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.

[bboy treble]

the fact is that you guys get 14 spots we get 4 and we still own you :lol:

[nachi88]

the fact is that you guys get 14 spots we get 4 and we still own you :lol:

Own us? why? Because you have one more wc.

Only two continents have won the wc's so far. Europe and S America.
There have been 17 wc's, and the record is 9-8 for S America.
Next sumer, it will be equalised.

[BRISTOLUK]

the World Cup is called the "World" Cup for a reason: to have representation from ALL parts of the world

And where did you get the idea that NORWAY is any good? Norway SUCKS!

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


The WC does have representation from all over the world. Nobody here is saying it shouldn't. We have simply pointed out that some regions of the world never justify the number of entries they get. It's that simple. It's a fact. It's not an opinion.

Where did I say Norway were good? I simply included them because they have proved themselves at the WC to be better than SA teams apart from the big two.

I didn't see "some of you people" saying there should be 'all world' qualifying. You're quite good at misrepresenting what people say, aren't you? What I did see were some posts from people suggesting Brazil and Argentina might not find it so easy to qualify regularly, if they had to do so playing a higher standard of opposition ie European teams.

And for those that continue with "SA has won it more than Europe", be consistent. The natural continuation of that argument would disqualify the inclusion of the other continents as they haven't won it.
More European teams have won it and more European teams get to the later stages.
You argued for a similar qualifying process to that used in the Champions League. I agreed. But if it makes sense in qualifying, why not the tournament itself?
The CL format gives more places to the better (more successful) countries. All we are saying is that the WC should reflect the greater depth in Europe. Having fewer than half the places in the finals does not do that.

[Dutchfan]

The WC does have representation from all over the world. Nobody here is saying it shouldn't. We have simply pointed out that some regions of the world never justify the number of entries they get. It's that simple. It's a fact. It's not an opinion.

Where did I say Norway were good? I simply included them because they have proved themselves at the WC to be better than SA teams apart from the big two.

I didn't see "some of you people" saying there should be 'all world' qualifying. You're quite good at misrepresenting what people say, aren't you? What I did see were some posts from people suggesting Brazil and Argentina might not find it so easy to qualify regularly, if they had to do so playing a higher standard of opposition ie European teams.

And for those that continue with "SA has won it more than Europe", be consistent. The natural continuation of that argument would disqualify the inclusion of the other continents as they haven't won it.
More European teams have won it and more European teams get to the later stages.
You argued for a similar qualifying process to that used in the Champions League. I agreed. But if it makes sense in qualifying, why not the tournament itself?
The CL format gives more places to the better (more successful) countries. All we are saying is that the WC should reflect the greater depth in Europe. Having fewer than half the places in the finals does not do that.
"Bristoluk" - "Bristol, U.K." there, I figured out your "code"! So apparently you're originally from Europe! Big surprise there! So of course, being from Europe, you feel that that the majority of the teams in the World Cup should come from Europe. Hmmm. I wonder if you'd be saying that if you were from Asia, or from Africa, or from the Americas. You need to do some more homework. The references I made earlier to "some people advocating for 'all-world' qualifying groups" were not to any posts in THIS thread. But look for some recent posts by people going by handles like "sinan1903", "nachi88", "ASG", and "krazyrobus1". THOSE people were saying the same things about qualifying for the World Cup that you are, and I tell YOU the same thing I told them: YOU'RE FULL OF SH*T! Europe gets nearly half the representation in the World Cup as it is, and that's PLENTY, PERIOD! The teams that don't make it out of Europe, with THAT MANY spots available to European teams in general? I have no sympathy for them. None whatsoever. I don't care WHICH team it is. If they didn't make it, then they're just going to have to wait until next time! nachi88 and I think "sinan1903" were trying to get me to agree to what they were saying, using The Netherlands as an example of a "quality" European side (and one that I like!) that "deserved" to go to the last World Cup, but didn't make it through because of the "tougher" qualifying groups ("tougher"? With teams like San Marino, The Faroe Islands, Andorra, Albania, Cyprus, and Malta in them? I'm not so sure about that! EVERY region has its doormats ["minnows" as you English like to say], and Europe CERTAINLY has ITS share!!) that are present in Europe. Well, guess what? If they didn't make it, then I guess that means that they just weren't good enough to, doesn't it? Would the Dutch, given the opportunity to play off, before the last tournament, against a team from another region that eventually DID make it, have been able to defeat them and therefore go in their place? (Which I KNOW is EXACTLY what you people are trying to get at!) Perhaps. But you know what? IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROVISION IN PLACE RIGHT NOW FOR THIRD-PLACE TEAMS FROM EUROPEAN QUALIFYING GROUPS, NO MATTER HOW "TOUGH" YOU AND ALL THE OTHER EUROPEANS AND EURO-SUPPORTERS WHO READ THESE THREADS THINK EUROPEAN QUALIFYING GROUPS ARE, TO GET A CHANCE TO GO TO THE WORLD CUP! PERIOD! All teams know before qualifying starts what they will need to do to qualify, no matter WHICH region they're in, and if they don't get the job done, then either they weren't good enough to begin with, or they blew their chance. I don't remember hearing the Dutch complaining last time when they were kept from going by Ireland and Portugal. They knew they hadn't gotten the job done when they had the chance! Just like Greece and Denmark shouldn't complain THIS time that they didn't make it, even if they believe that they could beat, say, Bahrain, or Trinidad & Tobago, or Australia given the opportunity, because they HAD their chance to qualify and they didn't make it! Am I any more in "favor" of seeing 0 - 8 scorelines like the one we saw in the opening round of World Cup 2002? No. But as has been stated by others, and as I stated earlier, the World Cup NEVER PROMISED TO PRESENT YOU THE "BEST" 32 TEAMS IN THE WORLD (AND AGAIN I ASK, THE "BEST 32" IN THE WORLD IN WHOSE EYES, ANYWAY?)! One of its goals is to present you the best teams in the world from every region of the world, not the "best 32", period. Get that through your heads, people! Furthermore, soccerates, an Italian posting to this forum, has posted that while the World Cup is the most prestigious (which it IS) soccer tournament in the world, the European Championship is the most competitive. And I have no problem with that! But if you're going to use that as an argument for more European teams in the World Cup, then sorry, I'm not buying it! If you find my other posts from the last couple of weeks you'll see the format for the World Cup that I am in favor of, but I'll give to you briefly here: three teams from CONCACAF and four from CONMEBOL with the fifth-place CONMEBOL team playing off with the fourth-place CONCACAF team for a spot, 8 teams from the Americas en total. Three teams from Asia with the fourth-place Asian team playing off with the Oceania champion (even after this year when Australia moves to the Asian region to qualify out of) for a spot, so four from Asia/Oceania, combined. Africa I'd either leave the same as it is and give Europe 15 spots, or, actually, I'd take one spot from Africa and give it to Europe, making the Europe/Africa ratio, 4:1. Better yet, I'd give Europe 15 spots and Africa 4 spots and the remaining spot would be a play off between a second-place European side and one of Africa's group winners (perhaps the one that had the worst record of all the African group winners). As I've stated before, I think that would be a PERFECTLY fair and equitable system with regional soccer strengths being what they are right now, and I see NO REASON why ANYBODY should have a problem with it. The bottom line on this is that, as logistically "neat" having 32 teams in the World Cup is for narrowing it down from 32 to 16 to 8 and so on (very nice in a binary sense!), there simply are not 32 teams in the world right now that honestly can be said to have a realistic chance at winning the World Cup. That's all there is to it. I don't care HOW MANY European teams are there, you still won't have 32 teams in the World Cup that have a realistic chance of winning it! The European Championship was increased a few years back to 16 teams up from 8. Which I liked! But for "the most competitive national team tournament in the world" are you going to try to tell me that EVERY team that gets to the Euros nowadays has a REALISTIC chance of winning it? Are you? 'Cause if you are, then I will tell you that I disagree! But does that mean that I think the European Championships should be knocked down to only 12 teams, or even back down to 8? No. I say, the more the merrier! If you Europeans have no problem with having teams like Latvia, Slovenia, Scotland, and Norway in YOUR continental tournament, then you should also have no problem with teams like Saudi Arabia, China, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Tunisia being in the World Cup. The World Cup is designed to have the best teams from all regions of the world in it, whether or not even the best teams from some regions aren't necessarily as good as teams from the richer parts of the world, like Europe. I, for one, do NOT want to see a "World" Cup dominated by the presence of European (that is, RICHER countries') teams. That's what you guys have your own continental tournament for. The World Cup is called the "World" Cup for a reason, and that reason should remain in place, no matter what all you Europeans and Euro-supporters think!!

[Dutchfan]

Oh, and before you "assail" me, as a member in another thread, I think it was "ASG", did, for being "anti-European," look at my handle, again! As one of the very few people who apparently comprehend what I state when I post something, "wolverine," explained - "how can he be against Europe when he's a Dutch fan? He's simply against European expansion (in the World Cup)." That's exactly right!

[BRISTOLUK]

Oh, and before you "assail" me for being "anti-European,"
I would never make such an assumption about someone I don't know, even though you did precisely that when you worked out I am from the UK and asserted this: "Bristoluk" - "Bristol, U.K." there, I figured out your "code"! So apparently you're originally from Europe! Big surprise there! So of course, being from Europe, you feel that that the majority of the teams in the World Cup should come from Europe.
And just because I disagree with you, I don't tell you you're full of shit either. I don't need to sink to that level. Clearly you know your facts but I believe you allow too much distortion of them. You referred to the Netherlands as not qualifying "because of the "tougher" qualifying groups ("tougher"? With teams like San Marino, The Faroe Islands, Andorra, Albania, Cyprus, and Malta in them?"
You clearly know that all these teams were not the only opponents of the Netherlands and they also played a higher level of opposition. It's disingenuous of you to mention them all like that.
You said "I don't remember hearing the Dutch complaining last time when they were kept from going by Ireland and Portugal."
Maybe if you lived in Europe you would have done. It's that sort of injustice behind the reason for people wanting more European representation.
It's pointless for me to repeat that European countries are the ones dominating the the latter stages and not SA ones.
I did say that Germany and Italy both failed to automatically qualify when placed in a group with England. When did SA qualifying arrangements put Brazil and Argentina into the same group where only one qualified automatically?
The point of this is that there are so many good teams in Europe (as you seem to admit in references to the Euro Champs), there isn't the luxury of playing one big league, ensuring the best get through. Consequently, some 'lesser' European teams make it through to the finals instead. And they still do better than their SA counterparts.

You keep repeating that the WC is supposed to have the best teams from all over the world regardless of whether they are as good as those in another region.
I repeat, I am in favour of the whole world being represented. But that representation has to better reflect standards. I don't know how many entries per region is right. It's probably impossible to say. But the number of African and South American entries is just not justified.
If it was the likes of Columbia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay succeeding instead of the Euro countries, there would be a case to justify more SA entries at the expense of Euro ones. But it's not them. They consistently fail.

Maybe the solution is to have some play-offs at the event itself. I dunno...have 28 finalists and have some other countries playing off for 4 places.
That could actually increase the number of countries not normally represented without reducing the places for regions of a higher quality.

[SE7E]

Don't be surprised if he asks this question again !!!!:Pray2:

[wolverine]

You said "I don't remember hearing the Dutch complaining last time when they were kept from going by Ireland and Portugal."
Maybe if you lived in Europe you would have done. It's that sort of injustice behind the reason for people wanting more European representation.
It's pointless for me to repeat that European countries are the ones dominating the the latter stages and not SA ones.
I did say that Germany and Italy both failed to automatically qualify when placed in a group with England. When did SA qualifying arrangements put Brazil and Argentina into the same group where only one qualified automatically?
The point of this is that there are so many good teams in Europe (as you seem to admit in references to the Euro Champs), there isn't the luxury of playing one big league, ensuring the best get through.

What else can u xpect if u lose 2-0 to Ireland away and tie them at home ??? True Holland didn't get a chance to redress their mistakes but this is due to the flawed UEFA qualifiers, this is something UEFA needs to sort out not FIFA. SA doesn't have this crap seeding system. Instead of one big pool if SA had small grps like Bra-Bol-Equa with the winner going then things will get hard here also. I wud like u to read my posts on these
http://forums.soccerfansnetwork.com/showthread.php?t=21391&page=16&pp=15

Consequently, some 'lesser' European teams make it through to the finals instead. And they still do better than their SA counterparts.

I don't think there's any statistics to prove this.
The head to head record of lesser Euro teams (if u count Spain, Czechslovakia as less Euro teams) and SA minus Arg-Bra is 16-10-20. European teams have won jus 4 more games. I've heard u mention Norway sometimes. What is their major achievement in the WC ?
http://forums.soccerfansnetwork.com/showthread.php?t=21391&page=17&pp=15
http://forums.soccerfansnetwork.com/showthread.php?t=35677&page=8&pp=15

But the number of African and South American entries is just not justified.
If it was the likes of Columbia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay succeeding instead of the Euro countries, there would be a case to justify more SA entries at the expense of Euro ones. But it's not them. They consistently fail.
Football is still developing in Africa and since '82 the African teams are doing good. The major upsets in the African WCQs is a testimony in this. Nigeria missing out to Angola is same as Holland missing out to Ireland.
The numbers again is an imp factor in the Euro teams reach the semis/quarters more
http://forums.soccerfansnetwork.com/showthread.php?t=35677&page=2&pp=15
http://forums.soccerfansnetwork.com/showthread.php?t=35677&page=7&pp=15


Maybe the solution is to have some play-offs at the event itself. I dunno...have 28 finalists and have some other countries playing off for 4 places.
That could actually increase the number of countries not normally represented without reducing the places for regions of a higher quality.
I agree with this, the last few spots in the confeds (again dep on size) can be allocated as play-offs. In the current quota only unwanted quota in the WC is the play-off b/w CONACAF and Euro. This cud've been Europe's 4th playoff.

[bboy treble]

Own us? why? Because you have one more wc.

Only two continents have won the wc's so far. Europe and S America.
There have been 17 wc's, and the record is 9-8 for S America.
Next sumer, it will be equalised.

the odds are against us yet we are still one up thats my point

[BRISTOLUK]

....consequently, some 'lesser' European teams make it through to the finals instead. And they still do better than their SA counterparts.

I don't think there's any statistics to prove this.
I've heard u mention Norway sometimes. What is their major achievement in the WC ?


No statistics? I'm not talking head to head. "One-off" matches don't mean as much as a series of games. Elsewhere PLATO-NY made a pretty good case and I was tempted to use it. But I decided to do my own research. Let me just tidy it up on word, then I'll paste. Here it is.


I looked at WCs from 1990. I went back no further, simply because the site I was using wasn’t so clear before then. But the last four WCs provide a good guide. The first thing of note is that no S American teams were in the same First Round groups. European teams were and, consequently, were much more likely to knock each other out.

1990 Italy
A 24 team tournament. 14 from Europe and 4 from SA.
In round one (the group stage) 3 of the SA came 3rd in their groups. They were bested by Romania, Belgium and Yugoslavia -Not exactly the cream of Europe!! But their records were ‘best third place’ and in rules prevailing at that time, they qualified for the 2nd round. Unfortunately, in that round, 3 out of 4 were knocked out.
The Europeans, meanwhile, got 10 through the first round and had 6 of the last 8 teams.

