LOL Europe

[hater]

LOL England

LOL Italy

LOL Spain

LOL France

LOL Germany

LOL Eurocup

LOL undefeated american teams (honduras doesn't count)

:downspin:

American teams laying down the law!!!

[Spurologist]

lol Africa

[Muser]

England is undefeated, and they have the same points as USA..

[Kamnik]

No worries, Slovenia will handle it :D

[urunobili]

England is undefeated, and they have the same points as USA..

:lmao who would have thought an English would be content saying this :lol

[Slo spurs fan]

The bodys are counted after the battle, not inbetween.

[hater]

The bodys are counted after the battle, not inbetween.

still, you gotta admit Europe has fallen behind the Americas in soccer.

[Muser]

:lmao who would have thought an English would be content saying this :lol

I gotta take pride in something :depressed

[Muser]

still, you gotta admit Europe has fallen behind the Americas in soccer.

After 2 games each? Lol...

[hater]

After 2 games each? Lol...

Open your eyes. France is done. Italy and England look really, really bad. Spain will choke again sooner or later. Germany is too young and inexperienced.

[Slo spurs fan]

Portugallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll will save our pride!
EC > WC
There!

[Muser]

France was done a long time ago, Italy and England do look bad yes. I wouldn't say they look any worse than USA or other Americas teams other than Brazil. Germany had one dominant game and one shitty game so I don't know what to say about them yet.

Love how you left out Portugal too.

[hater]

Love how you left out Portugal too.

Portugal about to get raped by Brazil

[urunobili]

lol European teams never winning a WC outside their continent :lol

[Cry Havoc]

After 2 games each? Lol...

England is a far better side than the usa, to be sure. But they haven't shown the heart or the resilience that we yanks have, and the brits seem to be in the midst of a complete meltdown.

So yes, you have better footballers. But they don't look like much of team at the moment.

[Muser]

England is a far better side than the usa, to be sure. But they haven't shown the heart or the resilience that we yanks have, and the brits seem to be in the midst of a complete meltdown.

So yes, you have better footballers. But they don't look like much of team at the moment.

I agree on with all of your points apart from the meltdown. France is in a meltdown. England just look really out of form, wednesday against Algeria was the worst I have ever seen Rooney play. He couldn't even control the damn ball.

Just gotta wait until Wednesday and all the questions will be answered.

[Spurologist]

still, you gotta admit Europe has fallen behind the Americas in soccer.

:lmao

[TimmehC]

Mostly unrelated:

Why does England have a separate team, instead of just putting a full UK team together? That would be like Texas and California sending their own teams into international competition.

[Bukefal]

still, you gotta admit Europe has fallen behind the Americas in soccer.

come on :rollin

[Bukefal]

Mostly unrelated:

Why does England have a separate team, instead of just putting a full UK team together? That would be like Texas and California sending their own teams into international competition.

Well, it has always been like that. The seperate parts have strong nationalistic feelings, they are seperate countries after all. It cant be compared with US States. This is seperated historically. And when nations started to create football federations, wales, england and scotland all created one for their themselves. It has stayed like that.

There were some proposals from time to time by some people to form a british team but it was opposed.

[Muser]

Mostly unrelated:

Why does England have a separate team, instead of just putting a full UK team together? That would be like Texas and California sending their own teams into international competition.

I have no idea, Ryan Giggs on those 98/2002 teams would have been huge.

[Spurologist]

Well, it has always been like that. The seperate parts have strong nationalistic feelings, they are seperate countries after all. It cant be compared with US States. This is seperated historically. And when nations started to create football federations, wales, england and scotland all created one for their themselves. It has stayed like that.

There were some proposals from time to time by some people to form a british team but it was opposed.

yet they are under 1 prime minister - David Cameron. I have been wondering it myself

[LoneStarState'sPride]

Mostly unrelated:

Why does England have a separate team, instead of just putting a full UK team together? That would be like Texas and California sending their own teams into international competition.

Or Texas and...........the rest of the US ;)

[TDMVPDPOY]

Mostly unrelated:

Why does England have a separate team, instead of just putting a full UK team together? That would be like Texas and California sending their own teams into international competition.

i knwo they did it for their rugby union games when someone wants to put up a challenge, i remember one of the games 3 lions vs australia, it went down the the wire

[Bukefal]

yet they are under 1 prime minister - David Cameron. I have been wondering it myself

Yeah, but they are seen as a country. Historically it has always been different than England, plus a historical rivalry and they do have some sort of self government.
So probably that's why they all formed football federations separately. English and Scottish football federations were the first I think, they also were the first to play internationals, against each other. Its self determination, they see eachother differently, they have strong own identities and I think thats why they want to keep it separately

Plus, for Scotland it's probably the only way that they have a sort of symbol that they are independent from the English and it's sort of the only way to try beat the English without war and vice versa :lol

It's the same with Faroer islands and Denmark.

[DAF86]

France was done a long time ago, Italy and England do look bad yes. I wouldn't say they look any worse than USA or other Americas teams other than Brazil. Germany had one dominant game and one shitty game so I don't know what to say about them yet.

Love how you left out Portugal too.

Mmmh, Argentina? And so far Uruguay, Mexico, Chile and Paraguay had looked a lot better than England and Italy.

[DAF86]

still, you gotta admit Europe has fallen behind the Americas in soccer.


:lmao


come on :rollin

I don't know what you're laughing about, Europe has never been ahead of America (actually South America) in terms of football, Europe has the best leagues in clubs level but that's all ony because of the money which allows them to buy the best American players, but that doesn't mean that Europe > America in football it only means that Europe > America in terms of power and money.

But look at the WC count: Conmebol=9 / UEFA=9

The difference? Conmebol consists of 10 countries and puts only 4 or 5 in the WC. UEFA consists of 50 something countires and puts 13/14 every WC. Almost the triple and they're still tied.

Europe will keep winning WC and putting a lot of teams in the latter stages of tournaments simply because of quantity but in terms of quality America > Europe, hystorically has been this way.

Another aspect I'm seeing right now is that outside of Spain and Holland all European teams play the same way: generic, defenisive, uninspired, way too tactical and boring football. They have no flair, nothing to differentiate themselves. If it wasn't for the shirts I couldn't differentiate one from the other.

And please, PLEASE can somebody explain to me where this stupid idea that the Eurocup is "harder" than the WC comes from?

[resistanze]

lol UEFA

[boston.balla]

I don't know what you're laughing about, Europe has never been ahead of America (actually South America) in terms of football, Europe has the best leagues in clubs level but that's all ony because of the money which allows them to buy the best American players, but that doesn't mean that Europe > America in football it only means that Europe > America in terms of power and money.

