u still be sure they would qualify? They will sure qualify in SA with 4.5 sports.

yes i remember, but that was the toughest group in that WC. and the groups of qualifying in Europe are much easier than that one, and if you slip up at least you still have a chance, but in the WC you lose your first game in the group stage, you are pretty much obligated to win the next two. but in all honesty, what do you mean by 4.5 sports?

[BRISTOLUK]

It seems to me that the draw always allowed Brazil and Argentina to qualify. I'm sure there used to be two groups when the WC had fewer finalists. In the unlikely event both were in the same group, the team coming behind the other still got a play off against very weak nations.
Now they need only finish in the top four...even if they finish 5th they get an easy play off.
The question is not whether it's easier to qualify in South America or Europe. It should be, is it easier for South America's best to qualify from their region than Europe's best to qualify from theirs.
The answer is clearly yes.

[bboy treble]

you rate those 3 teams as better than the 3 teams from SA out of pure nothing

no facts just speculation

what the media feeds you

[BRISTOLUK]

you rate those 3 teams as better than the 3 teams from SA out of pure nothing

no facts just speculation

what the media feeds you


Not sure who this comment is for...I only mentioned two teams from SA. But I'll happily pick up on it. Who but the TWO main SA teams regularly succeeds in the finals? Ignoring the European 'giants' (Italy, Germany and France) Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Holland, Bulgaria, Norway, Belgium and even England have all done better than SA's 2nd string teams.
Yet 'qualifying' will exclude several better European teams while allowing second level SA teams to make up the numbers.

[Dutchfan]

Not sure who this comment is for...I only mentioned two teams from SA. But I'll happily pick up on it. Who but the TWO main SA teams regularly succeeds in the finals? Ignoring the European 'giants' (Italy, Germany and France) Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Holland, Bulgaria, Norway, Belgium and even England have all done better than SA's 2nd string teams.
Yet 'qualifying' will exclude several better European teams while allowing second level SA teams to make up the numbers.Too bad! World Cup qualifying currently allows for anywhere from 14 to 16 of the participants, nearly half to half of all the teams there, to come from Europe. If some European squad that YOU feel "deserves" to be there and isn't because it didn't do well enough in its qualifying group, tough! Europe has 14 spots for next year; I would give them 15 or 16. Any more than that is just plain wrong, no matter how many teams there are in Europe that YOU (or anyone else) thinks are "deserving" of a World Cup place!

[BRISTOLUK]

Too bad! World Cup qualifying currently allows for anywhere from 14 to 16 of the participants, nearly half to half of all the teams there, to come from Europe. If some European squad that YOU feel "deserves" to be there and isn't because it didn't do well enough in its qualifying group, tough! Europe has 14 spots for next year; I would give them 15 or 16. Any more than that is just plain wrong, no matter how many teams there are in Europe that YOU (or anyone else) thinks are "deserving" of a World Cup place!



It's not a case of whether I or anyone else feels certain European teams are 'more deserving'. It's a fact that there are a dozen or more European countries with better footballing records than some of the teams who do qualify, simply because the quality in their part of the world isn't so good.
Tell you what...let's cut the number of Americans in the US Open Golf championship on the basis they are over represented and let some inferior golfers in. Never mind the quality of the tournament will suffer.

[BRISTOLUK]

Dutchfan
I was just looking over your posts and I saw your justifiable criticism of the UEFA qualifying. Your idea of doing it like the Champions League; making the lesser countries qualify for later stages is a good one and I have said it myself.
But let's extend the principle to the WC Finals themselves. The equivalent would be to grant places in the finals to proven countries; those regularly in the latter stages.
That would be...let's see...Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, England, Croatia, Czech Republic, Norway, Cameroon, Nigeria, Mexico and, maybe, Columbia. 19 places. That would leave 13 up for grabs.
Several former Slav/Soviet republics have shown the potential to be as good as Croatia and the Czech republic. I wouldn't hold out too much hope for more than one extra SA country qualifying, if they were all in it together.
I'm certain the big two would make it if they had to play qualifying groups against Europeans...as was mentioned here. But beware...nothing is guaranteed. Germany and Italy both had to rely on play-offs having come second to England in recent WC Qualifying. That's how tough qualifying can be. One bad result, one bad refereeing decision, injuries etc and there aren't enough games to recover like in SA qualifying where there are enough games for the best to come out on top.