1994 USA
Still a 24 team contest. As was usual when the finals moved to the Americas, Europe lost a place. That was the arrangement and there were no complaints about it. So there were 13 Europeans and 4 from SA.
This time, 2 of the 4 SA teams came bottom of their groups…bested by, among others, Switzerland and South Korea.
Again, 10 of the Europeans made it to round two…where Argentina lost to Romania, leaving just 1 SA team as against 7 Europeans in the last 8.

1998 France
Europe got its place back, the tournament having returned, but the competition grew to 32 teams. Despite being the dominant continent, Europe only gained one of those extra eight places. Despite their poor showing in 1994, SA was also given an extra place. Anyway, there were 15 Euros and 5 from SA.
SA did better this time, getting 4 from 5 through the groups. But 2 went out in the 2nd round. Here, I can hear people say “Yes, but one – Chile- was knocked out by Brazil.” That’s true…just as it’s true that Euros were knocked out by other Euros. But it was a 4-1 thrashing by a Brazil that had lost to NORWAY, struggled to beat Scotland(!!) and Denmark and then needed a penalty contest to win the semi-final…before getting stuffed 3-0 in the final.
Europe had 10 in the 2nd round and 6 of the last 8
That’s 6 out of 8 twice and 7 once. Pretty good, huh?

2002 Japan/Korea
The international game was turned on its head here. Many people think this was a fluke tournament; believing refereeing standards poor. There were concerns about it taking place in Monsoon Season…FIFA had apparently not thought of this…and the organisers wanted it moved to different dates. This will sound like an excuse, but only one stadium had anything like ‘normal’ playing conditions and that was indoors with air-conditioning. It was expected that European teams would suffer and they did. But so did South America, when 3 of their 5 teams were eliminated first round, coming behind Denmark and Sweden (once again, far from the cream of Europe) and Senegal…another example of a country supposedly developing, but not ‘good enough’ this time.
There were 9 Euros in the 16…only one fewer than normal, but only 4 in the last 8. The worst showing…but still half and still the majority of ‘the best 16’…and the TV pictures back the belief of the Italians and Spanish that they were denied justice.

See? Even Norway can beat Brazil in a competitive game.
If similar results to 2002 are repeated next year, I shall reconsider my position. In the meantime I cannot ignore the facts.

[plato-ny]

the fact is that you guys get 14 spots we get 4 and we still own you :lol:

The SA teams below Brazil and Argentina rarely do well in WC. Those teams get knocked out early against other Euro teams. Its always Brazil annd Argentina. Nobody else. Uruguay has not had a solid team since the WC 1970. Brazil and Argentina do well against the multitude of Euro teams but the other SA teams dont. If they did, then you could talk about how great SA soccer is compared to Europe.

[Dutchfan]

The SA teams below Brazil and Argentina rarely do well in WC. Those teams get knocked out early against other Euro teams. Its always Brazil annd Argentina. Nobody else. Uruguay has not had a solid team since the WC 1970. Brazil and Argentina do well against the multitude of Euro teams but the other SA teams dont. If they did, then you could talk about how great SA soccer is compared to Europe.True. And BRISTOLUK, I'm sorry if I made assumptions about you that I shouldn't have. I don't think anybody here (including myself) is saying that there isn't good soccer in Europe. Of course there is. Someone would have to be a fool or completely ignorant about world soccer to claim that. We non-Europeans are just saying that at nearly half the participants in the event, Europe has PLENTY of representation. BRISTOLUK, I DO take issue with your comment about European teams knocking other European teams out of the World Cup while the South Americans don't even have to play each other in the first round. Well, what do you expect? You have to try to even it up somehow! What do you want, 3 4-team groups of all European teams, and one with two European teams and two African teams, one group with 4 South American teams, one with three African teams and the CONCACAF - Asia playoff winner, one with the four Asian entries, and the last with all three CONCACAF entries plus the CONMEBOL - Oceania playoff? My point being that you want to have interregional play as much as possible during the first round, but with 14 (and sometimes 15) European teams in the tournament, there's obviously no way to have all the European teams avoid each other. So I think your argument there is a bit silly. But I (kinda) liked your idea about intercontinental playoffs, though I thought I addressed that in my earlier post. Anyway, I enjoy certain teams from Europe as well, but I just don't believe that one region should ever (not in this day and age, anyway) get more than 50% representation at a tournament such as the World Cup. If 50% (or near 50%) representation from Europe won't make you happy, then I don't know what to tell you!

[wolverine]

No statistics? I'm not talking head to head. "One-off" matches don't mean as much as a series of games. Elsewhere PLATO-NY made a pretty good case and I was tempted to use it. But I decided to do my own research. Let me just tidy it up on word, then I'll paste. Here it is.


I looked at WCs from 1990. I went back no further, simply because the site I was using wasn’t so clear before then. But the last four WCs provide a good guide. The first thing of note is that no S American teams were in the same First Round groups. European teams were and, consequently, were much more likely to knock each other out.

1990 Italy
A 24 team tournament. 14 from Europe and 4 from SA.
In round one (the group stage) 3 of the SA came 3rd in their groups. They were bested by Romania, Belgium and Yugoslavia -Not exactly the cream of Europe!! But their records were ‘best third place’ and in rules prevailing at that time, they qualified for the 2nd round. Unfortunately, in that round, 3 out of 4 were knocked out.
The Europeans, meanwhile, got 10 through the first round and had 6 of the last 8 teams.

1994 USA
Still a 24 team contest. As was usual when the finals moved to the Americas, Europe lost a place. That was the arrangement and there were no complaints about it. So there were 13 Europeans and 4 from SA.
This time, 2 of the 4 SA teams came bottom of their groups…bested by, among others, Switzerland and South Korea.
Again, 10 of the Europeans made it to round two…where Argentina lost to Romania, leaving just 1 SA team as against 7 Europeans in the last 8.

1998 France
Europe got its place back, the tournament having returned, but the competition grew to 32 teams. Despite being the dominant continent, Europe only gained one of those extra eight places. Despite their poor showing in 1994, SA was also given an extra place. Anyway, there were 15 Euros and 5 from SA.
SA did better this time, getting 4 from 5 through the groups. But 2 went out in the 2nd round. Here, I can hear people say “Yes, but one – Chile- was knocked out by Brazil.” That’s true…just as it’s true that Euros were knocked out by other Euros. But it was a 4-1 thrashing by a Brazil that had lost to NORWAY, struggled to beat Scotland(!!) and Denmark and then needed a penalty contest to win the semi-final…before getting stuffed 3-0 in the final.
Europe had 10 in the 2nd round and 6 of the last 8
That’s 6 out of 8 twice and 7 once. Pretty good, huh?

2002 Japan/Korea
The international game was turned on its head here. Many people think this was a fluke tournament; believing refereeing standards poor. There were concerns about it taking place in Monsoon Season…FIFA had apparently not thought of this…and the organisers wanted it moved to different dates. This will sound like an excuse, but only one stadium had anything like ‘normal’ playing conditions and that was indoors with air-conditioning. It was expected that European teams would suffer and they did. But so did South America, when 3 of their 5 teams were eliminated first round, coming behind Denmark and Sweden (once again, far from the cream of Europe) and Senegal…another example of a country supposedly developing, but not ‘good enough’ this time.
There were 9 Euros in the 16…only one fewer than normal, but only 4 in the last 8. The worst showing…but still half and still the majority of ‘the best 16’…and the TV pictures back the belief of the Italians and Spanish that they were denied justice.

See? Even Norway can beat Brazil in a competitive game.
If similar results to 2002 are repeated next year, I shall reconsider my position. In the meantime I cannot ignore the facts.
LOL U r still ignoring how the SA teams get eliminated in the knock out :rolleyes: !!!!! And do u xpect all the 4 SA teams to be in one group ???
Meanwhile Norway's win over Brazil was b'cos of a freak last min penalty, a penalty that ne'er was (u wud know it if u had seen the match) and a match that had no consequence to Brazil. It was Africa and not Brazil that suffered b'cos of that loss. And if u r using that to say that Norway has achieved a lot ... I really dunno what to say !!!!!

[BRISTOLUK]

BRISTOLUK, I DO take issue with your comment about European teams knocking other European teams out of the World Cup while the South Americans don't even have to play each other in the first round. Well, what do you expect? You have to try to even it up somehow!...... So I think your argument there is a bit silly.

Perhaps I didn't explain that part well. I don't actually have a problem with South American countries being kept apart. Nor any continent with only a few entries. I only raised the subject to neutralise a possible counter argument put forward about SA countries knocking each other out. The draw would be an absolute nightmare to do...and very likely impossible...trying to keep so many apart. I really wasn't arguing for that and it would be unreasonable to do so.
I just have a predilection for justice and fair play. I do want countries from all over the globe. I also want the good teams there. Is that having my cake and eating it?
It may be that UEFA made a balls up of the seeding when Denmark, Russia and Romania miss out because they were grouped with the likes of Holland, Czech Republic, Portugal, Slovakia, Ukraine and Turkey.....while other groups are so weak, that Switzerland and Norway are the second best teams!!!
But it's unfair just to blame UEFA. The other federations don't have to cope with the numbers.
FIFA are just as bad. Nearly every world cup has a 'group of death' and a couple of groups less strong. That wouldn't happen if they got the seeding right. But they're always changing the formula to suit. It's obvious someone sits down, works out what happens with Formula A...doesn't like it so tries out Formula B and so on. We've noticed this in England in past WCs when we have been placed in the top seeds ahead of more deserving nations apparently in an effort to control the thugs that 'follow' the England team. But I digress.

[BRISTOLUK]

LOL U r still ignoring how the SA teams get eliminated in the knock out :rolleyes: !!!!! And do u xpect all the 4 SA teams to be in one group ???
Meanwhile Norway's win over Brazil was b'cos of a freak last min penalty, a penalty that ne'er was (u wud know it if u had seen the match) and a match that had no consequence to Brazil. It was Africa and not Brazil that suffered b'cos of that loss. And if u r using that to say that Norway has achieved a lot ... I really dunno what to say !!!!!

I don't understand your first line. They get eliminated because they lose.
I never said I expected SA teams to be put together. I want them kept apart for the sake of diversity and interest. See my post above for what I think as opposed to what you think for me.
You wanted facts. I gave them for FOUR tournaments and you focus on one game - which, incidentally, I did see. I have no great recollection of it. But even if it wasn't a pen, Brazil still failed to win. Against tiny Norway for heaven's sake!!!!!!
You asked for Norway's achievement and I told you. A team ranked, what......18th in Europe...and they beat unbeatable Brazil!!!!!!!!

[Panathinaikos2]

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!Whats with your obbsesion with Greece?

[Ronni]

Personally I don't understand the comparisons some of you do. Just take how many teams of each continent are able to get to the second round in the WC and how many don't. This shows which continent sends the most nobodies to the competition!
Assuming that the current proportions Europe x SouthAmerica of 3 x 1 on is ok, we see that in the last 5 WCs:

from SAmer, 16 qualified to the 2nd round; from Europe 49 qualified.
This is very close to 1 x 3 !!!!!

considering the ones that didn't pass, there were 6 from SAmer, 22 from Europe. This shows there were more "weak" Europeans than SAmericans in the 1 x 3 proportion, but this is still quite close!

What are you talking about? This means that 1 x 3 in a competition for 32 is ok! There's no truth in "middle europeans smashing south americans" or such a nonsense!

If you go some further, in the quarters the Europeans have 28 x 7, what means exactely 4 x 1. This means that in a competition for 16 teams, 4 x 1 would be more appropriate. And interesting - this was indeed more or less the proportion while the WC had only 16 teams!
Isn't it interesting? This means FIFA isn't that stupid.

If you get to the semis, it's back to pretty close to 3 x 1 (14 x 5). Of course, Finals and Champions are much in favour of South America in this 3 x 1 proportion.

Conclusion: at the top level both confederations are about the same. In the "second pot", Europe is more than 3 x 1.
But in the "third pot", and this means the ones that really deserve to be in the WC, they're 3 x 1.

POINT 2: What brings some Europeans to the discussion that qualifying in S.America is that easy is due to the new modus. Indeed, in this league form it's almost impossible for Brazil and Argentina not to qualify. Because also the big ones have a couple of bad matches (like Brazil in 2002), but there's always time enough to repair it.
This was the opposite of the system before: with small groups, it was much more difficult for these two. In 94 it could have happened easily that none of both get there! At that time (big) South Americans instead were complaining why (big) europeans qualify that easy, because they had large groups - of 4 or 5, and not only of 3 participants.

This means that in order to get really <B>the best</B> teams to the WC, every confederation should make it in the form of a league - but of course only South America is able to do it, since they have only 10 members. Since Europe still can make groups of 6 and 7, it's also enough!

My final conclusion: 14 for Europe and 4,5 for South America is perfect. The other confederations do get more than they would deserve technically, but therefore they are the ones that are responsible for the WC-feeling. And this is the most important thing!

[SE7E]

...and they beat unbeatable Brazil!!!!!!!!You're saying that Brazil is "unbeatable", nobody else said so...

[BRISTOLUK]

You're saying that Brazil is "unbeatable", nobody else said so...



It's a figure of speech. You're taking me too literally. I was merely illustrating a point by showing the gulf between Norway and Brazil. If you read again, you'll see how I referred to Brazil being stuffed 3-0 in the final. I certainly don't think they are unbeatable.

Having said that, there's a thread here asking who can beat Brazil; the implication being that no team is good enough.

[SE7E]

It's a figure of speech. You're taking me too literally. I was merely illustrating a point by showing the gulf between Norway and Brazil. If you read again, you'll see how I referred to Brazil being stuffed 3-0 in the final. I certainly don't think they are unbeatable.

Having said that, there's a thread here asking who can beat Brazil; the implication being that no team is good enough.As a Brazilian, I think Brazil have the best roster in the World, but it doesn't mean they are unbeatable, but neither that it's easy to beat 'em.

[nachi88]

I have said this before, i will say this again.

Let us start from the begining. What is a world cup exactly? A competiton where the best footballing sides meet to decide the eventual world champions. Now , what is happenng is that the best footballing sides all happen to be concentrated in two parts of the world. Europe and South America. so, these obvioulsy need more representation. Representation should always be based on merit and not on geographical location/ political other consideration. Has any one ever complained that the 100 meters event in the olympics, USA has about 4 of the final 16 contstants. Those who deserve make it through. There is no fixed spot for ASian or Eurpean candidate in that case. ( this is a simplistic example, but you get my point). The current system of qualification, gives uropean teams very less chance for mistakes, and one or two slip ups could mean a knockout from a wc. It is poor and unfair( pointed out correctly by Wolverine too). South America, the system is more fair to the competitiors and they do have chances again. A SA team has to end up in top 4 of 10 to ensure sure qualification and 5th for a play off spot. An Euro team has to win ( or best 2nd place) for a WC spot from 7 teams. The gap between the average teams of Europe and the powerhouses is narrowing for the last few years. This makes wc q difficult in Europe.
So, Europe MUST have 16 wc spots and S America 5.5

[wolverine]

I have said this before, i will say this again.