But look at the WC count: Conmebol=9 / UEFA=9

The difference? Conmebol consists of 10 countries and puts only 4 or 5 in the WC. UEFA consists of 50 something countires and puts 13/14 every WC. Almost the triple and they're still tied.

Europe will keep winning WC and putting a lot of teams in the latter stages of tournaments simply because of quantity but in terms of quality America > Europe, hystorically has been this way.

Another aspect I'm seeing right now is that outside of Spain and Holland all European teams play the same way: generic, defenisive, uninspired, way too tactical and boring football. They have no flair, nothing to differentiate themselves. If it wasn't for the shirts I couldn't differentiate one from the other.

And please, PLEASE can somebody explain to me where this stupid idea that the Eurocup is "harder" than the WC comes from?


i know this cup is going as it goes, but the real business starts after the groups. In a knockout match italy/ger are complicated opponents. England can always win one for the queen.:lmao
NED seems to be ok, spain got burned once question is if they get brasil or not, fra is shit I agree, portugal is weaker that many understand ...

The problem with european teams is that they are underrated opponents, not talent. In terms of talent they are very much ok.



Frankly, seeing alot of world cup play (since 1990) on 4 continents and different weather conditions with different generations i can say that knockout stage seems to ALWAYS have at least 2 european teams in the semis.

A bit of history:

In 1982 spain: italy, germany, france, poland
In 1986 mexico: germany, argentina, belgium, france
In 1990 Italy: italy, argentina, germany, ENGLAND!! (GOD BLESS!1)
In 1994 US : brazil, italy, sweden, bulgaria
In 1998 france: brazil, france, dutch, croatia
In 2002 japan&south korea: brazil, turkey, germany, south korea (insert ita/spa here for the most blatant cheating in the history of world cup)

So if you look carefully you almost have a converging series:
3 euro teams and one south american (bra or arg), which says one thing, we can say lol europe when it's all over. I agree many euro teams have a bad start but let's not underrated 'em.
In 2006 germany: germany, ita, france, portugal

[Bukefal]

I don't know what you're laughing about, Europe has never been ahead of America (actually South America) in terms of football, Europe has the best leagues in clubs level but that's all ony because of the money which allows them to buy the best American players, but that doesn't mean that Europe > America in football it only means that Europe > America in terms of power and money.

But look at the WC count: Conmebol=9 / UEFA=9

The difference? Conmebol consists of 10 countries and puts only 4 or 5 in the WC. UEFA consists of 50 something countires and puts 13/14 every WC. Almost the triple and they're still tied.

Europe will keep winning WC and putting a lot of teams in the latter stages of tournaments simply because of quantity but in terms of quality America > Europe, hystorically has been this way.

Another aspect I'm seeing right now is that outside of Spain and Holland all European teams play the same way: generic, defenisive, uninspired, way too tactical and boring football. They have no flair, nothing to differentiate themselves. If it wasn't for the shirts I couldn't differentiate one from the other.

And please, PLEASE can somebody explain to me where this stupid idea that the Eurocup is "harder" than the WC comes from?

Don't take it so serious, it's not an attack on your South america or something. Its about the original post not being serious, so that's why I laughed. It's just that, to say; 'lol Europe. Europe has fallen behind in soccer' is crap and based on shit. You know that. Besides, the tournament is not even over yet, that's also why I laughed.

You don't have to explain all this. I know. You don't have to tell me that South Americans play the most beautiful football and quality wise, I know. (Although Brasil has changed their beautiful style a bit now) I know South Americans play with the most flair and style, everyone knows that, that's why I love to see them play. So I agree that South Americans nations play attractive quality football, but unattractive football and football without flair, can be quality too you know, it's just a different style.

And exactly what you are saying is, why it's stupid to say that Europe has fallen behind, or the other way around too. No one has fallen behind, not europe, not south america.

As for Eurocup being harder then world cup, I dont know who said that, but I disagree.

[Bukefal]

i know this cup is going as it goes, but the real business starts after the groups. In a knockout match italy/ger are complicated opponents. England can always win one for the queen.:lmao
NED seems to be ok, spain got burned once question is if they get brasil or not, fra is shit I agree, portugal is weaker that many understand ...

The problem with european teams is that they are underrated opponents, not talent. In terms of talent they are very much ok.



Frankly, seeing alot of world cup play (since 1990) on 4 continents and different weather conditions with different generations i can say that knockout stage seems to ALWAYS have at least 2 european teams in the semis.

A bit of history:

In 1982 spain: italy, germany, france, poland
In 1986 mexico: germany, argentina, belgium, france
In 1990 Italy: italy, argentina, germany, ENGLAND!! (GOD BLESS!1)
In 1994 US : brazil, italy, sweden, bulgaria
In 1998 france: brazil, france, dutch, croatia
In 2002 japan&south korea: brazil, turkey, germany, south korea (insert ita/spa here for the most blatant cheating in the history of world cup)

So if you look carefully you almost have a converging series:
3 euro teams and one south american (bra or arg), which says one thing, we can say lol europe when it's all over. I agree many euro teams have a bad start but let's not underrated 'em.
In 2006 germany: germany, ita, france, portugal


I agree. That's a matter of European teams being good but also because there are more European nations participating than from other continents. averaged there are more contender teams in europe than there are in south america. ( doesnt mean one continent is better than the other).

But, underrated? I don't think European teams are underrated. Maybe teams like Serbia, Croatia or the smaller ones.

[sonic21]

South american teams are impressive right now. I do think Germany and Spain will be in the SF. It will not be as good as 4 years ago though (4 european teams in the SF).

[DAF86]

BTW I still think that at least two Euro teams will make it to the semis.

[sonic21]

Also, the finalists in 2002 and 2006 all had rough starts before improving.

[boston.balla]

I agree. That's a matter of European teams being good but also because there are more European nations participating than from other continents. averaged there are more contender teams in europe than there are in south america. ( doesnt mean one continent is better than the other).

But, underrated? I don't think European teams are underrated. Maybe teams like Serbia, Croatia or the smaller ones.

it's not abound numbers, you can put 10 teams from south america in place of asia teams and semis would be at least 2 euro teams. Always always always at least some of the big euro teams come to play (A game) and none non-euro teams except brasil and arg can pose a real challenge to them in these conditions.... so there is a huge probability that at least 2 teams in semis are euro ... it has NOTHING to do with how many teams participate.

[sonic21]

And please, PLEASE can somebody explain to me where this stupid idea that the Eurocup is "harder" than the WC comes from?

it is harder in the 1st round. You usually have 2-3 elite teams per group.
In 2008, you had Holland, Italy and France together.

