Argentina win the Finalissima

[Canyonero]

New world champions in my books

[ElNono]

South America bullying the Euro champs they're supposed to bully at their home in Europe.

Nothing new here, FIFA only giving South America 4-5 berths in the World Cup to make it competitive, tbh...

[DAF86]

Easier game than any in Copa America or Conmebol qualifiers. :lol

[ElNono]

1532109194526171143

[FrostKing]

Congrats, Argentina will be expected to duplicate at the World Cup


Odd scheduling. Argentina plays Estonia in a friendly on the 4th then no matches until September

Italy has 4 matches in the next 13 days :lol
Germany twice
Hungary
England

[Brazil]

:lol Argentina bragging about a team that has not been able to qualify for the WC and has been defeated by North Macedonia at home

[DAF86]

:lol Argentina bragging about a team that has not been able to qualify for the WC and has been defeated by North Macedonia at home

A team that didn't qualify to the WC winning the European cup. :lol

[Brazil]

A team that didn't qualify to the WC winning the European cup. :lol

just shows the level of euro teams... even an euro cup winner can fail the qualifiers which would never ever happen to Brazil and Argentina :lmao those two teams would qualify with sub 17 team all day long in the pendejos continent :lol

[DAF86]

just shows the level of euro teams... even an euro cup winner can fail the qualifiers which would never ever happen to Brazil and Argentina :lmao those two teams would qualify with sub 17 team all day long in the pendejos continent :lol

Yeah, we just saw the level of the European Champion. :lol

The idea of Brazil or Argentina choking a WC qualification vs Switzerland or Macedonia. :lmao

[lefty]

A team that didn't qualify to the WC winning the European cup. :lol

That goes to show Europe is tougher than South America
Argentina woukd have been slaughtered in the European qualifiers tbh….

[diego]

I don't put any special importance on yesterday's game, but the conclusion that European qualifying is harder because Italy tied half their games and choked the playoff is retarded.

Bottom line is that European group system makes it so most good teams get an easy group, there are usually no more than two groups in a given Qualy that might have two good teams in it and then they still have the playoff games to recover.

Argentina has struggled in qualifiers before the difference is we haven't choked the playoff spot

In south America you can't get a good group, the only advantage is that since there are more games there is more margin for slumps/injuries

A better question is how would Italy have fared without south American players on their team tbh

[Brazil]

Yeah, we just saw the level of the European Champion. :lol

The idea of Brazil or Argentina choking a WC qualification vs Switzerland or Macedonia. :lmao

also why we love the :lol Italy around here tbh

[Brazil]

In south America you can't get a good group, the only advantage is that since there are more games there is more margin for slumps/injuries




:lol

South America has a single group of 10 with 4/5 qualified so that's 40% qualified and a chance for 50%. I mean even :lol Italy in those conditions would qualify every year tbh so yeah that's a whole good group.
In Europe you have 55 teams, only 10 qualified directly i.e 18% 13 in total i.e 24%. Over those 55 teams you have like 10 to 12 teams worst than Bolivia and Venezuela, that's still 45 teams. Objective being to get the 1st place there is no real good group. All groups have one or 2 teams that in a good moment can give headache to a big nation. Look at what happened to Italy and even Portugal (who finished second to Serbia), Czech Republic, Sweden

Thinking that South America qualifiers is harder is retarded

[diego]

Twisting numbers is easy, you have 160% more spots in Europe for 30% more people.

You think there are 33 teams in Europe on par with Colombia, Chile, and Paraguay, sorry I don't see them... If Italy can't beat Bulgaria, north Ireland and Macedonia what makes you think they could beat Bolivia or Venezuela? Czech republic couldnt pass Wales for 2nd place, still went to playoff and lost to Sweden who lost to Poland, all middling teams that would likely lose to colombia or Chile. Portugal choked their group to Serbia, they were the seeded team and failed to beat Serbia twice

I'm all for more intercontinental playoffs, but with the push to increase the number of teams we'll likely see the opposite

[DAF86]

:lol

South America has a single group of 10 with 4/5 qualified so that's 40% qualified and a chance for 50%. I mean even :lol Italy in those conditions would qualify every year tbh so yeah that's a whole good group.
In Europe you have 55 teams, only 10 qualified directly i.e 18% 13 in total i.e 24%. Over those 55 teams you have like 10 to 12 teams worst than Bolivia and Venezuela, that's still 45 teams. Objective being to get the 1st place there is no real good group. All groups have one or 2 teams that in a good moment can give headache to a big nation. Look at what happened to Italy and even Portugal (who finished second to Serbia), Czech Republic, Sweden

Thinking that South America qualifiers is harder is retarded

Dude, objectively speaking the SA qualifiers are a lot harder than the Europen ones.

1) you don't get to play amateur NT's like Andorra, Luxemburg, etc.
2) the pitch and weather conditions are all standarized. You don't get no 4000 meters high games, or 45 degrees games.
3) You don't have to travel 11K kms to play the games.
4) you don't have crazy (almost criminal) fans giving the home team a clear advantage.