Let us start from the begining. What is a world cup exactly? A competiton where the best footballing sides meet to decide the eventual world champions. Now , what is happenng is that the best footballing sides all happen to be concentrated in two parts of the world. Europe and South America. so, these obvioulsy need more representation. Representation should always be based on merit and not on geographical location/ political other consideration. Has any one ever complained that the 100 meters event in the olympics, USA has about 4 of the final 16 contstants. Those who deserve make it through. There is no fixed spot for ASian or Eurpean candidate in that case. ( this is a simplistic example, but you get my point). The current system of qualification, gives uropean teams very less chance for mistakes, and one or two slip ups could mean a knockout from a wc. It is poor and unfair( pointed out correctly by Wolverine too). South America, the system is more fair to the competitiors and they do have chances again. A SA team has to end up in top 4 of 10 to ensure sure qualification and 5th for a play off spot. An Euro team has to win ( or best 2nd place) for a WC spot from 7 teams. The gap between the average teams of Europe and the powerhouses is narrowing for the last few years. This makes wc q difficult in Europe.
So, Europe MUST have 16 wc spots and S America 5.5
Copy pasting the links from the other thread wud've been easier :) !!!!!!!

[nachi88]

Copy pasting the links from the other thread wud've been easier :) !!!!!!!

Nobody reads links ( my observation from personal experience) :D

atleast there is a chance they would read this :lol:

[BRISTOLUK]

Personally I don't understand the comparisons some of you do. Just take how many teams of each continent are able to get to the second round in the WC and how many don't. This shows which continent sends the most nobodies to the competition!

Well, obviously more Europeans teams will get knocked out than South American teams. As you said, there is a ratio of 3 to 1 in entries. And you're entitled to call them nobodies if you wish. But European nobodies do get further in the competition than South American nobodies.
It's already been accepted that Euro teams are not kept apart in the group stage while the SA teams are. Please don't assume like others did that I mean that as a complaint, I do not. I agree with it. But it is a fact that means some Euro teams qualify from the first round groups at the expense of other Euro teams, while no SA teams can knock each other out at this stage.

If you get to the semis, it's back to pretty close to 3 x 1
Of course it is back to 3-1. Brazil or Argentina will generally get to the semis, so it couldn't possibly be anything but 3-1 (except if a non Euro team made it), but in the quarters it's regularly been at least 6-1 only shortening to 3-1 because 3 Euro teams then knock out 3 Euro teams.

Conclusion: at the top level both confederations are about the same. In the "second pot", Europe is more than 3 x 1.

And that's the relevant factor. The top level in SA is Brazil and Argentina. Nobody else. The top level in Europe is France, Italy and Germany. Not far behind comes Holland, Portugal and Spain. Turkey Denmark, Croatia and Sweden have been pretty successful, England too. Then at the fourth level you have teams like Belgium and Bulgaria. This level does better than SA second level.

I'm glad you recognise that Brazil and Argentina are very unlikely to fail to qualify in the same way the likes of Holland have, Germany and Italy nearly did and Spain could.
I do remember SA having small groups. I don't know if Brazil and Argentina were ever in the same group. But if they were, wasn't there still a play off for the team in second place against a team from another confederation?

[Panathinaikos2]

Bristoluk has the best logic so far but I dont think Bulgaria should be in the 4rth class in Europe but even our 2nd class can dominate Argentina. But right now as I see it Holland and the Czech Republic is doing better than England and Germany this year.

[Dutchfan]

I don't understand your first line. They get eliminated because they lose.
I never said I expected SA teams to be put together. I want them kept apart for the sake of diversity and interest. See my post above for what I think as opposed to what you think for me.
You wanted facts. I gave them for FOUR tournaments and you focus on one game - which, incidentally, I did see. I have no great recollection of it. But even if it wasn't a pen, Brazil still failed to win. Against tiny Norway for heaven's sake!!!!!!
You asked for Norway's achievement and I told you. A team ranked, what......18th in Europe...and they beat unbeatable Brazil!!!!!!!!That match meant NOTHING to Brasil. They had ALREADY qualified for the next round as group winners and Norway needed a better or equal result to what Morocco got that day (Morocco beat Scotland, 3 - 0), so it was important to them. My maternal grandmother's parents came from Norway so I'm no Norway basher. When they made the World Cup in 1994 for the first time in 56 years (beating The Netherlands in the qualifiers and keeping England from going to the World Cup at all that year), I had high hopes for them, figuring that if they helped eliminate the English and kept the Dutch at bay in the qualifiers, they must be pretty good! Turned out they sucked! And I wasn't particularly impressed with them at World Cup 1998, either. Had Morocco beaten them, as they *should* have, Norway wouldn't have gotten out of the first round at all!

[Panathinaikos2]

It doesn't matter if the match didn't mean anything to Brazil Dutch Fan. They still lost to Norway. South America has only two good teams while the rest are ok.

[wolverine]

Bristoluk has the best logic so far but I dont think Bulgaria should be in the 4rth class in Europe but even our 2nd class can dominate Argentina. But right now as I see it Holland and the Czech Republic is doing better than England and Germany this year.
Argentina has two WCs and two runners up. How many does ur 2nd class have???

[wolverine]

It doesn't matter if the match didn't mean anything to Brazil Dutch Fan. They still lost to Norway. South America has only two good teams and Argentina can be beaten by Europes elite and 2nd class.
Despite at all that SA has more WCs and a better head to head record, 3 VS 14 and still they lead !!!!!!!!!!!

[Panathinaikos2]

Both Italy and Germany have 3 world cups while Argentina one of the only two good nations in South America only has two.

[Panathinaikos2]

Despite at all that SA has more WCs and a better head to head record, 3 VS 14 and still they lead !!!!!!!!!!!They only have one more above us and only two nations does much of the work in the world cup.

[Panathinaikos2]

Realy it doesn't matter about the cup its about how good your team does internationaly on a NORMAL basis.

[Dutchfan]

It doesn't matter if the match didn't mean anything to Brazil Dutch Fan. They still lost to Norway. South America has only two good teams while the rest are ok.What the #$@% do you MEAN, it doesn't matter?!? OF COURSE IT MATTERS! Do you honestly believe that Norway would have beaten Brasil if Brasil had had a stake in that match?!? Do you? If so, you're nuts! The same Norway team that should have lost to Morocco and managed only a draw against sorry Scotland, and you're trying to tell me that if the Brasil vs. Norway match had mattered to Brasil that Brasil STILL would have lost to Norway? Ha! You're high!!!

[Dutchfan]

Well, obviously more Europeans teams will get knocked out than South American teams. As you said, there is a ratio of 3 to 1 in entries. And you're entitled to call them nobodies if you wish. But European nobodies do get further in the competition than South American nobodies.
It's already been accepted that Euro teams are not kept apart in the group stage while the SA teams are. Please don't assume like others did that I mean that as a complaint, I do not. I agree with it. But it is a fact that means some Euro teams qualify from the first round groups at the expense of other Euro teams, while no SA teams can knock each other out at this stage.


Of course it is back to 3-1. Brazil or Argentina will generally get to the semis, so it couldn't possibly be anything but 3-1 (except if a non Euro team made it), but in the quarters it's regularly been at least 6-1 only shortening to 3-1 because 3 Euro teams then knock out 3 Euro teams.



And that's the relevant factor. The top level in SA is Brazil and Argentina. Nobody else. The top level in Europe is France, Italy and Germany. Not far behind comes Holland, Portugal and Spain. Turkey Denmark, Croatia and Sweden have been pretty successful, England too. Then at the fourth level you have teams like Belgium and Bulgaria. This level does better than SA second level.

I'm glad you recognise that Brazil and Argentina are very unlikely to fail to qualify in the same way the likes of Holland have, Germany and Italy nearly did and Spain could.
I do remember SA having small groups. I don't know if Brazil and Argentina were ever in the same group. But if they were, wasn't there still a play off for the team in second place against a team from another confederation?I don't believe Argentina and Brasil were EVER put in the same group when South America had either 3 3-team groups (if the world champion at the time was from South America), or 2 3-team groups and 1 4-team group (if the world champion was from Europe). Matter of fact, I seem to recall that when CONMEBOL went to an all-region group for the 1998 World Cup qualifiers, that was the first time ever that Argentina and Brasil played against each other in a World Cup qualifier. As for the play-offs against a team from another confederation, I know Chile was supposed to play-off against The Soviet Union for a spot at World Cup 1974, and in fact DID play the first leg in Moscow (drawing 0 - 0), but the Soviets refused to play the second leg in Estadio Nacional in Santiago, so FIFA gave the berth to Chile. I'm not sure about the qualifying for World Cups 1978 and 1982, but for World Cup 1986 what CONMEBOL did was have the aforementioned 2 3-team groups and 1 4-team group (Italy, of course, was the world champion at the time) and have all three group winners go, then there was something called the repechage where one of the second-place teams from one of the 3-team groups had to play (a home and home series) against the second-place team from the 4-team group, while the second-place team from the other 3-team group had to play the third-place team from the 4-team group in a home-and-home, with the winners of those two matchups playing against each other for a chance to go to World Cup '86. (Paraguay defeated Colombia in one of the matchups, while Chile defeated Perú, then Paraguay defeated Chile in the second phase of the repechaje [Spanish], 3 - 0 in Asunción and then 2 - 2 draw in Santiago). I don't think that for World Cup 1990 there were any playoffs with other regions (probably because Argentina was the world champion at the time and there were just the three 3-team groups in South American qualifying), but for World Cup 1994 Argentina had to play off against Australia, and then in 2002 and again this time it's Uruguay against Australia for a berth. I don't think that a South American team had to play off with any from any other region for a spot at World Cup 1998 (again, probably because the world champion at the time was from South America).

[Dutchfan]

I have said this before, i will say this again.

Let us start from the begining. What is a world cup exactly? A competiton where the best footballing sides meet to decide the eventual world champions. WRONG!! This is where you and everyone else who wants all those spots for European teams is wrong. Earlier you mentioned wolverine as someone who has reasonable posts - now I go back to wolverine to what he posted about the World Cup not being a tournament where "the best 32 teams in the world gather to compete, but where the best teams from each region gather to compete." Whether that means that the "best" 32 teams in the world are there is irrelevant. The key is to have the best teams from each region, whether Europeans and Euro-supporters like it or not!

[Dutchfan]

Whats with your obbsesion with Greece?It's not an "obsession" as you put it. Greece is the current European champion in men's soccer, is that not correct (something you Greeks are not loathe about reminding the rest of us about!)? Greece played booorrrrrriiiiiing football in winning that tournament, did it not? (Well, that's a matter of perception, but many people seem to think that was the case) If Albania had won the European Championships, I would have mentioned them. No "obsession." They're just easy to pick on right because they are the current European champions!

[Dutchfan]

It doesn't matter if the match didn't mean anything to Brazil Dutch Fan. They still lost to Norway. South America has only two good teams while the rest are ok.I think you mistyped. What you meant to type was: South America has two outstanding teams, a few decent ones, and a couple of lesser ones. THAT makes more sense!

[Dutchfan]

They only have one more above us and only two nations does much of the work in the world cup.You just put your foot in your mouth, so to speak, Panathinaikos2. Your argument is weak. The very fact that South America really has only two teams anymore that can consistently be thought of as threats to win a world championship and still they keep winning said world championships even with ALL those European teams present in the tournament, tells me that they must be pretty good indeed! Europe has 3 to 4 times as many teams at EVERY World Cup than does South America and yet South America has won more World Cups? Tells me that South America, even if it's only PART of South America, must be pretty damn good at men's soccer, then!!!

[philipas]

It's not an "obsession" as you put it. Greece is the current European champion in men's soccer, is that not correct (something you Greeks are not loathe about reminding the rest of us about!)? Only because YOU and a few others keep bringing them up and criticising them.

[BRISTOLUK]

To Panathinaikos2
I think you mistyped. What you meant to type was: South America has two outstanding teams, a few decent ones, and a couple of lesser ones. THAT makes more sense!


I completely agree...about the two outstanding teams of Brazil and Argentina. It's when we come to the 'decent' ones that I disagree.
I just looked at the last 20 years of world cup finals. Here is a list of the countries that played in semi-finals.

From South America.
Brazil
Argentina

From Europe
Germany
France
Belgium
Italy
England
Bulgaria
Sweden
Holland
Croatia
Turkey

10 Europeans in the semis as against two South American

Now here is the same information for the quarter finals.

From South America
Argentina
Brazil

From Europe
France
Germany
England
Belgium
Spain
Yugoslavia
Italy
Ireland
Czechoslovakia
Bulgaria
Holland
Sweden
Romania
Denmark
Croatia
Turkey

Note the complete absence of any 'decent' SA teams in the semis, while Europe's list includes 'low ranking' teams.

Note the complete absence of any 'decent' or other SA teams even making it to the quarter finals and the six additional European teams.

It's to Argentina's and Brazil's credit that 'double handidly' they do so well in representing SA against Europe.
But Europe has five times as many SA countries reaching the semi-finals and eight times as many in the quarter finals.
I will state again that I value the diversity of the competition and it's good to have representation from all over. I don't believe Africa deserves all the places they get and, clearly, South America can't justify the five they will have when Uruguay wins the play off against Australia.
I do think Europe can justly claim another two places. Maybe by play-offs. That could be a compromise. I don't think for a minute that one fewer South American team and one fewer African team would be at all detrimental to the tournament.

[Dutchfan]

Only because YOU and a few others keep bringing them up and criticising them.THEY WERE BORING! Winners of the tournament, yes, but EXTREMELY BORING TO WATCH! So boring, in fact, that once I found out that they had beaten the team that I thought was going to win the tournament, The Czech Republic, in the semifinals, I refused to pay to watch the Final of that tournament. If I'd been able to watch it for nothing here in America, I might have, but THERE WAS NO WAY I WAS GOING TO PAY TO WATCH A BORING TEAM LIKE GREECE'S PLAY IN AN IMPORTANT TOURNAMENT FINAL SUCH AS THAT ONE!

[Dutchfan]

I completely agree...about the two outstanding teams of Brazil and Argentina. It's when we come to the 'decent' ones that I disagree.
I just looked at the last 20 years of world cup finals. Here is a list of the countries that played in semi-finals.

From South America.
Brazil
Argentina

From Europe
Germany
France
Belgium
Italy
England
Bulgaria
Sweden
Holland
Croatia
Turkey

10 Europeans in the semis as against two South American

Now here is the same information for the quarter finals.

From South America
Argentina
Brazil

From Europe
France
Germany
England
Belgium
Spain
Yugoslavia
Italy
Ireland
Czechoslovakia
Bulgaria
Holland
Sweden
Romania
Denmark
Croatia
Turkey

Note the complete absence of any 'decent' SA teams in the semis, while Europe's list includes 'low ranking' teams.

Note the complete absence of any 'decent' or other SA teams even making it to the quarter finals and the six additional European teams.

It's to Argentina's and Brazil's credit that 'double handidly' they do so well in representing SA against Europe.
But Europe has five times as many SA countries reaching the semi-finals and eight times as many in the quarter finals.
I will state again that I value the diversity of the competition and it's good to have representation from all over. I don't believe Africa deserves all the places they get and, clearly, South America can't justify the five they will have when Uruguay wins the play off against Australia.
I do think Europe can justly claim another two places. Maybe by play-offs. That could be a compromise. I don't think for a minute that one fewer South American team and one fewer African team would be at all detrimental to the tournament.
But as long as those two South American teams (Brasil in particular) keep winning World Cups, neither you nor anybody else has any room to talk about "European superiority" in men's soccer. The European variety can be quite good, indeed, but the best, for certain? In light of World Cup results over the years, I'd say not!!