[DAF86]

it's not abound numbers, you can put 10 teams from south america in place of asia teams and semis would be at least 2 euro teams. Always always always at least some of the big euro teams come to play (A game) and none non-euro teams except brasil and arg can pose a real challenge to them in these conditions.... so there is a huge probability that at least 2 teams in semis are euro ... it has NOTHING to do with how many teams participate.

Put just 4 or 5 Euro teams every WC and see if they would have as many WC as they have, or as many semifinal appearences as they have. Number of participants is the most important thing to consider at the time of analizing the chances of a continent to put more of their countries in the latter stages of tournaments.

[ElNono]

Not to mention that Europe gets to organize a World Cup every other time, while South/Central/North America, Asia and Africa have to basically fight for whatever is left.
Even with that home cooking advantage, and even with more teams in the competition, they've yet to win a WC outside of Europe.

[hater]

Don't take it so serious, it's not an attack on your South america or something. Its about the original post not being serious, so that's why I laughed.

sorry but my original post was serious. The Americas has overtaken Europe in soccer supremacy.(I am talking national teams) Just face it my man. It's a new world order.

England, Italy, Germany, France are just as good as a mediocre American team nowadays.

[hater]

Not to mention that Europe gets to organize a World Cup every other time, while South/Central/North America, Asia and Africa have to basically fight for whatever is left.
Even with that home cooking advantage, and even with more teams in the competition, they've yet to win a WC outside of Europe.

and you are not even mentioning the amount of $$$$ Germany/Italy/France/England put into their team compared to Paraguay/Chile/Uruguay

[DAF86]

it is harder in the 1st round. You usually have 2-3 elite teams per group.
In 2008, you had Holland, Italy and France together.

You also had groups like: Greece, Spain, Sweden and Russia (a cake walk for Spain) or Portugal, Switzlerland, Turkey and Czech Republic (none of them a dominant force), also Germany, Poland, Croatia and Austria (Germany vs three teams that didn't even make the WC)

It also depend on what you consider to be "elite", other than Spain and Holland no Euro team looks elite to me right now, they're all pretty even (but not in a good way).

[Muser]

sorry but my original post was serious. The Americas has overtaken Europe in soccer supremacy.(I am talking national teams) Just face it my man. It's a new world order.

England, Italy, Germany, France are just as good as a mediocre American team nowadays.


So you think the U.S.A are as good as Italy and Germany?

[Spurologist]

I don't know what you're laughing about, Europe has never been ahead of America (actually South America) in terms of football, Europe has the best leagues in clubs level but that's all ony because of the money which allows them to buy the best American players, but that doesn't mean that Europe > America in football it only means that Europe > America in terms of power and money.

But look at the WC count: Conmebol=9 / UEFA=9

The difference? Conmebol consists of 10 countries and puts only 4 or 5 in the WC. UEFA consists of 50 something countires and puts 13/14 every WC. Almost the triple and they're still tied.

Europe will keep winning WC and putting a lot of teams in the latter stages of tournaments simply because of quantity but in terms of quality America > Europe, hystorically has been this way.

Another aspect I'm seeing right now is that outside of Spain and Holland all European teams play the same way: generic, defenisive, uninspired, way too tactical and boring football. They have no flair, nothing to differentiate themselves. If it wasn't for the shirts I couldn't differentiate one from the other.

And please, PLEASE can somebody explain to me where this stupid idea that the Eurocup is "harder" than the WC comes from?

If you look at the history of the world cup, it's not even close. If you look at top 4 finishes in the world cup, South American teams have had at maximum 2 teams (mostly Brazil/Argentina). Meanwhile, there has been at least 2 top 4 finishes for Europeans team at EVERY world cup (except for opening 1930 world cup).

That might change in this world cup but my judgement is based highly on world cup results....and this is based by the quality of the league they have. There might be change that's happening but the Americas are still not in the same class as Europe

[DAF86]

If you look at the history of the world cup, it's not even close. If you look at top 4 finishes in the world cup, South American teams have had at maximum 2 teams (mostly Brazil/Argentina). Meanwhile, there has been at least 2 top 4 finishes for Europeans team at EVERY world cup (except for opening 1930 world cup).

That might change in this world cup but my judgement is based highly on world cup results....and this is based by the quality of the league they have. There might be change that's happening but the Americas are still not in the same class as Europe

I already explained both points in my post.

Europe has more final four participants 'cause they put 13/14 teams every WC, the triple of what any other continent puts and as ElNono said they play a WC in Europe every other tournament.

And about the level of the leagues, it's also pretty simple: they have money so they buy the best players from all around the globe (specially American ones), just look at the last champion of the UEFA Champions league: they have 4 Brazilians and 4 Argentinians in their starting line-up (8 out of 11), if players were forced to stay and play football on their birth countries America would have the best leagues by a big difference.

[resistanze]

If you look at the history of the world cup, it's not even close. If you look at top 4 finishes in the world cup, South American teams have had at maximum 2 teams (mostly Brazil/Argentina). Meanwhile, there has been at least 2 top 4 finishes for Europeans team at EVERY world cup (except for opening 1930 world cup).

That might change in this world cup but my judgement is based highly on world cup results....and this is based by the quality of the league they have. There might be change that's happening but the Americas are still not in the same class as Europe

At the same time 2 South American teams in the top 4 may be more impressive if you account for their slots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup_qualification#Qualification_spots_b y_continent

South American teams made up 1-4 out of 16 spots, 2.5-4.6 out of 24 spots, and 4-4.5 out of 32 spots.

European teams made up 7-12 out of 16 spots, 12-13 out of 24 spots, and 13-14 out of 32 spots.

Europe has done better overall and has the strongest leagues (made up of international players however) but they've also simply had much opportunities for success.

[ElNono]

So you think the U.S.A are as good as Italy and Germany?

Looks like they're every bit as good as England (:lol) and certainly better than France...

[Spurologist]

At the same time 2 South American teams in the top 4 may be more impressive if you account for their slots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup_qualification#Qualification_spots_b y_continent

South American teams made up 1-4 out of 16 spots, 2.5-4.6 out of 24 spots, and 4-4.5 out of 32 spots.

European teams made up 7-12 out of 16 spots, 12-13 out of 24 spots, and 13-14 out of 32 spots.

Europe has done better overall and has the strongest leagues (made up of international players however) but they've also simply had much opportunities for success.