[Dutchfan]

Dutchfan
I was just looking over your posts and I saw your justifiable criticism of the UEFA qualifying. Your idea of doing it like the Champions League; making the lesser countries qualify for later stages is a good one and I have said it myself.
But let's extend the principle to the WC Finals themselves. The equivalent would be to grant places in the finals to proven countries; those regularly in the latter stages.
That would be...let's see...Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, England, Croatia, Czech Republic, Norway, Cameroon, Nigeria, Mexico and, maybe, Columbia. 19 places. That would leave 13 up for grabs.
Several former Slav/Soviet republics have shown the potential to be as good as Croatia and the Czech republic. I wouldn't hold out too much hope for more than one extra SA country qualifying, if they were all in it together.
I'm certain the big two would make it if they had to play qualifying groups against Europeans...as was mentioned here. But beware...nothing is guaranteed. Germany and Italy both had to rely on play-offs having come second to England in recent WC Qualifying. That's how tough qualifying can be. One bad result, one bad refereeing decision, injuries etc and there aren't enough games to recover like in SA qualifying where there are enough games for the best to come out on top.
Oh, boy, I'm not going to start with you on this topic again! Find more posts from me submitted within the last couple of weeks and you'll see my opinion of how the World Cup slots should be divvied up. You'll see that I don't really care how many European (that is, RICHER) countries' teams may or may not be better than teams from other parts of the world - the World Cup is called the "World" Cup for a reason: to have representation from ALL parts of the world not just from the richer ones. Find the post from "wolverine" where he states (and PERFECTLY, I might add) that NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT THE WORLD CUP GUARANTEES THAT THE "BEST" (ACCORDING TO WHOM, I ASK?) 32 TEAMS GET INTO IT. The teams that are "supposed" to be in the World Cup are the best teams from EACH REGION OF THE WORLD, not the "best 32", period! So I don't really care if you, or other people, feel that Greece, or Denmark, or Spain or Slovakia (whichever one DOESN'T make it through the play-off) or Russia (which I've NEVER been impressed with!) are better than teams from other parts of the world that DO make it to the tournament, because it doesn't matter. The World Cup spots are portioned out the way they are and the teams from Europe that don't make it didn't make it for a reason - they weren't good enough to, period! 15 or 16 spots for Europe is plenty, and anyone who thinks otherwise is out of his mind!!

[Dutchfan]

And what's this business about "granting" teams entry into the World Cup? Where did you get THAT crazy idea? No team should be "granted" anything! They should all have to earn their place! Except for the defending champion and the host (I still don't know why FIFA decided all of the sudden when the last World Cup came around to stop granting an automatic spot to the defending champion ["holder" as they call it in England] - does anybody else know why FIFA did that?), ALL teams should have to earn their spot, but only through their own regions, not this half-baked, all-world qualifying scheme that some of you seem to be in favor of. And where did you get the idea that NORWAY is any good? Norway SUCKS! They play a style of soccer that makes Greece's almost look like Brasil's, and for them to score a goal is practically cause for national celebration! Here's hoping that The Czech Republic knocks them out in the European playoffs!

[Dutchfan]

It's not a case of whether I or anyone else feels certain European teams are 'more deserving'. It's a fact that there are a dozen or more European countries with better footballing records than some of the teams who do qualify, simply because the quality in their part of the world isn't so good.
Tell you what...let's cut the number of Americans in the US Open Golf championship on the basis they are over represented and let some inferior golfers in. Never mind the quality of the tournament will suffer.Apples and oranges. An "open" tournament in golf has no regional restrictions, so in theory ALL the competitors in one could come from ONE country, could they not? (Not likely, granted, but it COULD happen, couldn't it?) The World Cup is designed to have entrants from different parts of the world - that's why there is no such thing as "all-world" qualifying groups that some of you seem to be in favor of, which would favor only the richer countries. Well, that's ONE of the reasons, anyway.