[nachi88]

But as long as those two South American teams (Brasil in particular) keep winning World Cups, neither you nor anybody else has any room to talk about "European superiority" in men's soccer. The European variety can be quite good, indeed, but the best, for certain? In light of World Cup results over the years, I'd say not!!

hey, be reasonable here. S Amrica has just one more wc, that too becuase there have been 17 wcs and only 2 continents have won it. Europe will equalise next summer.

Also , going by past wc history, football power is more spread out in Europe, and many different nations do good in the world cups, where as in S America it is mainly concentrated in the hands of 3 major players. Europe definately is better as a continent, S America produces better individual nations.
And the present day European teams Holland, Czech, and Spain (on paper) play more jogo bonito than the south americans.

How about the S America put forward a list of present and all time best 11 from their continent and Europe puts one similar list and we compare?

[Dutchfan]

hey, be reasonable here. S Amrica has just one more wc, that too becuase there have been 17 wcs and only 2 continents have won it. Europe will equalise next summer.

Also , going by past wc history, football power is more spread out in Europe, and many different nations do good in the world cups, where as in S America it is mainly concentrated in the hands of 3 major players. Europe definately is better as a continent, S America produces better individual nations.
And the present day European teams Holland, Czech, and Spain (on paper) play more jogo bonito than the south americans.

How about the S America put forward a list of present and all time best 11 from their continent and Europe puts one similar list and we compare?I am being reasonable. You like statistics? What more clear-cut a statistic could there be than the fact that South America has won more World Cups than Europe, even though, as you Europeans love to point out, there are ALWAYS more European teams in a World Cup than there are South American teams, and more European teams that get to round two, and to the quarterfinals, and to the semifinals. All of which are true. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that more South American teams don't get further in the World Cup than what we've seen over the years. Personally (and I think this is one of the few things that soccerates doesn't agree with me on when it comes to soccer) I think the ball control shown by South American teams, even ones not called Brasil and Argentina, is generally superior to that shown by even the BEST players in Europe. So outside of Brasil and Argentina the South American teams don't show much in World Cups, but for ball skill, I'd give the nod to the South Americans almost every time!

[wolverine]

I completely agree...about the two outstanding teams of Brazil and Argentina. It's when we come to the 'decent' ones that I disagree.
I just looked at the last 20 years of world cup finals. Here is a list of the countries that played in semi-finals.

From South America.
Brazil
Argentina

From Europe
Germany
France
Belgium
Italy
England
Bulgaria
Sweden
Holland
Croatia
Turkey

10 Europeans in the semis as against two South American

Now here is the same information for the quarter finals.

From South America
Argentina
Brazil

From Europe
France
Germany
England
Belgium
Spain
Yugoslavia
Italy
Ireland
Czechoslovakia
Bulgaria
Holland
Sweden
Romania
Denmark
Croatia
Turkey

Note the complete absence of any 'decent' SA teams in the semis, while Europe's list includes 'low ranking' teams.

Note the complete absence of any 'decent' or other SA teams even making it to the quarter finals and the six additional European teams.

It's to Argentina's and Brazil's credit that 'double handidly' they do so well in representing SA against Europe.
But Europe has five times as many SA countries reaching the semi-finals and eight times as many in the quarter finals.
I will state again that I value the diversity of the competition and it's good to have representation from all over. I don't believe Africa deserves all the places they get and, clearly, South America can't justify the five they will have when Uruguay wins the play off against Australia.
I do think Europe can justly claim another two places. Maybe by play-offs. That could be a compromise. I don't think for a minute that one fewer South American team and one fewer African team would be at all detrimental to the tournament.
This is 'cos the 3rd or 4th team from SAmerica get eliminated in round 2 by either Arg/Brazil or a top level European team. U can't xpect all 5 out of 5 SA teams to qualify for round 2. 3/5 itself is more than 50 % and 4/5 is excellent. But if the other teams get a top level euro team then chances r for Europe again. The more no of Euro teams making it to the quarters and semis has also go a lot to do with the numbers.

If we get 2nd round like
Paraguay vs Italy
Sweden vs Croatia and
Turkey vs Belgium

chances are 3 euro teams will move to quarters and there's nothing wrong in it 'cos Italy is a top level euro team. Arg and Bra will also face problems if they were to meet each other (or the top euro teams) in the 2nd round. Paraguay vs Sweden or Croatia or Belgium is a fairer choice for SA.

I had given the stats of the last 10 WCs in my prev posts as to how the SA teams got eleminated. With the xception of Argentina in '94 (this again there were other factors) there is no instance of a lesser Euro team beating the other teams from SA. This plus the fact that there will be a lot of lesser Euro teams vs Euro teams matches in round 2, is one reason y more Euro teams have made it to beyond the 2nd round. Majority of the cases where they met with the top team from Europe or Arg-Bra they've failed (jus like with the other SA teams), the only rare xception to this is Croatia in '98 (and I've given due respect to the Croatia of '98 in all my posts - that team had talent and played great football).

Infact the head to head statistics of SA (minus Brazil Arg) vs Europe(minus the top Euro teams) read 16-10-20 i.e Europe has won jus 4 games more (I have not included Spain and Czech as a top Euro team if I did this difference wud come down),not much of a difference and doesn't any way reflect the number we might xpect when we consider that europe has 5 and 8 times more than the SA teams in the quarters. This is y I say the more number of Euro teams in quarters and semis is due to the numbers. For SA to have this they need to ensure that at least 4 teams qualify and again these 4 teams avoid each other and the top Euro teams in round 2, which is not practical.

Africa is a developing and strong continent (i wud say qualifying from Africa is the hardest) there's no way u can reduce their spots even now, teams like Cameroon, Nigeria and Morrocco has missed.

The play-off b/w Asia-Concaf cud've been given to Europe and may be a spot from Asia but that 2 spots is not going to make any difference 'cos it won't make any difference if Bahrain/T&T/Russia/Slovenia (xcept for their supporters)qualify. The best possible scenario is Russia migh make it to the 2nd round which is not going to make any difference on the whole championship it'll however be boring if they make an upset and reach the quarters. Such boring upsets were one team defends and defends and capitalizes on the fricking one chance they get, degrades the quality of the game in the later stages, so it's better to see the big guns in the later stages. The average football lover wud still love to see a Holland-Germany final rather than a heavyly upsetted Switzerland-Norway final. So Europe is better of without that spot.

[Ronni]

I completely agree...about the two outstanding teams of Brazil and Argentina. It's when we come to the 'decent' ones that I disagree.
...
quarter finals.

From South America
Argentina
Brazil

From Europe
France
Germany
England
Belgium
Spain
Yugoslavia
Italy
Ireland
Czechoslovakia
Bulgaria
Holland
Sweden
Romania
Denmark
Croatia
Turkey

Note the complete absence of any 'decent' or other SA teams even making it to the quarter finals and the six additional European teams.


It's absolutely correct, but it's a statistical fallacy just to talk about diversity, mainly if we have such a weak statistic basis. Only the "big numbers" would say the truth - and with a WC only every 4 years we'll never have this.
And it IS a fact that in Europe there are more nations up there! How many members do UEFA has? About 50 perhaps?

Again to the quarter finals - yes, you don't find any "decent" South Americans, but why?
From the teams that passed the group phase, Uruguay was eliminated by Argentina (86) and Italy (90). Paraguay was eliminated by France (98) and Germany (02). Chile was eliminated by Brazil (98). Only against European or South America top teams. The only exception was Colombia in 90 (eliminated by Cameroon).

From your quarters-list, in most of the cases of these non-top-4 Europeans getting there, they beat a second non-top-4 European, i.e., one HAS to get through. This is the case of Spain (86 Denmark, 94 Switzerland, 02 Ireland), Belgium (86 USSR), Yugoslavia (90 Spain), Ireland (90 Romania), Holland (94 Ireland, 98 Yugoslavia) and Croatia (98 Romania).
Since the group phases always have 2 europeans (7 out of 8 groups) and at least one in the group is a "nobody", of course one european is always passing the phase. It's a question of who they're facing in the second phase!
You do have these middle-class Europeans beating non-Europeans like Turkey (02 Japan), Denmark (98 Nigeria), Czechoslovaquia (90 Costa Rica), Sweden (94 Saudi Arabia), Bulgaria (94 Mexico).

As you see, no "decent" south american at all. The absolutely only case that a "middle" European beat a south american team to get to the quarters was in '90, Romania vs. Argentina - so it was a win against a big south american.

In order to establish the rule you support, that middle-Europeans DO GET to the quarters while there are no South Americans at this level, we should be able to say that in order to get to the quarters middle-Europeans are able to beat top-teams and they are able to beat "decent" teams from other confederations too, while south americans don't.

It is true, but for this we have ONLY 2 matches out of 40 to prove this: Colombia vs. Cameroon 1990 and Romania vs. Argentina 1994.
This is statistically not enough at all.

Anyway talking about champions, finalists, semi-finalists of quarter-finalists is not the point. I surely agree with you that South America has only two teams which belong "always" at that level.
Second-level Europeans (in my opinion) like Spain or Holland ARE no doubt superior than second-level South Americans like Uruguay or Colombia. Instead I would put these together with the third-level Europeans. You know, those teams that should pass the first round, and eventually, if they're lucky not to have to face a top team, also to reach the quarters.

This brings us back to the 3x1 statistics. As I said previously, South Americans are lightly superior in passing the first round. Again, a statistic draw. But what goes further ... no way to say.

What makes the difference is the diversity. And the gap between top europeans and second-level ones is not that large as it is in South America. Because as I said, in South America you have the top two, and then only a huge third-level group.


I will state again that I value the diversity of the competition and it's good to have representation from all over. I don't believe Africa deserves all the places they get


they do much more than just deserve it.
Please ... it's much more fun to watch Cameroon than it is (with all the respect) Belgium or Norway!!!!
And this is what it is all about: entertainment!!!!
We're not talking about economics. Football is show-business, my friend.
And 5 places for Africa is perhaps even too few!


and, clearly, South America can't justify the five they will have when Uruguay wins the play off against Australia.


go to Germany next year and be there at least on the squares and places where people will join and feast.
You'll surely be sorry why there aren't some south-americans more in the WC!

Again ... this is the World Cup. And the World Cup is much more than boring Copa America, Euro, Champions League or Libertadores. These are just football events.

The World Cup is a feeling. FIFA knows this, and they'll never make an Euro out of it.

[mihajlovic11]

Europe because they have more quality teams then South America.
SA have the traditional big nations Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Equador.
But Europe has about thirteen world class teams. (France, Italy, England, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Holland, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Croatia, Denmark and Turkey, I can think of right now)

[Dutchfan]

It's absolutely correct, but it's a statistical fallacy just to talk about diversity, mainly if we have such a weak statistic basis. Only the "big numbers" would say the truth - and with a WC only every 4 years we'll never have this.
And it IS a fact that in Europe there are more nations up there! How many members do UEFA has? About 50 perhaps?

Again to the quarter finals - yes, you don't find any "decent" South Americans, but why?
From the teams that passed the group phase, Uruguay was eliminated by Argentina (86) and Italy (90). Paraguay was eliminated by France (98) and Germany (02). Chile was eliminated by Brazil (98). Only against European or South America top teams. The only exception was Colombia in 90 (eliminated by Cameroon).

From your quarters-list, in most of the cases of these non-top-4 Europeans getting there, they beat a second non-top-4 European, i.e., one HAS to get through. This is the case of Spain (86 Denmark, 94 Switzerland, 02 Ireland), Belgium (86 USSR), Yugoslavia (90 Spain), Ireland (90 Romania), Holland (94 Ireland, 98 Yugoslavia) and Croatia (98 Romania).
Since the group phases always have 2 europeans (7 out of 8 groups) and at least one in the group is a "nobody", of course one european is always passing the phase. It's a question of who they're facing in the second phase!
You do have these middle-class Europeans beating non-Europeans like Turkey (02 Japan), Denmark (98 Nigeria), Czechoslovaquia (90 Costa Rica), Sweden (94 Saudi Arabia), Bulgaria (94 Mexico).

As you see, no "decent" south american at all. The absolutely only case that a "middle" European beat a south american team to get to the quarters was in '90, Romania vs. Argentina - so it was a win against a big south american.

In order to establish the rule you support, that middle-Europeans DO GET to the quarters while there are no South Americans at this level, we should be able to say that in order to get to the quarters middle-Europeans are able to beat top-teams and they are able to beat "decent" teams from other confederations too, while south americans don't.

It is true, but for this we have ONLY 2 matches out of 40 to prove this: Colombia vs. Cameroon 1990 and Romania vs. Argentina 1994.
This is statistically not enough at all.

Anyway talking about champions, finalists, semi-finalists of quarter-finalists is not the point. I surely agree with you that South America has only two teams which belong "always" at that level.
Second-level Europeans (in my opinion) like Spain or Holland ARE no doubt superior than second-level South Americans like Uruguay or Colombia. Instead I would put these together with the third-level Europeans. You know, those teams that should pass the first round, and eventually, if they're lucky not to have to face a top team, also to reach the quarters.

This brings us back to the 3x1 statistics. As I said previously, South Americans are lightly superior in passing the first round. Again, a statistic draw. But what goes further ... no way to say.

What makes the difference is the diversity. And the gap between top europeans and second-level ones is not that large as it is in South America. Because as I said, in South America you have the top two, and then only a huge third-level group.




they do much more than just deserve it.
Please ... it's much more fun to watch Cameroon than it is (with all the respect) Belgium or Norway!!!!
And this is what it is all about: entertainment!!!!
We're not talking about economics. Football is show-business, my friend.
And 5 places for Africa is perhaps even too few!




go to Germany next year and be there at least on the squares and places where people will join and feast.
You'll surely be sorry why there aren't some south-americans more in the WC!

Again ... this is the World Cup. And the World Cup is much more than boring Copa America, Euro, Champions League or Libertadores. These are just football events.

The World Cup is a feeling. FIFA knows this, and they'll never make an Euro out of it.
Well done, Ronni!!!!

[wolverine]

It's absolutely correct, but it's a statistical fallacy just to talk about diversity, mainly if we have such a weak statistic basis. Only the "big numbers" would say the truth - and with a WC only every 4 years we'll never have this.
And it IS a fact that in Europe there are more nations up there! How many members do UEFA has? About 50 perhaps?

Again to the quarter finals - yes, you don't find any "decent" South Americans, but why?
From the teams that passed the group phase, Uruguay was eliminated by Argentina (86) and Italy (90). Paraguay was eliminated by France (98) and Germany (02). Chile was eliminated by Brazil (98). Only against European or South America top teams. The only exception was Colombia in 90 (eliminated by Cameroon).

From your quarters-list, in most of the cases of these non-top-4 Europeans getting there, they beat a second non-top-4 European, i.e., one HAS to get through. This is the case of Spain (86 Denmark, 94 Switzerland, 02 Ireland), Belgium (86 USSR), Yugoslavia (90 Spain), Ireland (90 Romania), Holland (94 Ireland, 98 Yugoslavia) and Croatia (98 Romania).
Since the group phases always have 2 europeans (7 out of 8 groups) and at least one in the group is a "nobody", of course one european is always passing the phase. It's a question of who they're facing in the second phase!
You do have these middle-class Europeans beating non-Europeans like Turkey (02 Japan), Denmark (98 Nigeria), Czechoslovaquia (90 Costa Rica), Sweden (94 Saudi Arabia), Bulgaria (94 Mexico).