The reason for that is FIFA feels that the strongest confederations deserves the most slots. It's really sad that teams like Croatia, Ireland, and Russia still couldn't qualify because of the strength of UEFA. Meanwhile CONMEBOL has teams like Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia that are on the outside looking in. In all fairness, Europeans teams I mentioned are far superior than the ones left out of CONMEBOL. England almost didn't qualify for the European champion tournament a couple years ago. Looking at them now, it's not quite as shocking. :lol This just shows the depth and quality of Europeans football.

The African continent was granted an additional slot this year because of Africa is the host continent. Yet, South Africa was exposed for its lack of quality. I mention this because the amount of slots that FIFA gives Africa is fair. Fair slots for CONMEBOL? Not sure..

I think FIFA should increase the amount of teams in the WC IMO. It's gone up slowly from 16 to 32......I want it at 40. I personally want to see more countries in the cup so players like Ryan Giggs and Abede Pele can be at the world's largest stage.

[ElNono]

The reason for that is FIFA feels that the strongest confederations deserves the most slots. It's really sad that teams like Croatia, Ireland, and Russia still couldn't qualify because of the strength of UEFA. Meanwhile CONMEBOL has teams like Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia that are on the outside looking in. In all fairness, Europeans teams I mentioned are far superior than the ones left out of CONMEBOL. England almost didn't qualify for the European champion tournament a couple years ago. Looking at them now, it's not quite as shocking. :lol This just shows the depth and quality of Europeans football.

WTF? Ecuador is a damn fine team, and I'm not so sure they're any different than Russia, Croatia and Ireland. Colombia, Peru and even Venezuela played pretty good in the qualifiers.

And please, for every Trinidad & Tobago that America has, Europe has their Faroe Islands...

[ElNono]

What yo do see, however, is that American teams play much better when the cup is outside of Europe...

[Spurologist]

WTF? Ecuador is a damn fine team, and I'm not so sure they're any different than Russia, Croatia and Ireland. Colombia, Peru and even Venezuela played pretty good in the qualifiers.

And please, for every Trinidad & Tobago that America has, Europe has their Faroe Islands...

the point is....do you believe that Americas > Europe?

There are many variables in the WC like Europe hosts almost every fucking time. Africa hosted this year and sadly, not even one team might advance. South America will host in 2014 Brazil since Argentina '78. We'll see.

[Muser]

Looks like they're every bit as good as England (:lol) and certainly better than France...

I wasn't debating those two teams.

[ElNono]

the point is....do you believe that Americas > Europe?

There are many variables in the WC like Europe hosts almost every fucking time. Africa hosted this year and sadly, not even one team might advance. South America will host in 2014 Brazil since Argentina '78. We'll see.

I don't think it's static. I think it fluctuates all the time. But if we were to draw a line now and look back, then I would say that South America specifically has done incredibly well, and overall I think better than Europe, all things considered.

[ElNono]

I wasn't debating those two teams.

Well, your question was kind of a strawman... It's like me asking if Slovenia is better than Brazil or Argentina...

But I digress. Anybody could potentially beat anybody. That's why they play the games.

[urunobili]

CROFL Europe

Brazil > Argentina = Uruguay > England > France > Spain > Holland > rest of the scrubs

the only thing they can claim is Germany = Italy > Argentina = Uruguay

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Uruguay hasn't = Argentina since about the 1950's :lol

[urunobili]

Uruguay hasn't = Argentina since about the 1950's :lol

lol 1987 defeat of the WC champs with Maradona and all that champ team on their own field on their own cup

lol defeating them again in 1989 yet again with Maradona and all the rest of the world champs

[MaNuMaNiAc]

lol 1987 defeat of the WC champs with Maradona and all that champ team on their own field on their own cup

lol defeating them again in 1989 yet again with Maradona and all the rest of the world champs

lol at not winning a WC match in about 50 years

[ElNono]

lol 1987 defeat of the WC champs with Maradona and all that champ team on their own field on their own cup

lol defeating them again in 1989 yet again with Maradona and all the rest of the world champs

LOL crying when we eliminated Brazil in 1990
LOL Bolatti
LOL fan of Ecuador for a day

[ElNono]

:lol

[urunobili]

lol at not winning a WC match in about 50 years

1990 says hello :tu

stat checked required for the mod :rolleyes

[MaNuMaNiAc]

1990 says hello :tu

stat checked required for the mod :rolleyes

yeah, my bad

LOL at winning 1 WC match since 1974 :lol

[urunobili]

yeah, my bad

LOL at winning 1 WC match since 1974 :lol

LOL Argentina choking since 1986 too... IIRC 2 Copa America's since just like Uruguay :rolleyes

[MaNuMaNiAc]

LOL Argentina choking since 1986 too... IIRC 2 Copa America's since just like Uruguay :rolleyes

and Uruguayan talking about choking :lmao

[urunobili]

and Uruguayan talking about choking :lmao

Please enlighten us... :wakeup

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Please enlighten us... :wakeup

Hey if I could find Uruguay's only WC victory in 36 years, you can find out what I'm referring to.

I.E. There's more than one

:lol

[ElNono]

Living vicariously throgh Brazil lately... :lol

[urunobili]

Hey if I could find Uruguay's only WC victory in 36 years, you can find out what I'm referring to.

I.E. There's more than one

:lol

lol Ayala
lol Zanetti
lol Veron
lol 2002
lol last America's cup

[urunobili]

Living vicariously throgh Brazil lately... :lol

:rolleyes

How do you think I got into Basketball so much?

Maybe your mind would recall my golden generation support since 2002 :rolleyes


lol butthurt for my comments on the average Uruguayan supporting Brazil
lol Cornudos for your support to Uruguay when you're out or not playing at all

[MaNuMaNiAc]

:lol you like to dish it out but can take it, huh?

LOL at getting trolled back and falling for it

[ElNono]

:rolleyes

How do you think I got into Basketball so much?

Maybe your mind would recall my golden generation support since 2002 :rolleyes

lol butthurt for my comments on the average Uruguayan supporting Brazil
lol Cornudos for your support to Uruguay when you're out or not playing at all

LOL... My comment was not pointed exclusively to Uruguay... :lol

[DAF86]

The reason for that is FIFA feels that the strongest confederations deserves the most slots. It's really sad that teams like Croatia, Ireland, and Russia still couldn't qualify because of the strength of UEFA. Meanwhile CONMEBOL has teams like Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia that are on the outside looking in. In all fairness, Europeans teams I mentioned are far superior than the ones left out of CONMEBOL. England almost didn't qualify for the European champion tournament a couple years ago. Looking at them now, it's not quite as shocking. :lol This just shows the depth and quality of Europeans football.

The African continent was granted an additional slot this year because of Africa is the host continent. Yet, South Africa was exposed for its lack of quality. I mention this because the amount of slots that FIFA gives Africa is fair. Fair slots for CONMEBOL? Not sure..

I think FIFA should increase the amount of teams in the WC IMO. It's gone up slowly from 16 to 32......I want it at 40. I personally want to see more countries in the cup so players like Ryan Giggs and Abede Pele can be at the world's largest stage.

You don't watch a lot of South American football, don't you? Ecuador would shit all over teams like South Africa, New Zeland, North Korea, and the lesser teams of Europe. So would Colombia and Venezuela right now.

And you think it's fair that Africa (a continent that, I think, hasn't put a single team in the semis yet) has 5 slots but you don't know if it's fair that South America (9 WC) has 5 (4 and a playoff slot actually)? Really? You know that all 5 Conmebol teams are in first place in their groups right? I think you're highly underating America's football.

[Spurologist]

You don't watch a lot of South American football, don't you? Ecuador would shit all over teams like South Africa, New Zeland, North Korea, and the lesser teams of Europe. So would Colombia and Venezuela right now.

And you think it's fair that Africa (a continent that, I think, hasn't put a single team in the semis yet) has 5 slots but you don't know if it's fair that South America (9 WC) has 5 (4 and a playoff slot actually)? Really? You know that all 5 Conmebol teams are in first place in their groups right? I think you're highly underating America's football.

Ok fair enough. I thought it was 5 and a playoff slot. Either way, the slotting should be looked at. New Zealand doesn't deserve a play in the world cup if qualified teams remain at 32. The AFC/Oceania region should be reduced to 4 or even 3. I've only watched a few CONMEBOL world cup qualifiers (mostly Brazil), so I might be underrating them. I know Ecuador almost qualified.

I'm just so disappointed in CFA teams. I was happy African power Cote D'avoire, Cameroon, and Nigeria made it....now they're all out. I hope Ghana can carry Africa. Based on performance, they deserve only 1 slot. Pathetic and depressing. FIFA should just up the number of teams to 40 so I can see Brazil beat Faroe Islands 20-0.

[ElNono]

African teams were a disappointment because they did good in U20 and U16 tournaments a while ago, so it seemed it would translate to this generation. But that's skewed because their physicality is mostly superior at that age. I honestly think they don't deserve any more spots than Oceania/Asia.

[diego]

IMO african teams biggest problem is trying to play defensively when their strengths are up front. a coach like bielsa would do wonders. also I wonder if the fact that their federations are "younger", and their countries' generally poor economic situation make it harder for them to prepare properly.

[diego]

Elnono, the same is true for argentina (re: U16, U20 and physical advantages). I really think their problems come more from coaching, poor organizational support, and also I think they play a little naive, they need more experience.

[ElNono]

Elnono, the same is true for argentina (re: U16, U20 and physical advantages). I really think their problems come more from coaching, poor organizational support, and also I think they play a little naive, they need more experience.

Uh? You can't find half of the African's birth certificates when they play U16 or U20... They're 6'12" and looks like they had two kids already. It's just that even with that advantage, they're still not as technically gifted.
And I agree about formation, development and support. It's a shame most of the money in this World Cup is going to go to FIFA and not to help these countries develop more.

[Spurologist]

African teams were a disappointment because they did good in U20 and U16 tournaments a while ago, so it seemed it would translate to this generation. But that's skewed because their physicality is mostly superior at that age. I honestly think they don't deserve any more spots than Oceania/Asia.

http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/uploads/image/WTF%281%29.jpg

[ElNono]

1 or 2 spots should be more than enough for Africa... was I not clear enough?

[Spurologist]

1 or 2 spots should be more than enough for Africa... was I not clear enough?

It's fair to say this because of the crash out of african teams but that sentiment will not resonant any where in the world

[ElNono]

It's fair to say this because of the crash out of african teams but that sentiment will not resonant any where in the world

They might have more players in Europe these days, but they're really not a region that has stood out as far as international soccer goes. They certainly peaked (and very overly hyped, imo) during the Roger Milla era, but except a couple of positive showings in the group stages, they really have done absolutely nothing to guarantee 4-5 spots in this tournament.
This World Cup merely reinforced what has been happening for a long while now. I would even argue that being the home teams would give them some sort of advantage to prove themselves, but ultimately they're just not that good.

[boston.balla]

They might have more players in Europe these days, but they're really not a region that has stood out as far as international soccer goes. They certainly peaked (and very overly hyped, imo) during the Roger Milla era, but except a couple of positive showings in the group stages, they really have done absolutely nothing to guarantee 4-5 spots in this tournament.
This World Cup merely reinforced what has been happening for a long while now. I would even argue that being the home teams would give them some sort of advantage to prove themselves, but ultimately they're just not that good.


1) these ######s don't know what team football is
2) they maybe have a few stars and good quality players but as an entire roster they can't compete with the big boys in such conditions unless 1.

[sonic21]

They might have more players in Europe these days, but they're really not a region that has stood out as far as international soccer goes. They certainly peaked (and very overly hyped, imo) during the Roger Milla era, but except a couple of positive showings in the group stages, they really have done absolutely nothing to guarantee 4-5 spots in this tournament.
This World Cup merely reinforced what has been happening for a long while now. I would even argue that being the home teams would give them some sort of advantage to prove themselves, but ultimately they're just not that good.

African team who advanced:
90: Cameroun QF
94: Nigeria
98: Nigeria
2002: Senegal QF
2006: Ghana.

That's why they have 5 spots, it's maybe too much but it's normal they have more spots than Asia or North America. Of course when you compare with South America, there's a problem (even though only Brazil and Argentina go far, with Chile in 1998).

[boston.balla]

African team who advanced:
90: Cameroun QF
94: Nigeria
98: Nigeria
2002: Senegal QF
2006: Ghana.

That's why they have 5 spots, it's maybe too much but it's normal they have more spots than Asia or North America. Of course when you compare with South America, there's a problem (even though only Brazil and Argentina go far, with Chile in 1998).

africa 2010 : -

[sonic21]

africa 2010 : -

Algeria

:stirpot:

[Spurologist]

africa 2010 : -

or Ghana...pppplllllleeeeeaaaasssseeeeeeeeee :lol

[ElNono]

African team who advanced:
90: Cameroun QF
94: Nigeria
98: Nigeria
2002: Senegal QF
2006: Ghana.

That's why they have 5 spots, it's maybe too much but it's normal they have more spots than Asia or North America. Of course when you compare with South America, there's a problem (even though only Brazil and Argentina go far, with Chile in 1998).