As you see, no "decent" south american at all. The absolutely only case that a "middle" European beat a south american team to get to the quarters was in '90, Romania vs. Argentina - so it was a win against a big south american.

Glad that atleast u've understood this !!!!! I've been pointing this out again and again and 've even given (twice in this thread) how the other SA teams got eliminated since '70 !!!! And also the head to head results of SA (minus Brazil/Arg) and Europe (minus top teams). Just like u said if we get 2nd round that looks like this (as in most of the cases)
Brazil - Chile
Italy - Paraguay
Argentina - England
Croatia - Bulgaria
Sweden - Denmark
Spain - Ireland
Germany - Serbia etc then SA is likely to get 2/4 in the quarters and Europe
5/8 !!!! And thats not surprising.

Colombia's defeat against Cameroon is okey 'cos they were the dark-horses (but not like Greece) in that tournament even almost made it to the semis if and only if Omam Byick had kept his cool to finish and get that 3rd goal against England :frusty: !!!!

Second-level Europeans (in my opinion) like Spain or Holland ARE no doubt superior than second-level South Americans like Uruguay or Colombia.
Holland can ne'er be considered a 2nd level Euro team. They belong to the cream of Europe. Spain is sitting on the fence they cud go there or here:)Europe has around 5-6 teams with Cup winning chances and SA two.

You know, those teams that should pass the first round, and eventually, if they're lucky not to have to face a top team, also to reach the quarters.

Thats y I way if Europe had the depth that they were talking abt then, we wud've seen a lot of Euro teams coming into the finals but this doesn't happen. Since '70 only the top level Euro teams Ita, Ger, Fra, Holl and Eng and the top 2 from SA has made it to the finals. This is 'cos xcluding a mass upset the 2nd level Euro teams end up facing Bra/Arg or the top level Euro teams in the semis (last times was a WC of upsets but still Bra-Ger made it to the finals). For the other SA teams this happens earlier on in the 2nd round itself. Europe's statistical dominance in the quarters and semis is due to their numbers and favourable draw (not saying that FIFA does any favors to Europe) in the round 16.
My posts on these have been ignored :lol: !!!! Let's see if atleast urs get read :D

they do much more than just deserve it.
Please ... it's much more fun to watch Cameroon than it is (with all the respect) Belgium or Norway!!!!
And this is what it is all about: entertainment!!!!
We're not talking about economics. Football is show-business, my friend.
And 5 places for Africa is perhaps even too few!

Right again. Its really sad to see that Cameroon and Nigeria has missed out but still a lot of ppl wub be looking forward to see Ghana and Ivory Coast instead of Norway or Switzerland (no offence to them),if they make it.

[wolverine]

Europe because they have more quality teams then South America.
SA have the traditional big nations Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Equador.
But Europe has about thirteen world class teams. (France, Italy, England, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Holland, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Croatia, Denmark and Turkey, I can think of right now)
If u r talking purely teams that cud go till the finals (now), SA has Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay (if they play properly) and Europe has France (if they play as on paper), Italy, England, Portugal, Holland, Germany (they've very bad results now and but I'll ne'er underestimate 'em at home), Czech Rep (since Nedved decided to come back) and may be Spain (something like Uruguay).
This again is understandable 'cos SA has 10 teams and UEFA over 50 :)

[BRISTOLUK]

My final word on the subject.
Since when did 'head to head' have any relevance? It's a series of matches we're talking of.
Yes Argentina may knock out Brazil or vice versa. But this sort of thing actually happens in Europe in the qualifiers, not just the tournament itself!!!
Every league in the world has experienced a situation where its champions were beaten by someone that same season. Perhaps even twice by the same team. But they are still the best, having proved themselves over a series of games. And over a series of games Europe is better than South America.
As I said, Brazil and Argentina do well for the continent. But there's nobody else.

[wolverine]

My final word on the subject.
Since when did 'head to head' have any relevance? It's a series of matches we're talking of.
Yes Argentina may knock out Brazil or vice versa. But this sort of thing actually happens in Europe in the qualifiers, not just the tournament itself!!!
Every league in the world has experienced a situation where its champions were beaten by someone that same season. Perhaps even twice by the same team. But they are still the best, having proved themselves over a series of games. And over a series of games Europe is better than South America.
As I said, Brazil and Argentina do well for the continent. But there's nobody else.
As usual, u've ignored mine and this time Ronni's posts :) and if u didn't u've failed to understand it 'cos nobody has talked abt Arg knocking out Brazil or vice-versa :faint2: or r u simply ignoring it ???

[BRISTOLUK]

As usual, u've ignored mine and this time Ronni's posts :) and if u didn't u've failed to understand it 'cos nobody has talked abt Arg knocking out Brazil or vice-versa :faint2: or r u simply ignoring it ???


No, not ignored posts....just tried to summarise a comment in answer to a few. I think this has been done to death now. None of us are budging and we're all repeating the same stuff.

Nobody talked of Argentina knocking out Brazil? I've seen it a few times on this thread and others. But I threw it in as an example because the subject of who was knocking out the SA teams was raised by someone!!!!
But what a terrible thing for me to do in mentioning something that happened.

[Panathinaikos2]

European nations play ten times better than South American nations. South America has only 2 good nations while the rest are just ok. How can you say South America is better than Europe when only two of there nations are good. Oh and Dutch Fan you might think the greek games were boring becuase you aren't greek. How can you think any game is fun to watch when you your self dont even have one favorite team. To us Greeks the game was fun becuase of the thrill something that I think you wont ever find in a long time being a dutch fan, a brazzilian fan, and a shit load of others.

[Panathinaikos2]

By the way nice post Ronni. I read all of it too. But this is my oppinion that I think european nations are greater at soccer than south american nations.

[wolverine]

Nobody talked of Argentina knocking out Brazil? I've seen it a few times on this thread and others. But I threw it in as an example because the subject of who was knocking out the SA teams was raised by someone!!!!
Arg knocking out Bra happened only in '90. Mostly it was shown that its either Arg or Bra or top Euro teams that knock out the other SA teams i.e the champions knocking out the lesser ones in round 2 and not vice-versa :)

[Panathinaikos2]

How bout we just say Euro teams and South Ameriucan teams are even and among the best in the world just to stop this long boring argument that may reach 18 pages soon.

[BRISTOLUK]

Arg knocking out Bra happened only in '90. Mostly it was shown that its either Arg or Bra or top Euro teams that knock out the other SA teams i.e the champions knocking out the lesser ones in round 2 and not vice-versa :)


Well...I could paste the results that show you're wrong....especially the ones I mentioned in the earlier post when 3 of the 5 SA teams did so badly they came bottom of their groups. Instead I'll just mention some of the 'quality' teams that stopped the SA teams at the group stage in 90 & 94. Romania, Belgium Yugoslavia, Switzerland and South Korea.
And remember that it was Romania that knocked out Argentina too.
Yes...really TOP European teams aren't they.

Oh, now I get it... *penny drops*...you are only concerned at the failures in the second round when it doesn't sound so bad to be able to say it was either Brazil, Argentina or top Europeans beating SA teams.
How silly of me not to realise that first round failures against Belgians, Swiss, Romanians etc don't count in this catalogue of embarrassments.

[Dutchfan]

European nations play ten times better than South American nations. South America has only 2 good nations while the rest are just ok. How can you say South America is better than Europe when only two of there nations are good. Oh and Dutch Fan you might think the greek games were boring becuase you aren't greek. How can you think any game is fun to watch when you your self dont even have one favorite team. To us Greeks the game was fun becuase of the thrill something that I think you wont ever find in a long time being a dutch fan, a brazzilian fan, and a shit load of others.As it happens, I'm not the ONLY person to have found Greece's team boring to watch. Perhaps you should pay better attention (a common affliction amongst those of you who like to argue over nothing). I suppose you Greeks (if indeed Greek you are - you're not like "philipas" - a phony Greek, are you?) found it "exciting" because your team won, but for most of the rest of us (I'll type this yet again), watching Greece play was BOOOOORRRRRRRIIIIIIINNNNNGGGGGG! I'll put it this way: if soccer fans were trying to convince most Americans that soccer is fun to watch, they CERTAINLY wouldn't choose to have them watch any Greece matches, 'cause that would turn Americans off to soccer PERMANENTLY!

[Dutchfan]

Well...I could paste the results that show you're wrong....especially the ones I mentioned in the earlier post when 3 of the 5 SA teams did so badly they came bottom of their groups. Instead I'll just mention some of the 'quality' teams that stopped the SA teams at the group stage in 90 & 94. Romania, Belgium Yugoslavia, Switzerland and South Korea.
And remember that it was Romania that knocked out Argentina too.
Yes...really TOP European teams aren't they.

Oh, now I get it... *penny drops*...you are only concerned at the failures in the second round when it doesn't sound so bad to be able to say it was either Brazil, Argentina or top Europeans beating SA teams.
How silly of me not to realise that first round failures against Belgians, Swiss, Romanians etc don't count in this catalogue of embarrassments.I'll ask you now, bristoluk: which continent has won more World Cup titles? Which one? Do you know? If not, I'd be happy to inform you! Please, if you don't know, look it up. Otherwise, I'll tell you, and I'll give you the same hint that I gave Panathinaikos2: IT'S NOT EUROPE!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dutchfan]

My final word on the subject.
Since when did 'head to head' have any relevance? It's a series of matches we're talking of.
Yes Argentina may knock out Brazil or vice versa. But this sort of thing actually happens in Europe in the qualifiers, not just the tournament itself!!!
Every league in the world has experienced a situation where its champions were beaten by someone that same season. Perhaps even twice by the same team. But they are still the best, having proved themselves over a series of games. And over a series of games Europe is better than South America.
As I said, Brazil and Argentina do well for the continent. But there's nobody else.And your point is what, exactly? "Brasil and Argentina do well for the continent, but there's nobody else." Okay, so what's your point? Brasil and Argentina ARE in South America, correct? Brasil and Argentina, between them, have won four of the last seven World Cups. So what if they're the only South American teams to have done so? They are from South America, and by themselves they have managed to win more World Cups in the last 28 years than all those fine European teams you and Panathinaikos keep bringing up. So what exactly are yours and Panathinaikos' points? If it's that "only two teams in South America are any good, the rest are crap," so what? They ARE South American teams and they HAVE won more World Cups than Italy, Germany, England, Portugal, Spain, Romania, The Czech Republic, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Austria, Scotland, Hungary, The Netherlands, France, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and any other group of European teams you can name over the last 28 years, so whatever you're trying to get at makes little (if any) sense. Bottom line, no matter what people like you, or nachi88, or "philipas the instigating liar" try to say: South American teams, over the course of the last 28 years, and over the course of the last 76 years, have won more World Cups than have European teams. Frankly, you, and Panathinaikos, and mihajlovic, and nachi88 can type all day, but you can't get away from that particular statistic. South American teams have won more World Cup titles than have teams from Europe. This is not an opinion ("philipas"?), it is a fact. Nor is it a fluke, or a statistical anomaly. For all these "great" European teams you claim there are, Europe STILL hasn't won as many World Cups, as a whole, as has South America. If that's not stating things clearly enough for you, then, again, I don't know what to tell you!

[Dutchfan]

European nations play ten times better than South American nations. South America has only 2 good nations while the rest are just ok. How can you say South America is better than Europe when only two of there nations are good. Oh and Dutch Fan you might think the greek games were boring becuase you aren't greek. How can you think any game is fun to watch when you your self dont even have one favorite team. To us Greeks the game was fun becuase of the thrill something that I think you wont ever find in a long time being a dutch fan, a brazzilian fan, and a shit load of others.Oh, really? I guess Brasil being 5-time World Champion is nothing compared to Greece's (one time only) European Championship. The Netherlands consistently is TONS better than Greece can ever hope to be in mens' soccer, and they have just as many European titles as Greece does. And one more thing: watching just about ANY of the teams in my list of favorites is much more satisfying for me than watching sorry, boring Greece could EVER be!!!!!! I think the Greeks should stick to making gyros and baklava because winning soccer tournaments? I doubt that will ever happen again!!!!!!

[BRISTOLUK]

And your point is what, exactly? "Brasil and Argentina do well for the continent, but there's nobody else." Okay, so what's your point? Brasil and Argentina ARE in South America, correct? Brasil and Argentina, between them, have won four of the last seven World Cups. So what if they're the only South American teams to have done so? They are from South America, and by themselves they have managed to win more World Cups in the last 28 years than all those fine European teams you and Panathinaikos keep bringing up. So what exactly are yours and Panathinaikos' points? If it's that "only two teams in South America are any good, the rest are crap," so what?
South American teams, over the course of the last 28 years, and over the course of the last 76 years, have won more World Cups than have European teams. Frankly, you, and Panathinaikos, and mihajlovic, and nachi88 can type all day, but you can't get away from that particular statistic. South American teams have won more World Cup titles than have teams from Europe.


I'm glad you answered your own question in agreeing about the quality of SA teams after Brazil and Argentina. I have repeatedly stated myself that those two are exceptional teams. And I am completely aware that SA WC wins is just in front of Europe's. But the argument dominating this thread, or at least my posts, has not been about who won more titles, it has been about the distribution of world cup places and whether it represents the strength of the various continents. Strength is something you look for all over. It is not about one or two outstanding features and ignoring the rest.
There's no point in Boxer 'A' having muscular arms if his legs are so weak he can't stand up and fight. Boxer 'B' with strong legs, solid upper body and slightly less muscular arms will win the match. Unless it's arm wrestling.

As all of us have agreed, the World Cup is about representation of the whole world. I wouldn't want it any other way. But there also has to be a quality of the product. And I'm not trying to make it sound like some commercial enterprise, so no more comments about rich nations please. As someone with socialist principles, I'm well aware of disparity.
We have a tournament that takes place every four years. It is a festival. It is a celebration of different cultures. But not exclusively and not at the expense of quality of play. Brazil is the most exciting team in the world to watch. There's no doubt about that. But other aspects of the game are good too. Defending is an art. Great saves can take the breath away as much as a great goal. A great tackle is worth seeing. More so now, with the laws making it harder without giving away a free kick. If a team cannot defend reasonably well, that cheapens the goals scored as a result.

A balance needs to be struck between the quality and the diversity otherwise it will become less of a spectacle.

[bboy treble]

yea but your assumption that paraguay uruguay and equador cant hang with
any team in europe is retarded and based on pure air

[BRISTOLUK]

yea but your assumption that paraguay uruguay and equador cant hang with
any team in europe is retarded and based on pure air


Well, firstly, I haven't said they are worse than 'any team in Europe'. Secondly, what the facts (as opposed to pure air) show is that in the last four world cups, 16 European teams have reached levels that only Brazil and Argentina have reached.

[nachi88]

Oh, really? I guess Brasil being 5-time World Champion is nothing compared to Greece's (one time only) European Championship. The Netherlands consistently is TONS better than Greece can ever hope to be in mens' soccer, and they have just as many European titles as Greece does. And one more thing: watching just about ANY of the teams in my list of favorites is much more satisfying for me than watching sorry, boring Greece could EVER be!!!!!! I think the Greeks should stick to making gyros and baklava because winning soccer tournaments? I doubt that will ever happen again!!!!!!