That Cameroon was the one I was referencing with Roger Milla. That's where the hype started. At the same time, Mexico hasn't missed a knockout stage in the last 5 world cups. There's also always one of Ecuador / Colombia / Paraguay / Chile / Uruguay that also sneaks in alongside Argentina and Brazil in the knockout round, and even team USA made it there quite often the last 5 world cups. Ultimately, as you say, I don't think giving more slots to Asia or North America makes much sense (Honduras' showing tells the tale), but it's ridiculous that a team like Uruguay had to play a playoff match against Costa Rica to sneak into this World Cup, and teams like Ecuador and Colombia had to stay home (same with the likes of Ireland or Croatia in Europe).

[urunobili]

Ultimately, as you say, I don't think giving more slots to Asia or North America makes much sense (Honduras' showing tells the tale), but it's ridiculous that a team like Uruguay had to play a playoff match against Costa Rica to sneak into this World Cup, and teams like Ecuador and Colombia had to stay home (same with the likes of Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Check Republic or Croatia in Europe).

Fixed

[resistanze]

That Cameroon was the one I was referencing with Roger Milla. That's where the hype started. At the same time, Mexico hasn't missed a knockout stage in the last 5 world cups. There's also always one of Ecuador / Colombia / Paraguay / Chile / Uruguay that also sneaks in alongside Argentina and Brazil in the knockout round, and even team USA made it there quite often the last 5 world cups. Ultimately, as you say, I don't think giving more slots to Asia or North America makes much sense (Honduras' showing tells the tale), but it's ridiculous that a team like Uruguay had to play a playoff match against Costa Rica to sneak into this World Cup, and teams like Ecuador and Colombia had to stay home (same with the likes of Ireland or Croatia in Europe).

How many Europeans out of the ~14 actually make serious noise? Seriously? Has Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Norway, etc. done much? Czech Republic was ranked #2 in the world last WC and couldn't even make the group. Frankly, I think it's absurd to feel bad for the teams from UEFA that could not advance. If Czech wanted to be in the WC, they should've beaten Slovenia and Slovakia. You have to remember CONMEBOL is composed of 10 teams. I don't think FIFA is going to let an entire associate qualify, although I would still support 2 extra slots for them due to their level of play.

CAF is composed of 55 teams, so 1-2 spots seems low (although they've sucked ass this WC) and is basically a step backwards. I think the WC should be an inclusive tournament, even if some regions lag behind others. We didn't cut the Eastern Conference playoffs spots in the NBA to 4 because they used to suck. 5 seems to be sufficient.

Essentially, there's only one WC champion. 3/10 teams out of CONMEBOL have won multiple times (impressive), and 4/53 teams from UEFA have won. I don't see why of all the regions, UEFA should receiver more slots. One solution would be to eventually expand to # of teams (by 8) with priority to CONMEBOL.

[ElNono]

CONMEBOL used to have 5 guaranteed spots, and it was fine that way. You would potentially leave out one good team, but overall you did get the cream of the crop there. But now between them and CONCACAF basically gave up one spot in order for Africa to get an extra spot. Which is entirely retarded.

[resistanze]

CONMEBOL used to have 5 guaranteed spots, and it was fine that way. You would potentially leave out one good team, but overall you did get the cream of the crop there. But now between them and CONCACAF basically gave up one spot in order for Africa to get an extra spot. Which is entirely retarded.

I don't think CONMEBOL ever had 5 guaranteed spots in the WC. They had 4 spots + champions (Brazil in 1994) = 5 Spots in 1998. So this reallocation to African teams never happened. At the end of the day, CONMEBOL c anhave 6 teams for next WC, as Brazil is the host.

[hater]

:lmao 3 groups done and only 1 team from Europe "squeaking" to the next round so far...

:lol :lol :lol

[Spurologist]

One solution would be to eventually expand to # of teams (by 8) with priority to CONMEBOL.

:tu

I agree. 40 teams and more exposure

[ElNono]

I don't think CONMEBOL ever had 5 guaranteed spots in the WC. They had 4 spots + champions (Brazil in 1994) = 5 Spots in 1998. So this reallocation to African teams never happened. At the end of the day, CONMEBOL c anhave 6 teams for next WC, as Brazil is the host.

They did in '98, when the cup expanded from 24 to 32 teams, as you clearly explain. Brazil, regardless of being the champion, still had to play the qualifiers even though it didn't matter for them (it did matter for the teams they beat, though. Coincidentally, 2002 was the last world cup where the champion qualified automatically). From there on out, CONMEBOL had to basically get the extra spot from an extra playoff match against OFC (2002, 2006) and CONCACAF (2010).

And the AFC expansion absolutely happened. Prior to '98, only 3 AFC teams qualified. CONMEBOL had 3 teams and 1 playoff for an extra spot. After the 24 to 32 change, AFC went on to have 5 spots and 1 playoff for up to 6 spots, while CONMEBOL ended up with 4 and 1 playoff.

[resistanze]

They did in '98, when the cup expanded from 24 to 32 teams, as you clearly explain. Brazil, regardless of being the champion, still had to play the qualifiers even though it didn't matter for them (it did matter for the teams they beat, though. Coincidentally, 2002 was the last world cup where the champion qualified automatically). From there on out, CONMEBOL had to basically get the extra spot from an extra playoff match against OFC (2002, 2006) and CONCACAF (2010).

And the AFC expansion absolutely happened. Prior to '98, only 3 AFC teams qualified. CONMEBOL had 3 teams and 1 playoff for an extra spot. After the 24 to 32 change, AFC went on to have 5 spots and 1 playoff for up to 6 spots, while CONMEBOL ended up with 4 and 1 playoff.
Actually, I misread your post. I'm aware the expansion occurred, I thought you posted that CONNMEBOL 's spots were taken to give for CAF for that expansion. That's my mistake.

But for me, that's doesn't change the fact we're still only talkng about a few spots for CAF and CONMEBOL (3-5). I still don't know why people think UEFA is so entitled to at least 14 spots, for the reasons I mentioned previously.

[ElNono]

Actually, I misread your post. I'm aware the expansion occurred, I thought you posted that CONNMEBOL 's spots were taken to give for CAF for that expansion. That's my mistake.

But for me, that's doesn't change the fact we're still only talkng about a few spots for CAF and CONMEBOL (3-5). I still don't know why people think UEFA is so entitled to at least 14 spots, for the reasons I mentioned previously.

Agreed :toast

[mountainballer]

sorry but my original post was serious. The Americas has overtaken Europe in soccer supremacy.(I am talking national teams) Just face it my man. It's a new world order.