Niederlande beat the Greeks 4-0 before the Euro 2004 started in a freindly. tht ended a many match unbeaten streak of the Greeks. But from such a defeat they learnt their lesson and went on to win the Euro. That credit is due to them. They may have not played attractive football, but Brasil in 94 were a similarly unattractive. And the Netherlands them selves played a very boring game against Swden in the quarters, in which it was the Swedes who were attacking more.

Back to topic- the last time a NON BRASIL ARGENTINA SOUTH AMERICAN TEAM WAS IN THE SEMIFINALS OF A WORLD CUP- CHILE AT HOME 1962.
Now this excuse that south america has lesser places, and the 'smaller' south american teams have to play the cream of europe before going ahead in world cups in not always true. Last wc- Equador was eliminated in group phase. losses to mexico and Italy. Columbia was eliminated by USA in wc 94. The 3rd, 4th and 5th S American teams are behind in football than upper midlevel European teams like Serbia, Sweden, Croatia, Portugal etc.

[wolverine]

Well...I could paste the results that show you're wrong....especially the ones I mentioned in the earlier post when 3 of the 5 SA teams did so badly they came bottom of their groups. Instead I'll just mention some of the 'quality' teams that stopped the SA teams at the group stage in 90 & 94. Romania, Belgium Yugoslavia, Switzerland and South Korea.
And remember that it was Romania that knocked out Argentina too.
Yes...really TOP European teams aren't they.
I've ne'er said that SA comes with all class teams. Sometimes even the best can falter. '94 in general was a bad year for SA. I don't know if u know it, in '94 the best team from SA was supposed to be Colombia who were considered as even favs for the Cup ahead of Arg. But they faltered badly. Even France and Brazil had their share of embarassements. By pointing out '90 (though I don't know what was wrong with '90) and '94 u r using data to suit ur argument.

Oh, now I get it... *penny drops*...you are only concerned at the failures in the second round when it doesn't sound so bad to be able to say it was either Brazil, Argentina or top Europeans beating SA teams.
But that is a fact and glad that FINALLY u've realised it and this is xactly y the Europe has more representattion in the quarters and finals.

How silly of me not to realise that first round failures against Belgians, Swiss, Romanians etc don't count in this catalogue of embarrassments.
Not all teams that qualify can get out of the group. Okey this time I'll give u stats for round 1.
'70 All 3 from SA gets out of grp.
'74 Bra and Arg get out of grp.
'78 All 3 from SA qualify for round 2.
'82 Bra and Arg get out of grp.
'86 All 4 from SA make it to round 2
'90 All 4 from SA make it to round 2
'94 Bra and Arg qualify
'98 All 4 from SA make it to round 2
'02 Bra, Par make it to round 2
So the no of times the other teams from SA has got out of round 1 is not as low as u xpect. And in round 2 (with the xception of Arg in '94) the SA teams are eleminated by Arg/Bra or top Euro teams. Europe's dominance in quarters and semis is just the numbers game. Else this shud have been reflected in the headtohead encounters Here Europe has jus 4 wins more than SA (both continents minus cream). The difference is minimal. Also since '70 only the cream of Europe and SA has made it to the finals. This quarter/semi dominance ne'er comes into the finals 'cos by then they wud've stumbled against Arg/Bra or top Euro sides.
I am not saying that SA is better than Europe. In my earlier posts I've stated that its a personal opinion 'cos there r no stats to prove a big difference in these two.The other sides from Europe and SA r more or less the same level. U can't xpect all 4 sides from SA to always make it to round 2. But its a fact that whenever they do they end up facing Arg,Bra or top Euro sides in round 2.

[wolverine]

As all of us have agreed, the World Cup is about representation of the whole world. I wouldn't want it any other way. But there also has to be a quality of the product. And I'm not trying to make it sound like some commercial enterprise, so no more comments about rich nations please. As someone with socialist principles, I'm well aware of disparity.
We have a tournament that takes place every four years. It is a festival. It is a celebration of different cultures. But not exclusively and not at the expense of quality of play. Brazil is the most exciting team in the world to watch. There's no doubt about that. But other aspects of the game are good too. Defending is an art. Great saves can take the breath away as much as a great goal. A great tackle is worth seeing. More so now, with the laws making it harder without giving away a free kick. If a team cannot defend reasonably well, that cheapens the goals scored as a result.

A balance needs to be struck between the quality and the diversity otherwise it will become less of a spectacle.
Its pretty balanced now. One more team from Europe is not going to improve the quality of the Cup to any big xtend.

[wolverine]

Back to topic- the last time a NON BRASIL ARGENTINA SOUTH AMERICAN TEAM WAS IN THE SEMIFINALS OF A WORLD CUP- CHILE AT HOME 1962.
Now this excuse that south america has lesser places, and the 'smaller' south american teams have to play the cream of europe before going ahead in world cups in not always true. Last wc- Equador was eliminated in group phase. losses to mexico and Italy. Columbia was eliminated by USA in wc 94. The 3rd, 4th and 5th S American teams are behind in football than upper midlevel European teams like Serbia, Sweden, Croatia, Portugal etc.
It's not an xcuse its a fact Nacchi. Its a numbers game. Else y is not reflected in the headtohead encounters ?? I wud even 've agreed to this if Europe had been giving a lot of surprising finalists but this has ne'er happened since '70. 'Cos by that time (as xpected) they wud've stumbled against the top teams.
I hope that u know that a new comer Equador had finished ahead of '98 3rd place winners Croatia in the same grp (am not taking that to say that Equador is better than Croatia).Colombia's '94 elemination was a shock something on the lines of France in '02. They had come as favs to '94 ahead of Argentina (infact Arg even made it to the playoffs against Australlia by the skin of their truth).
The bottomline is that there's no much difference b/w these teams.

[Dutchfan]

I'm glad you answered your own question in agreeing about the quality of SA teams after Brazil and Argentina. I have repeatedly stated myself that those two are exceptional teams. And I am completely aware that SA WC wins is just in front of Europe's. But the argument dominating this thread, or at least my posts, has not been about who won more titles, it has been about the distribution of world cup places and whether it represents the strength of the various continents. Strength is something you look for all over. It is not about one or two outstanding features and ignoring the rest.
There's no point in Boxer 'A' having muscular arms if his legs are so weak he can't stand up and fight. Boxer 'B' with strong legs, solid upper body and slightly less muscular arms will win the match. Unless it's arm wrestling.

As all of us have agreed, the World Cup is about representation of the whole world. I wouldn't want it any other way. But there also has to be a quality of the product. And I'm not trying to make it sound like some commercial enterprise, so no more comments about rich nations please. As someone with socialist principles, I'm well aware of disparity.
We have a tournament that takes place every four years. It is a festival. It is a celebration of different cultures. But not exclusively and not at the expense of quality of play. Brazil is the most exciting team in the world to watch. There's no doubt about that. But other aspects of the game are good too. Defending is an art. Great saves can take the breath away as much as a great goal. A great tackle is worth seeing. More so now, with the laws making it harder without giving away a free kick. If a team cannot defend reasonably well, that cheapens the goals scored as a result.

A balance needs to be struck between the quality and the diversity otherwise it will become less of a spectacle.
Once again (for seemingly the umpteenth time) a European is missing the point. As wolverine stated above: HAVING ONE OR TWO MORE EUROPEAN TEAMS IN THE WORLD CUP THAN THERE ARE NOW IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE "QUALITY" OF THE TOURNAMENT THAT MUCH ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. SO GET OVER YOURSELVES AND THIS DELUSION YOU ALL HAVE THAT ONLY THE RICHEST (THAT IS, EUROPEAN) COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD PLAY QUALITY SOCCER!! This isn't 1954, people! There are countries OUTSIDE of Europe and South America that produce good players, nowadays! In fact, didn't an African (was it George Weah?) win world player of the year honors just a few years ago? So quit with the "Europe deserves more spots" bullsh*t! The only other spot I'd give them back right now for sure is the one they lost to the CONCACAF #4 - Asia #5 play-off winner. I have to admit, that is pretty lame. I am certain that whichever of those teams (Trinidad & Tobago or Bahrain) gets to the World Cup, it will have about as much success there, and possibly less, than China did 3+ years ago. So yes, I would have let Europe have that one. But YOU people are suggesting that even the BEST teams from regions that aren't Europe be subjected to qualifying against 2nd-rate European sides to see who goes. Teams such as México, Japan, South Korea, The United States, Australia, and the African group winners. Nope, I can't buy into that. Those teams are the best in their respective regions and for that reason should be allowed to go to the World Cup, PERIOD!

[BRISTOLUK]

I am not saying that SA is better than Europe. In my earlier posts I've stated that its a personal opinion 'cos there r no stats to prove a big difference in these two.The other sides from Europe and SA r more or less the same level. U can't xpect all 4 sides from SA to always make it to round 2. But its a fact that whenever they do they end up facing Arg,Bra or top Euro sides in round 2.

Okay, let's accept that last statement. It also applies to European teams doesn't it? Coming up against Arg/Bra or top Euros. But somehow many more Euros still progressed beyond the 2nd round.

But let's look at it in more detail.
1990....You have a good case with Argentina playing Brazil and Uruguay playing Italy.
But why did the big two play each other in the second round? Because Argentina didn't do so well in their group. 'Lesser' teams like Cameroon and Romania did better. Had Argentina done better, their second round tie could have been against Ireland. Similarly Uruguay came third in their group, bested by Belgium.
Meanwhile Holland and Germany played each other. (Yes, also because Holland came third...but it was the drawing of lots that 'placed' them third)
1994 Not only did zero SA teams play each other 2nd round, they didn't even play top teams. 'Lowly' USA and Romania were the opposition. And, as you know, Argentina lost to Romania.
1998 Another good case for you with Chile coming up against Brazil and Paraguay against (eventual winners) France. Argentina came out on top against England after pens. As much as I'd like to say England is a top Euro nation, we aren't. In this particular tie, it was an example of a good Euro team coming up against a top SA team.
2002 Zero SA teams played each other. Brazil played 'lowly' Belgium and while it's true Paraguay came up against Germany, you won't find many people agreeing it was a talented German team. Had Uruguay not done so badly again, they could have been in the second round against 'not top' Europeans Sweden. Argentina, of course failed to get through the group that year. Had they done better, their opponents 2nd round would have been not top Europeans, Denmark or not top ranked Senegal.

So it's not really true to say SA teams suffered in the second round from playing themselves or top euros. Playing each other at that stage only happened twice in the last four WCs. Had Argentina not underperformed in their group, spoiling the pre-arranged draw, it would only have been one out of four.
As for SA against other top opponents....the SA teams outranked by some distance, four of the seven opponents.

I stated earlier I was using 1990 onwards as data was not so clear on the sites I was using for WC results prior to then. I'm not being selective. If your stats are showing different conclusions by including earlier world cups, then that suggests a change has taken place in more recent times. An obvious reason would be the increase from 16 to 24 and then 32 countries playing in the tournament.

Wouldn't this be more fun sitting down with a few beers? I miss that since I moved to Canada:(

[Panathinaikos2]

Oh, really? I guess Brasil being 5-time World Champion is nothing compared to Greece's (one time only) European Championship. The Netherlands consistently is TONS better than Greece can ever hope to be in mens' soccer, and they have just as many European titles as Greece does. And one more thing: watching just about ANY of the teams in my list of favorites is much more satisfying for me than watching sorry, boring Greece could EVER be!!!!!! I think the Greeks should stick to making gyros and baklava because winning soccer tournaments? I doubt that will ever happen again!!!!!!First of all Baklava is turkish not greek. Second of all your obsession with Greece is wierd. Are you jealous or something?

[BRISTOLUK]

Once again (for seemingly the umpteenth time) a European is missing the point. As wolverine stated above: HAVING ONE OR TWO MORE EUROPEAN TEAMS IN THE WORLD CUP THAN THERE ARE NOW IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE "QUALITY" OF THE TOURNAMENT THAT MUCH ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. SO GET OVER YOURSELVES AND THIS DELUSION YOU ALL HAVE THAT ONLY THE RICHEST (THAT IS, EUROPEAN) COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD PLAY QUALITY SOCCER!! This isn't 1954, people! There are countries OUTSIDE of Europe and South America that produce good players, nowadays! In fact, didn't an African (was it George Weah?) win world player of the year honors just a few years ago? So quit with the "Europe deserves more spots" bullsh*t! The only other spot I'd give them back right now for sure is the one they lost to the CONCACAF #4 - Asia #5 play-off winner. I have to admit, that is pretty lame. I am certain that whichever of those teams (Trinidad & Tobago or Bahrain) gets to the World Cup, it will have about as much success there, and possibly less, than China did 3+ years ago. So yes, I would have let Europe have that one. But YOU people are suggesting that even the BEST teams from regions that aren't Europe be subjected to qualifying against 2nd-rate European sides to see who goes. Teams such as México, Japan, South Korea, The United States, Australia, and the African group winners. Nope, I can't buy into that. Those teams are the best in their respective regions and for that reason should be allowed to go to the World Cup, PERIOD!

Ditto for the umpteenth time....I know there are teams, players, from all over the world who are good and worth a place at the highest level. Mexico, Japan, South Korea even the USA...I'd have them all at the WC. I quibble why so many African and South American teams.
But some other winners in their regions (and note I say 'some') playing off against 2nd level Europeans as you mention; why on earth not? If they are good enough they will qualify won't they?!! That's what I've read here so many times...or does that apply only to European teams?

[BRISTOLUK]

Those teams are the best in their respective regions and for that reason should be allowed to go to the World Cup, PERIOD!


Oh...and would you please stop saying PERIOD! It's as if nobody else is allowed an opinion and I'm sure you don't mean that.

[Dutchfan]

Niederlande beat the Greeks 4-0 before the Euro 2004 started in a freindly. tht ended a many match unbeaten streak of the Greeks. But from such a defeat they learnt their lesson and went on to win the Euro. That credit is due to them. They may have not played attractive football, but Brasil in 94 were a similarly unattractive. And the Netherlands them selves played a very boring game against Swden in the quarters, in which it was the Swedes who were attacking more.

Back to topic- the last time a NON BRASIL ARGENTINA SOUTH AMERICAN TEAM WAS IN THE SEMIFINALS OF A WORLD CUP- CHILE AT HOME 1962.
Now this excuse that south america has lesser places, and the 'smaller' south american teams have to play the cream of europe before going ahead in world cups in not always true. Last wc- Equador was eliminated in group phase. losses to mexico and Italy. Columbia was eliminated by USA in wc 94. The 3rd, 4th and 5th S American teams are behind in football than upper midlevel European teams like Serbia, Sweden, Croatia, Portugal etc.And yet, you STILL advocate for SIX spots for South American teams? Sounds like you're doing what "W" does most, if not all, of the time, nachi88: speaking out of both sides of your mouth! On the one hand you feel that, after Brasil and Argentina, South American teams haven't done much at World Cups (which, lately, has been true), stating that "other than Brasil and Argentina, South American teams are no match for the better European ones" and implying that some European teams should be given the opportunity to play off for a World Cup spot against South American teams that aren't named Brasil & Argentina; on the other hand you insist that South America should actually be given an increase in the amount of teams it sends to the World Cup, up from its current 4.5. Okay, yeah, that makes sense...NOT!! My plan, I feel, is perfect. The idea being, for the most part, that from each region enough spots be allocated so that (hopefully) EVERY team from that region that is good enough to compete with teams from other parts of the world be given a chance at a place, with one or two more (case dependent) thrown in for good measure, to accomodate a "johnny-come-lately" such as was the case with Colombia in 1990 and (we thought) 1994. As for Europe? As I've posted many a time, give it 15 or 16 spots. I have no problem with that. Beyond that, if there is a team that Europeans and Euro-supporters feel *should* have made it but didn't, as we say in the States: "Oh, well!!" For instance, I just know that some of you out there are thinking, "Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if Europe had enough spots to accomodate teams like Greece (what are they? current European champions! {for those of you who didn't know that}, Denmark (former European champion and a solid team for about two decades, now), Romania, Russia, Turkey (if it gets eliminated by Switzerland - I just KNOW that some of you are going to be crying about that! "How can it be that FIFA doesn't have enough teams from Europe going to World Cup 2006 to ensure that the team that finished third in the last World Cup can make it?"), maybe even the Republic of Ireland (another boring team, like Greece. On another website for a while [until its "forum" seemingly vanished], I saw posts from a couple of Irishmen who kept going on about how France's time had passed with Zizou's retirement and how France hadn't actually qualified for a World Cup since 1986's. Well, I wonder what they're saying now that France went into Dublin and beat the Republic of, and Ireland now finds itself on the outside looking in for next summer's tournament!!). But you know what? If people like you had a say in the matter (which, for all of FIFA's hypocrisy and corruption, is a good thing you don't!), the process, I feel, would work something like this: okay, the European teams listed above didn't qualify for World Cup 2006, but since we believe they are good enough to be there, we're going to have them play off against teams from some other regions that we don't feel are deserving of a place, even if those teams have already shown that they are one of the best teams in their region! So Russia, even though you've made relatively few tournaments since the breakup of the Soviet Union and have managed to advance past the first round of exactly zero of the ones you HAVE made it to since then, we think you should be going so you get to play off against our favorite "whipping boy" Saudi Arabia. Hopefully you'll have better luck there than you did in Afghanistan!! Greece? You're the current European champion (did anybody out there already know that? I wasn't sure so I thought I'd mention it again), and as such deserve a spot in the World Cup. Tell you what: you get to play off against South Korea, since so many of us feel that South Korea was the beneficiary of skewed refereeing at home in 2002, which SURELY must have been the case since they had managed to win all of zero World Cup matches in all their appearances before that. Denmark? Good, solid European team! Surely, YOU should be allowed to go to the World Cup!! Let's see, hmmm. We know! We'll have you play off against the United States. The U.S. won (for the first time in about 70 years, or so) its qualifying group, but since we don't feel that they really play anyone of any real substance (except for México) in CONCACAF, and because the U.S. seems to dominate just about everything else on the planet, socially, economically (well, until recently, that is!), and politically, and because we don't want to give them even a CHANCE at being able to someday dominate in men's soccer, by letting them have all these direct qualifications that they've been getting and therefore learning more and more what it takes to be a "world class" team, we don't feel that winning their group is good enough to allow them to go to the World Cup, so we want to see if you, Denmark, can keep them from going! After all, you finished only third in your "tough" European qualifying group; surely you can beat a team from CONCACAF, especially one not called "México," even if it did win its region! Romania? You did pretty well at World Cups 1990 through 1998; surely you should be rewarded for that! Hmm, let's see...We know, we European founts of knowledge and wisdom! Romania, you helped eliminate Colombia at World Cup 1994, and you DID eliminate Argentina at the same tournament, therefore, YOU get to play off against the CONMEBOL #3, Ecuador! After all, Ecuador had never even BEEN to a World Cup until the last one, and they didn't even get out of the first round, there! So surely, since they aren't Brasil or Argentina, they can't be ALL THAT great! (or are they great, nachi88? I'm still not sure just where you stand on the subject of the overall strength of South American soccer, since you also seem to feel that South America should get six spots, more than half the teams in that confederation!) Plus, they wear yellow jerseys, just like Colombia does! Perhaps seeing another South American team dressed in yellow across the field from you will you inspire you to victory! Go get 'em, Romania! The Republic of Ireland. Tough luck, there, being in one of those "tough" European qualifying groups! Surely, had you been in another region, YOU would have made the World Cup, no problem!! So tell you what: Africa. You get to play off against one of those teams from Africa, you know, one of the newcomers that has never been there before. Yeah, they won their group in a region that has just as many, if not more, teams in it as does UEFA, but that's Africa! We all know they're nothing but a bunch of malnourished, AIDS-stricken, corrupt, underprivileged people there, so why should any of them be allowed a direct place at the World Cup?! The answer: why, they shouldn't, of course! The very idea, giving a direct spot to a team from a country that is neither Brasil nor Argentina, nor from Europe. That's preposterous! And since neither Cameroun nor Nigeria appear to have qualified from that region this time (we're still waiting for word from the African confederation on whether or not that's some sort of "April Fools" joke, or something similar!), and since, aside from Senegal, which got within an eyelash of the World Cup semifinals last time but which ALSO did not qualify this time, no other African team has done much at a World Cup, we don't think that ALL the African teams that "qualified" this time deserve it, so Ireland, you get to play, oh, let's see here...let me draw a name out of a hat...Angola! They've never been to the World Cup before, and it IS just an African team we're talking about here, so, Ireland, here's your chance to redeem yourself!! Turkey, Spain, and The Czech Republic? Well, you're not eliminated just yet, but in case you are in the upcoming European play-offs, we'll come up with a plan to try to get you in, anyway. How 'bout this: Turkey, if you SOMEHOW get eliminated by Switzerland, we'll have you play off against Iran. Your two countries are fairly close by, and Iran has never made much impact at the World Cup, so they aren't worthy of a spot. The Czech Republic? If you somehow get eliminated by Norway (which is DEFINITELY one of the strongest teams in the world since it has a winning record against Brasil, the five-time World Champions!), you'll get to play off against CONMEBOL'S #4 team, Paraguay. Paraguay has qualified for its third World Cup in a row, now, but since they've never managed to get past Round Two of any of the ones they HAVE been to (despite holding eventual champion France to an overtime 1 - 0 win in '98, and despite losing to mighty {snicker} Germany by the same scoreline in 2002), and since it's neither Brasil nor Argentina (though it's nestled very neatly in between the two of them, geographically), well, they don't really deserve a spot, either, and since the last time you got to a World Cup Final, as Czechoslovakia, it was in South America (Chile) in 1962, we'll give you the honor of eliminating a South American team BEFORE the World Cup, since if it's not Brasil or Argentina, it doesn't deserve to be there, anyway (or does it, nachi88? I'm STILL not sure what your stance on the whole South American qualifying thing is!). Finally, Spain. Spain, of ALL the European teams we've listed, is SURELY the MOST deserving World Cup participant of all!! I mean, look at all the GREAT players Spain has produced over the decades, to go along with ALL THOSE HIGH PLACINGS AT EVERY TOURNAMENT THEY'VE EVER QUALIFIED FOR!! So every provision possible must be put in place to ensure that Spain, of ALL the European teams that didn't win their qualifying group this time, makes it! Spain, if by some miracle you can't get past Slovakia for a spot at World Cup 2006, we've got your back! Since Spain was once ruled by Moors, from Africa, we'd be HAPPY to allow you the opportunity to play off against a team like Algeria, or, ideally, Morocco, for a World Cup spot, but since neither of those teams won their group in Africa, we'll give you a "replacement" to try to beat. Hmmmmmm...How 'bout...Tunisia?!? Yeah, we could have picked one of the African teams that has never been to a World Cup before, as we did for the Republic of Ireland, but Tunisia should be a PERFECT foe for you. It, too, is populated mostly by Arabs (gotta get those guys back for what they did to you Spaniards hundreds of years ago, you know!), and Tunisia was the team that eliminated Morocco, so since we can't set you up to play against Morocco, we'll do the next best thing. So there you go! We're all set now! The rest of the world be damned! We have the list of eight European teams who either are not currently slated to go to World Cup 2006 or who are in danger of not going, and we've got our plan in place to give them every opportunity to do so, anyway! Isn't that neat how that works when you come from one of the richest regions in the world? Ahhh, being a European is a GREAT thing, ESPECIALLY when it means you can deprive other regions of the world something that they want, just because you think they don't deserve it, and because you think you have the power to! Yay! THIS must be what it feels like to be the American president!! {sigh of relief, and of satisfaction - Ahhhhhhh!!!!}

[Dutchfan]

Ditto for the umpteenth time....I know there are teams, players, from all over the world who are good and worth a place at the highest level. Mexico, Japan, South Korea even the USA...I'd have them all at the WC. I quibble why so many African and South American teams.
But some other winners in their regions (and note I say 'some') playing off against 2nd level Europeans as you mention; why on earth not? If they are good enough they will qualify won't they?!! That's what I've read here so many times...or does that apply only to European teams?You know, you sound very "American," at least, the kind of American (not me, of course!) who hates soccer, loves NASCAR and baseball and truck and tractor pulls, loves the moron in the White House and actually believes that that bastard is out there to help ALL people, regardless of their skin color, economic, or social status. I've tried this before, but since most people who read my posts don't read them very carefully, I have no great hope that it's going to work. But I'm going to try, anyway. Here goes: you are from Europe. Let's just say, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, that Europe was NOT one of the regions that, historically, has done particularly well at the World Cup. Let's say, again, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, that ASIAN TEAMS had won 8 of the 17 World Cups played to date, and that ASIA was set up to send anywhere from 14 to 16 teams to the World Cup, and that Europe was set up to send only 4 or 5. Now, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, let's say that there were a BUNCH OF ASIANS who were saying, "You know, I think there are several Asian squads that haven't qualified for the World Cup that could beat some of the European group winners; let's give some of our second- and possibly even third-place teams a chance to play off against some of those European group winners because WE don't think they're really all that good, and we don't want the 'quality' of the World Cup diminished because of some lesser European squads that are present there." Now, if it's even possible for you, and Panathinaikos2, and sinan1903, and krazyrobus1, and nachi88, and "philipas," and plato-ny to imagine such a scenario (which, frankly, I have my doubts about), tell me, just how would YOU feel if some people from another part of the world were basically stating that they didn't think that teams from Europe were any good, and that every chance should be given to teams from OTHER parts of the world to eliminate them BEFORE THE TOURNAMENT EVEN STARTED, just because THEY didn't think European teams were worthy of being there? How would you like that? Would you be all for this "all-regions" qualifying that you seem to be so set on now? Or would you be more likely to try to save the few spots your region got? Do you understand what I'm getting at? Probably not, but I gave it a shot. Perhaps someone else from a part of the world other than Europe (wolverine?) can elucidate.

[philipas]

:rant:

:laser: :spy: <---Dfan

[Dutchfan]

European nations play ten times better than South American nations. South America has only 2 good nations while the rest are just ok. How can you say South America is better than Europe when only two of there nations are good. Oh and Dutch Fan you might think the greek games were boring becuase you aren't greek. How can you think any game is fun to watch when you your self dont even have one favorite team. To us Greeks the game was fun becuase of the thrill something that I think you wont ever find in a long time being a dutch fan, a brazzilian fan, and a shit load of others.And what, exactly, is wrong with having more than one favorite team? Hmm? Whoever said that everybody is restricted to a single favorite team? Tell me, I'd like to know! As far as I'm concerned, my having more than one favorite team shows that I can be entertained by different styles and by teams from different regions, instead of clinging to this idea that, only in one or two parts of the world is entertaining soccer played. So if you ask me, I think it shows a higher level of character on my part, the fact that I enjoy teams from different parts of the world!

[Dutchfan]

Niederlande beat the Greeks 4-0 before the Euro 2004 started in a freindly. tht ended a many match unbeaten streak of the Greeks. But from such a defeat they learnt their lesson and went on to win the Euro. That credit is due to them. They may have not played attractive football, but Brasil in 94 were a similarly unattractive.First of all, leader of those who don't read others' posts very carefully (except the ones you WANT to read very carefully!), I have acknowledged time and time again that Greece's Euro 2004 title was, in my view, perfectly legitimate (I think YOU only care because the manager was German!). There are others who have suggested that for Greece to have won Euro 2004, the "fix" must have been in. I have no idea whether it was or not. From what I could see, they won fair and square, THOUGH BORINGLY!! And as for Brasil circa 1994 - Ha! What were you in 1994, six? Brasil may not have played jogo bonito that year the way most people are accustomed to seeing them play it, but I'm pretty sure that Brasil would NEVER play as boring a style of soccer as Greece played last year! For you to state otherwise shows what a novice you really are!

[Dutchfan]

Its pretty balanced now. One more team from Europe is not going to improve the quality of the Cup to any big xtend.You tell 'em, wolverine!!!!

[Dutchfan]

First of all Baklava is turkish not greek. Second of all your obsession with Greece is wierd. Are you jealous or something?Okay, but baklava is made in Greece as well, is it not? If not, then I apologize for my error (though I wouldn't mind having some baklava right about now!! Mmmmmm, baaaklaaavaaaaa!!). And as I posted earlier, I have no Greece "obsession." Geez, what's it going to take to get that through your head? I'm beginning to wonder about YOUR seeming obsession of what you think MY obsession is! Edited out - "'Cause you were nice about it, Panathinaikos2!" (see, "plato-ny the thin-skinned one, and "philipas the phony one" what being NICE can do for you?!)

[Dutchfan]

By the way nice post Ronni. I read all of it too. But this is my oppinion that I think european nations are greater at soccer than south american nations.Fine. And actually, I would probably agree with you that the "second-level" European teams, right now, are probably better than the "second-level" South American ones, so a point for Europe. But, by the same token, as bad as Bolivia, Perú, and Venezuela are (although Venezuela appears to be getting better - this qualifying cycle and the last one Venezuela actually DID NOT finish last in South American qualifying, something that they were so accustomed to in the past that CONMEBOL practically wrote "Venezuela" down for 10th-place, IN INK, even before qualifying started!), I don't think they're NEARLY as bad as some of the weaker teams in Europe, teams such as San Marino, and Malta, and Cyprus, and The Faroe Islands, and teams like that. My point? Simply that, top-to-bottom, I think South American soccer is better than European. At the top level? It's pretty close! And as I stated earlier, second-tier, right now, probably goes to Europe...but not by much!

[Dutchfan]

How bout we just say Euro teams and South Ameriucan teams are even and among the best in the world just to stop this long boring argument that may reach 18 pages soon.This is probably the sanest post amongst ALL of them in this thread! For once, Panathinaikos2, I agree with you!

[Dutchfan]

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:Yeah, take that, "plato-ny"!

[Dutchfan]

Back to topic- ????? "Back to topic"? That's an interesting one coming from you, nachi88, since you're rarely "on topic" in any given thread to begin with! :lol:

[Fan]

I applause Dutchfan for writing that long funny post earlier. That was hilarious.

[Dutchfan]

I applause Dutchfan for writing that long funny post earlier. That was hilarious.Thank you! Thank you! I thought is was pretty darn good, myself!! :humble:

[wolverine]

The Czech Republic? If you somehow get eliminated by Norway (which is DEFINITELY one of the strongest teams in the world since it has a winning record against Brasil, the five-time World Champions!),
:Pound: That was funny!!!! Luv to see what wud happen in the very rare event of Spain getting eliminated :D

[plato-ny]

THEY WERE BORING! Winners of the tournament, yes, but EXTREMELY BORING TO WATCH! So boring, in fact, that once I found out that they had beaten the team that I thought was going to win the tournament, The Czech Republic, in the semifinals, I refused to pay to watch the Final of that tournament. If I'd been able to watch it for nothing here in America, I might have, but THERE WAS NO WAY I WAS GOING TO PAY TO WATCH A BORING TEAM LIKE GREECE'S PLAY IN AN IMPORTANT TOURNAMENT FINAL SUCH AS THAT ONE!