England, Italy, Germany, France are just as good as a mediocre American team nowadays.

you realize that we did not yet finish the group phase? that most teams have only played 2 games and that the finalists have 5 more to go?
wait with this claim till at least the semifinals and see if there are in fact more American teams left than Euro teams.
of course, either Brazil or Argentina have the quality to win it all. no news there, they are always in the mix. talk about a new world oder when in fact Paraguay, Chile, Mexico, USA or Uruguay have made it to the Semi finals via beating top Euro teams.

[diego]

nobody is discussing the importance of markets in all this. south america is footy mad but outside of brazil there isnt an important market in terms of size or wealth. its no coincidence that asia is getting more spots now that they are in an economic upswing, or that europe has so many spots historically (always the most developed market).

Personally I think they should have more playoffs to secure the bottom spots, its the best way to insure that weak teams dont take the place of stronger ones. no doubt in my mind that ecuador is superior to new zealand, honduras, algeria and slovakia.

[hater]

:lol 4 groups done and only 2 eurotrash teams advance

[boston.balla]

:lol 4 groups done and only 2 eurotrash teams advance

son them eurotrash teams gonna be more by the end: spain, ned, portugal at least will make it, furthermore at least 3 euroteams make the quarters since eng-ger and por-spa and ned -(ita or svk)

As of now a semifinal place goes to uru|kor|usa|ghana (usa being the weakest team in terms of play to this moment) another semi goes to arg|mex|ger|eng (this is a crazy bracket alot of drama here) another bracket i say goes to por|spain (they gonna beat chile) and another bracket will be with ned|ita|bra|(chile|swi) (another insane bracket)

Therefore the semi would be uru v (bra|ned) and (arg|ger|eng) v (spa|por).

Interestingly uru get a very nice bracket to semis and they should take advantage of such stuff.

So I say atleast one semifinalist from euro with arg choking in one of the tough games it has in 1/8 and 1/4. If argies make it to the semis they get (por|spa) which is gonna be really ugly since in terms of talent they'd be underwhelmed. Bra having a really tough quarter. The portugal bracket will be interesting. Uru bracket has the least chance of finals.

Usa can't go through ghana, uru (i think) semis... too much luck needed against teams that clearly play better. And even if they get there in the semi they get a true contender.

Ofc alot of this stuff is speculative and some of it surely won't happen but if you bet on sports that's how you reason. Nobody can predict scores or shit like that, it's just statistics.

[boston.balla]

moreover, this happening is at least partially caused by alot if rare stuff:

some small (and lucky) svk, gre, slo euro teams eliminating strong sides like russia, croatia, turkey, czech.

some euro teams imploding: fra, serbia

sheer luck of non-euro teams: usa vs eng, nzn vs ita really come to mind

Now such stuff does not happen at each cup so it's not about a powershift but just circumstances and tough luck. Furthermore, even in these conditions the quality euro sides still pose a serious threat, so I won't be surprised if I see brazil or arg lose in quarters even if a root for a bra-arg finals

[The_Worlds_finest]

your wrong boston fan, ghana is in poor form and only goals they have scored came from PKs.

[urunobili]

lol Italy

[Cry Havoc]

As of now a semifinal place goes to uru|kor|usa|ghana (usa being the weakest team in terms of play to this moment)

:lmao

Yeah, nothing like scoring 4 (6 if the correct calls are made) goals in 3 games to win your group vs only scoring on penalties.

The US could very well make it out of their group and into the top 4. Your hating is humorous.

[DAF86]

lol Japan shitting all over Denmark.

[Phenomanul]

nobody is discussing the importance of markets in all this. south america is footy mad but outside of brazil there isnt an important market in terms of size or wealth. its no coincidence that asia is getting more spots now that they are in an economic upswing, or that europe has so many spots historically (always the most developed market).

Personally I think they should have more playoffs to secure the bottom spots, its the best way to insure that weak teams dont take the place of stronger ones. no doubt in my mind that ecuador is superior to new zealand, honduras, algeria and slovakia.

In all fairness to Honduras, their best player didn't play the opening game and basically limped his way onto the field in the second one... Their best defender couldn't even make it to South Africa due to a knee injury... They are better than their World Cup performance would indicate...

As for Costa Rica, who lost their two-leg intercontinental play-off against Uruguay 2-1 last November, they're still a quality team... they recently beat Switzerland on European soil prior to the start of the World Cup... and despite what the Uruguayans will say... gave them a scare... CONCACAF should have 3 guaranteed spots...

On another note... I'm intrigued by the possibility of a 40 team World Cup Field for future World Cups...

What would initially make sense would be to continue dividing the field into 8 groups; but instead of 4 teams per group, each group would now field 5 teams. Logistically, the amount of matches per group would jump to 10 games instead of 6. The knockout phase is where it would get interesting... One could structure the opening knockout round to field the best 32 teams by adding an additional round... OR... continue with the current structure of 16 teams and end up picking only the top two teams per group. Doing the latter might mean that the 4th game of group play could lend itself to under-the-table deals. Doing the former would mean that only one team per group would be eliminated in the first round.

In the first format a total of 112 matches would have to be played out to determine the World Champion (and the 3rd place team). The second format would require 96 matches. By comparison, the current format requires a total of 64 matches... In the first format the winning team would have played a total of 9 matches. The second format 8 matches. The current format requires 7.

[ElNono]

And another African team bites the dust.

Finishes last in the group, with not even a single point...

[hater]

:lmao 6 groups done and only 4 eurotrash teams in....

:lol

[DAF86]

See, this is what I'm talking about when I said that you shouldn't care about how many European teams advance to the latter rounds compared to the other Continents 'cause the difference of slots it's just too big, I think we can all agree that European teams have made a terrible first round and South Americans a perfect one, and yet UEFA has 6 teams in the second round and Conmebol 5.

[Zak]

LOL premature ejaculation thread

[urunobili]

wow can't believe we're the continent's only hope if Paraguay doesn't make it :wow

[ffadicted]

wow can't believe we're the continent's only hope if Paraguay doesn't make it :wow

lol I know what a meltdown. I'm over the incident yesterday, fucking make it to the final at least!

[Muser]

rofl.

[Bukefal]

Again, Ive said it yesterday and this can be applied to this situation too; this is another example of why people shouldnt talk so much shit before they know the results. Anything is possible :toast

[Dinamita]

Uruguay + paraguay >> argentina + brasil

[sonic21]

lol

[DAF86]

This doesn't change the fact that European football is overrated, the Eurocup isn't harder than the WC and they aren't head and shoulders above the rest of the world, they're in the same level as South America. It's obvious that Europe will get a lot more teams in the quarter, semis, etc., they get the triple of slots than any other region. I even said on this thread that Europe would get at least two teams on the semis.