Well, you didnt care. But, 4 billion others did!!!

[plato-ny]

Yeah, take that, "plato-ny"!

the Dutch keeps losing in penalities. Take that, Dutchfan!

Oh, BTW, I reported your post with the Greek homosexual stereotype joke to the MODS and you'll be hearing from them VERY soon!!!

[Panathinaikos2]

Ok but couldn't you have wrote everything you just said in one post? I thought people would agree with my europe and South America being both the best in the world comment just to end this long argument.

[plato-ny]

As it happens, I'm not the ONLY person to have found Greece's team boring to watch. Perhaps you should pay better attention (a common affliction amongst those of you who like to argue over nothing). I suppose you Greeks (if indeed Greek you are - you're not like "philipas" - a phony Greek, are you?) found it "exciting" because your team won, but for most of the rest of us (I'll type this yet again), watching Greece play was BOOOOORRRRRRRIIIIIIINNNNNGGGGGG! I'll put it this way: if soccer fans were trying to convince most Americans that soccer is fun to watch, they CERTAINLY wouldn't choose to have them watch any Greece matches, 'cause that would turn Americans off to soccer PERMANENTLY!

Have Holland work on their penalty shooting before you criticize Greece, okay???

[Dutchfan]

the Dutch keeps losing in penalities. Take that, Dutchfan!Touché! (Though the Dutch did FINALLY beat someone in penalties, Sweden at Euro 2004) But since I'm not Dutch (just a fan of the Dutch!) you can't hurt my feelings that way!

[philipas]

http://www.athensguide.com/photos/souvclose.jpg
gyros....YUMMY!!!

Please guys ignore Dfan.

He's been telling me in pm how much he really loves Greek food and culture and he's just being bitchy... :rolleyes:

[Panathinaikos2]

the Dutch keeps losing in penalities. Take that, Dutchfan!

Oh, BTW, I reported your post with the Greek homosexual stereotype joke to the MODS and you'll be hearing from them VERY soon!!!Yea that joke was realy un necesary.

[Dutchfan]

the Dutch keeps losing in penalities. Take that, Dutchfan!

Oh, BTW, I reported your post with the Greek homosexual stereotype joke to the MODS and you'll be hearing from them VERY soon!!!Hey, I was just wondering why "panathinaikos2" kept asking me about my supposed Greek "obsession," after I posted repeatedly that I have no obsession with Greece! Just thought I'd try to lighten things up a little bit, there. Man, you're as thin-skinned as "philipas" the phony Greek! But if you really are Greek, at least you have an excuse as to why that joke bothered you so much! "Philipas"? He's got no excuse. In fact, he's got no excuse for a LOT of things!!!

[Panathinaikos2]

How is Philipas a phony greek and what is Joga Bonito or whatever you call it?

[plato-ny]

Dont worry about Dutchfan. The MODS will take care of him

[Dutchfan]

How is Philipas a phony greek and what is Joga Bonito or whatever you call it?The less I'm asked about "philipas" the phony Greek, the better. Suffice it to say that I don't believe a word he says, or types, about ANYTHING! He says he's Greek, but, I don't believe him!! Jogo bonito is what the Brasilians call their special brand of soccer, one that NOBODY ELSE on the planet seems to be able to imitate. Granted, as soccerates points out, they might not always play it nowadays, but when they do, it sure is a thing of beauty!!!

[Dutchfan]

Dont worry about Dutchfan. The MODS will take care of himWhy? Are you a "friend" of "philipas"'? If so, I'd say you could do a lot worse for an ENEMY!! Oh, and these "mods" you type of? Yeah, I can just see nachi88 the warped German trying to come down on me 'cause I insulted one of his buddies, although HE (and his friends, if he has any) have posted many things MUCH worse than that, without recrimination. Have you seen nachi88's thread about "the most sadistic thing anybody has ever done"? Personally, I wasn't that bothered by it, but I did think it was a little weird. Though with nachi88 being German, maybe I shouldn't have been surprised that he would come up with something like that! And he's ALWAYS throwing insults around, so if he even ATTEMPTS to take the higher moral ground on this, I'll call him on it. So cool your jets. And have some ouzo. Something tells me you could use some!

[Dutchfan]

Dont worry about Dutchfan. The MODS will take care of himOh, and I now have a new nickname for you, "plato-ny." Just as "philipas" is "the phony Greek," YOU are "plato-ny, the thin-skinned Greek!" How do you like THAT?!?

[Dutchfan]

Ok but couldn't you have wrote everything you just said in one post? I thought people would agree with my europe and South America being both the best in the world comment just to end this long argument.Hey, I was trying to get the thread to 18 pages! Dang, just missed, too!!

[Dutchfan]

Yea that joke was realy un necesary.Okay, Panathinaikos2, if you REALLY want me to get rid of it, I will. 'Cause you were NICE about it, a concept apparently alien to "philipas the phony Greek" and "plato-ny the thin-skinned Greek"!

[ItalianBoy]

The conversation is getting out of topic again... Dutchfan... some comments are not welcome... please... keep it cool or I will close the thread.

[philipas]

Why? Are you a "friend" of "philipas"'? If so, I'd say you could do a lot worse for an ENEMY!! Oh, and these "mods" you type of? Yeah, I can just see nachi88 the warped German trying to come down on me 'cause I insulted one of his buddies, although HE (and his friends, if he has any) have posted many things MUCH worse than that, without recrimination. Have you seen nachi88's thread about "the most sadistic thing anybody has ever done"? Personally, I wasn't that bothered by it, but I did think it was a little weird. Though with nachi88 being German, maybe I shouldn't have been surprised that he would come up with something like that! And he's ALWAYS throwing insults around, so if he even ATTEMPTS to take the higher moral ground on this, I'll call him on it. So cool your jets. And have some ouzo. Something tells me you could use some!

http://www.rp-online.de/layout/showbilder/3361-212248_GREECE_EURO_2004_HOMECOMING_ATH141.jpg

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[nachi88]

Why? Are you a "friend" of "philipas"'? If so, I'd say you could do a lot worse for an ENEMY!! Oh, and these "mods" you type of? Yeah, I can just see nachi88 the warped German trying to come down on me 'cause I insulted one of his buddies, although HE (and his friends, if he has any) have posted many things MUCH worse than that, without recrimination. Have you seen nachi88's thread about "the most sadistic thing anybody has ever done"? Personally, I wasn't that bothered by it, but I did think it was a little weird. Though with nachi88 being German, maybe I shouldn't have been surprised that he would come up with something like that! And he's ALWAYS throwing insults around, so if he even ATTEMPTS to take the higher moral ground on this, I'll call him on it. So cool your jets. And have some ouzo. Something tells me you could use some!

D'fan....
all this is unnecessary in football debate. There is nothing wrong or off topic, i have said in this thread. Just facts. All the personal attacks are an indication that you have lost the debate, and are attacking the person, and not his idea.

The long post was humorous btw :thumbsup:

Let me repeat for you-
I said- South America needs 6 spots for WC. Europe 16. I still say that.
It is a fact that South America hasnt given a world a non brasilian argentine team semifinalist since 1962 ( Your own Chile at home). That shows how much 'variation or deviation is there in football strength in different countries of south america which qualify for the world cup).

I say 6 places for S America, as even though the 'next 3' of South America have dismal records, the collective records of Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Columbia, Equador etc, ae better than the world cup records of Asian or African teams.

[Dutchfan]

D'fan....
all this is unnecessary in football debate. There is nothing wrong or off topic, i have said in this thread. Just facts. All the personal attacks are an indication that you have lost the debate, and are attacking the person, and not his idea.Goody, I get to use my favorite emoticon again - :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

The long post was humorous btw :thumbsup: Thanks!

Let me repeat for you-
I said- South America needs 6 spots for WC. Europe 16. I still say that.
It is a fact that South America hasnt given a world a non brasilian argentine team semifinalist since 1962 ( Your own Chile at home). That shows how much 'variation or deviation is there in football strength in different countries of south america which qualify for the world cup).

I say 6 places for S America, as even though the 'next 3' of South America have dismal records, the collective records of Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Columbia, Equador etc, ae better than the world cup records of Asian or African teams.Favorite emoticon time yet again - :blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

[ItalianBoy]

Am I gonna have to close this thread?

[soccerates]

Damn, can Nachi not control himself or what? :confused:

[soccerates]

First of all, leader of those who don't read others' posts very carefully (except the ones you WANT to read very carefully!), I have acknowledged time and time again that Greece's Euro 2004 title was, in my view, perfectly legitimate (I think YOU only care because the manager was German!). There are others who have suggested that for Greece to have won Euro 2004, the "fix" must have been in. I have no idea whether it was or not. From what I could see, they won fair and square, THOUGH BORINGLY!! And as for Brasil circa 1994 - Ha! What were you in 1994, six? Brasil may not have played jogo bonito that year the way most people are accustomed to seeing them play it, but I'm pretty sure that Brasil would NEVER play as boring a style of soccer as Greece played last year! For you to state otherwise shows what a novice you really are!

These are all very legitimate claims. I too think that Greece's title was legitimate, after all they beat the best team, the defending champs, and the host 2X. What more can you ask for. Brazil was totally different in 94 though. As Dfan points out, they took a step away from the jogo bonito that had failed them for the previous 20 odd years, and finally paid attention to their backend, but they were not exclusively defensive, just no jogo bonito. That style is clearly dead!

[soccerates]

http://www.athensguide.com/photos/souvclose.jpg
gyros....YUMMY!!!

Please guys ignore Dfan.

He's been telling me in pm how much he really loves Greek food and culture and he's just being bitchy... :rolleyes:

I wouldn't bring up PM's if I were you. I read your contributions to him, and like when you denied trolling me with pm's, you've done your fair share of trolling him in those. So stop being a hypocrit.

[Fenerliyim]

Europe has many great national teams like gb, germany, italy, france, turkey, spain, and so on. South america has only 2 really good teams which are brazil and argentina. The other south american teams arent that great and usually dont win world events. Europe has my vote.

[Panathinaikos2]

Okay, Panathinaikos2, if you REALLY want me to get rid of it, I will. 'Cause you were NICE about it, a concept apparently alien to "philipas the phony Greek" and "plato-ny the thin-skinned Greek"!Thank you.

[nachi88]

Damn, can Nachi not control himself or what? :confused:

oooh... what a 'comeback' you took 5 days to think of this??? :lol:

Actually, its D'fan this time around. Read carefully before you accuse. :)

ciao ciao

[nachi88]

These are all very legitimate claims. I too think that Greece's title was legitimate, after all they beat the best team, the defending champs, and the host 2X. What more can you ask for. Brazil was totally different in 94 though. As Dfan points out, they took a step away from the jogo bonito that had failed them for the previous 20 odd years, and finally paid attention to their backend, but they were not exclusively defensive, just no jogo bonito. That style is clearly dead!

Ok, a question to you now Soccerates-

At the moment does Niederlande or Brasil play more of 'jogo bonito'?

[Yañez]

i say europe has the better teams BUT, the good teams (germany france, UK, Italy never end up in the same group so they dont play each other till they are in the WC, unlike south america where most of ur opponents are equal but u play them all

[soccerates]

oooh... what a 'comeback' you took 5 days to think of this??? :lol:

no, dissing you is quite easy actually. I just don't make it a priority to diss everything you say, otherwise I'd have no time for anything else.

[Ronni]

Brazil was totally different in 94 though. As Dfan points out, they took a step away from the jogo bonito that had failed them for the previous 20 odd years, and finally paid attention to their backend, but they were not exclusively defensive, just no jogo bonito. That style is clearly dead!



Ok, a question to you now Soccerates-

At the moment does Niederlande or Brasil play more of 'jogo bonito'?


I'm so glad "real football" comes out every now and then. It'll NEVER die. You'll always find an italian defense managing to "incatenare a destra e a sinistra" the art of football, and a german middle-field "deutsche-tügendmässig todsperren" its evolution to victory so that who's able to play it scraps his head and changes his politics.
It's a shame that Cameroon, Colombia and the Netherlands are that unsuccessful since they became the only remaining (WC-level) teams still defending real football. Brazil turned back to the victory path as seeing this victory as the only important thing. Simply sad ...

I hope the Netherlands, now playing an enthousiastic (not yet really "flamboyant") football, finally get very far. Or why not Brazil itself - who knows if some days before the WC starts, Garincha appears in a Perreira's dreams, convincing him to bring Brazil back to their origins.
And they win the cup!

Football will get back on the track.

And the italians will again need 32 years to discover a way how to get back out of the underdogs court they lived that long after their 2nd cup ...

[soccerates]

Garincha appears in a Perreira's dreams, convincing him to bring Brazil back to their origins. And they win the cup!

Well let's just say I hope Parriera is stupid enough to take advice like that because it would effectively eliminate Brazil should they try to play that way against a decent team.


And the italians will again need 32 years to discover a way how to get back out of the underdogs court they lived that long after their 2nd cup ...

Put your money where your mouth is.

Let's just pray that Italy finally get another chance at Brazil, 9 years have been far too long!!! :evil:

[Ronni]

Let's just pray that Italy finally get another chance at Brazil, 9 years have been far too long!!! :evil:

"to pray" is the correct verb in this case.

Prega, prega che ti fa bene ...

[soccerates]

"to pray" is the correct verb in this case.

Prega, prega che ti fa bene ...

Indeed. You guys have been dodging us for far too long....

[SE7E]

Europe because they have more quality teams then South America.
SA have the traditional big nations Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Equador.
But Europe has about thirteen world class teams. (France, Italy, England, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Holland, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Croatia, Denmark and Turkey, I can think of right now)Colombia, Chile and Equador are not big traditional nations in SA. Equador is becoming one, Colombia and Chile were. You missed Paraguay and Uruguay...

[chacal7]

And the fact is that S.A. with 10 countries has 3 WC winners, and 2 of them are ALWAYS heads of theirs groups. A WC without at least 4 SA teams is not a WC.

[chacal7]

traditional big nations Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile and Equador.


traditional big nations?
between colombia, chile and ecuador they have won 1 Copa America since 1916. What tradition are you talking about?

[Ronni]

Indeed. You guys have been dodging us for far too long....

Brazil will need at least 3 missed Baggio-PK in order to pay back Sarria 82. That hasn't been completely digested yet.

[soccerates]

Brazil will need at least 3 missed Baggio-PK in order to pay back Sarria 82. That hasn't been completely digested yet.


LOL...:lol:

[PalancaBranca06]

Europe and South America are the past.
Africa is the new frontier. It will be proved in 2006 and consolidated in 2010, with the World Cup being finally played in the black continent.

[philipas]

Europe and South America are the past.
Africa is the new frontier. It will be proved in 2006 and consolidated in 2010, with the World Cup being finally played in the black continent. That would be super cool!!!

African ancestry has always produced outstanding footballers anyway...

Go the African underdogs.... :rockon:

[PalancaBranca06]

That would be super cool!!!

African ancestry has always produced outstanding footballers anyway...

Go the African underdogs.... :rockon:

Thank you philipas! :thumbsup:

[SE7E]

Thank you philipas! :thumbsup:Hope Angola do great next year!!!