[Dinamita]

LOL 4-0
LOL Same Level

[sefant77]

This doesn't change the fact that European football is overrated, the Eurocup isn't harder than the WC and they aren't head and shoulders above the rest of the world, they're in the same level as South America. It's obvious that Europe will get a lot more teams in the quarter, semis, etc., they get the triple of slots than any other region. I even said on this thread that Europe would get at least two teams on the semis.

No one say the EC is harder. Everyone say the groupstage is harder which is true.

[DAF86]

No one say the EC is harder. Everyone say the groupstage is harder which is true.

Yes they do, and explain to me how the group stage is harder when a team like Germany or other powerhouse can be draw in the same group with three teams that didn't even make the WC.

[Spurologist]

LMAO South America

[IronMexican]

>4-0
>Claim same level


wtfamireading.jpg

[Bukefal]

This doesn't change the fact that European football is overrated, the Eurocup isn't harder than the WC and they aren't head and shoulders above the rest of the world, they're in the same level as South America. It's obvious that Europe will get a lot more teams in the quarter, semis, etc., they get the triple of slots than any other region. I even said on this thread that Europe would get at least two teams on the semis.

Of course, that's true and I agree (except for the overrated thing) That's also not the problem. We Europeans know that too. But it's just stupid these threads to ridicule teams before people know the results. Premature ejaculation, like many around here say.

[DAF86]

>4-0
>Claim same level


wtfamireading.jpg

Are you serious or trolling?

If you're serious, my response is that in 90 minutes anything can happen, Germany outplayed us today and won fair and square, but there isn't a 4 goals difference between these two teams, in fact a couple of months ago Argentina beat this same German team plus Ballack in Germany. They just played better than us today, but it doesn't mean that in the next game Argentina can't beat Germany, In football a simple play changes a game completely and a lot of times (a lot more than in any other sport) the best team ends up losing (I'm obviously not talking about this Argentina-Germany match).

Besides I'm talking in general, does Brazil stop beign the best team ever because they lost yesterday to Holland? Football is pretty even right now, there are a bunch of teams that can beat anybody in any given day.

[Dinamita]

LOL Ballack
LOL Brasil
LOL Argentina

[Spurologist]

Lmao italy

[TheRealCB]

still, you gotta admit Europe has fallen behind the Americas in soccer.

This,my friends,is a mothafucking GENIUS :lmao:lmao:lmao

[Brazil]

lol

[Muser]

Nice bump before Sundays game.

[DAF86]

lol 50 vs 10
lol 10 vs 9
lol almost a WC per country
lol SA Team that almost didn't even qualify for the WC making the semis
lol Distefano
lol Pele
lol Maradona
lol Islas Feroe
lol Andorra
lol England
lol France
lol Italy

[ffadicted]

lol 50 vs 10
lol 10 vs 9
lol almost a WC per country
lol SA Team that almost didn't even qualify for the WC making the semis
lol Distefano
lol Pele
lol Maradona
lol Islas Feroe
lol Andorra
lol England
lol France
lol Italy

whoa bro, you kinda went off on a tangent there lol

[velik_m]

lol 50 vs 10
lol 10 vs 9
lol almost a WC per country
lol SA Team that almost didn't even qualify for the WC making the semis
lol Distefano
lol Pele
lol Maradona
lol Islas Feroe
lol Andorra
lol England
lol France
lol Italy

In last 20 years the following Southamerican teams made top 4 (semifinals):
Brazil
Uruguay

One asian team (South Korea) and no other non european team.

The following european teams have made top 4 in the last 20 years:
Italy
Germany
France
Portugal
Spain
Netherlands
Turkey
Croatia
Sweden
Bolgaria

Interesting fact: If Germany beats Uruguay today it means no European team lost to non-european team in direct eliminations on this WC.

[Muser]

In last 20 years the following Southamerican teams made top 4 (semifinals):
Brazil
Uruguay

One asian team (South Korea) and no other non european team.

The following european teams have made top 4 in the last 20 years:
Italy
Germany
France
Portugal
Spain
Netherlands
Turkey
Croatia
Sweden
Bolgaria

Interesting fact: If Germany beats Uruguay today it means no European team lost to non-european team in direct eliminations on this WC.

England made the Semis in 1990.

[diego]

and argentina made the finals in 90 as well.

semis doesnt say much to me, a lot of times its just a matter of a lucky draw. so lets look at finalists:

90 argentina
94 brazil (champ)
98 brazil
02 brazil (champ)
06 -
10 -

and for europe
90 germany (champs)
94 Italy
98 france (champs)
02 germany
06 france italy (champs)
10 spain holland (one will be champ)

so in the past 20 years velik_m artbitrarily chose, 6 out of 50 european teams made the finals (66% of possible finalists, 12% of total european teams, and 10% of qualified european teams for the 6 WC in this period)

for south america, 2 of 10 teams made the finals (33% of possible finalists, 20% of total south american teams, and 15% of qualified SA teams for the 6 WC in this period).

Even with two consecutive all european finals, south america still had better overall representation than europe (20% vs 12%), and better overall performance (15% vs 10%). Hmm, maybe the reason they have twice the possible finalists, is because they send more than twice the number of teams?

[DAF86]

lol 4 of the top 8 beign from South America
lol 4 out of 10 SA countries
lol 40%
lol South America beign only Brazil and Argentina
lol arguing by making things up

[velik_m]

England made the Semis in 1990.


and argentina made the finals in 90 as well.

I hate to break it to both of you, but that was more than 20 years ago...

Oh and...

exlBHTyB1R0

:downspin:

[Bukefal]

exlBHTyB1R0

:downspin:

aaah some sweet memories. That was a great goal, great moment and the commentator jack van gelder going crazy :lol

[DAF86]

lol random youtube videos

[velik_m]

lol random youtube videos

I see it still hurts... :king

[DAF86]

I see it still hurts... :king

I wouldn't have said anything if it did.

[velik_m]

I wouldn't have said anything if it did.

Because people generally respond only to things they don't care about...

(and yes i care :p:)

[DAF86]

Because people generally respond only to things they don't care about...

(and yes i care :p:)

When something really gets to me I answer seriously, I don't make "lol" sentences.

[velik_m]

When something really gets to me I answer seriously, I don't make "lol" sentences.

lol

[DAF86]

lol Slovenia BTW.

[Muser]

I hate to break it to both of you, but that was more than 20 years ago...

Oh and...

exlBHTyB1R0

:downspin:

1990 - 2010 is exactly 20 years.