All these things come into play. Do you really think it would be a walk in the park for Mbappe to play in La Paz? :lol

So no, the European qualifiers aren't even close to being harder than the South American ones. What the European qualifiers have is a shitty ass format where a team could be eliminated only by losing a few games. But still, you have to choke pretty hard not to get in because 90% of the teams you play are built with farmers and McDonalds employees.

[ElNono]

:lol

Thinking that South America qualifiers is harder is retarded

lmao, SA qualifiers are way harder.

You all have nice, pristine pitches over there. Go play in the altitude in Bolivia, pitch is a mess and you can't even breathe after the first half.

Paraguay, Venezuela, Peru, you only get the pitch watered if it rained last week. In Colombia you have the cartels.

Not to mention that SA has less teams, but also way less shitty teams. Maybe 2-3 out of the 10 teams are crappy, the rest are all competitive.

Over there you have 55 teams, and over 20 that just plain suck. (look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(UEFA), from Montenegro down, they're all terrible).

[Brazil]

Dude, objectively speaking the SA qualifiers are a lot harder than the Europen ones.

1) you don't get to play amateur NT's like Andorra, Luxemburg, etc.
2) the pitch and weather conditions are all standarized. You don't get no 4000 meters high games, or 45 degrees games.
3) You don't have to travel 11K kms to play the games.
4) you don't have crazy (almost criminal) fans giving the home team a clear advantage.

All these things come into play. Do you really think it would be a walk in the park for Mbappe to play in La Paz? :lol

So no, the European qualifiers aren't even close to being harder than the South American ones. What the European qualifiers have is a shitty ass format where a team could be eliminated only by losing a few games. But still, you have to choke pretty hard not to get in because 90% of the teams you play are built with farmers and McDonalds employees.


lmao, SA qualifiers are way harder.

You all have nice, pristine pitches over there. Go play in the altitude in Bolivia, pitch is a mess and you can't even breathe after the first half.

Paraguay, Venezuela, Peru, you only get the pitch watered if it rained last week. In Colombia you have the cartels.

Not to mention that SA has less teams, but also way less shitty teams. Maybe 2-3 out of the 10 teams are crappy, the rest are all competitive.

Over there you have 55 teams, and over 20 that just plain suck. (look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(UEFA), from Montenegro down, they're all terrible).

so your arguments are it's harder because physically more demanding ? :lmao oh ok

the question here is not about europeans have better condition to play.. sorry if SA is an ass poor continent with ass poor instalations. Questions is: is it harder to qualify ? :cry because altitude :cry because pitches and :cry we don't have swimming pools :cry

Even considering you have 20 teams that suck that's 13 qualified over 35 i.e 37% vs. 50% for SA. Besides in those 20 you mentioned there at least 8 better than fucking Ecuador, Venezuela and even Bolivia.. :cry but but altitude :cry

[DAF86]

so your arguments are it's harder because physically more demanding ? :lmao oh ok

the question here is not about europeans have better condition to play.. sorry if SA is an ass poor continent with ass poor instalations. Questions is: is it harder to qualify ? :cry because altitude :cry because pitches and :cry we don't have swimming pools :cry

Even considering you have 20 teams that suck that's 13 qualified over 35 i.e 37% vs. 50% for SA. Besides in those 20 you mentioned there at least 8 better than fucking Ecuador, Venezuela and even Bolivia.. :cry but but altitude :cry

Yeah, it's way harder to qualify in SA. NTs like Chile and Colombia would have qualified to the WC if they had to play in a group with teams like Moldova, Faroe Islands, Austria, Israel and Scotland.

[Brazil]

Yeah, it's way harder to qualify in SA. NTs like Chile and Colombia would have qualified to the WC if they had to play in a group with teams like Moldova, Faroe Islands, Austria, Israel and Scotland.

:lmao

oh really ? You took the only group where both would have a shot.. one out of 10, in 10% of the case Colombia and Chile would qualify in Europe... thats cute and Denmark is not an easy one to deal with :lol not sure Colombia or Chile are way better than Denmark.

I wish I could smoke the fine high quality weed you are on :lol Being first on a group of 5 or 6 is much harder than being top 4 out of 10. You have 10/12 amateur teams in Europe playing the qualifiers out of 55 vs. 3 out of 10 in SA. Besides The more games you play the less chance of choke.

Argentina and Brazil would qualify with sub 17 in this group

[DAF86]

:lmao

oh really ? You took the only group where both would have a shot.. one out of 10, in 10% of the case Colombia and Chile would qualify in Europe... thats cute and Denmark is not an easy one to deal with :lol not sure Colombia or Chile are way better than Denmark.

I wish I could smoke the fine high quality weed you are on :lol Being first on a group of 5 or 6 is much harder than being top 4 out of 10. You have 10/12 amateur teams in Europe playing the qualifiers out of 55 vs. 3 out of 10 in SA. Besides The more games you play the less chance of choke.

Argentina and Brazil would qualify with sub 17 in this group

"The only group"? :lol

Most of the groups are like that. I can keep listing if you want:

-Gibraltar, Latvia, Montenegro, Norway, Turkey

-San Marino, Andorra, Hungry, Albania, Poland

-Liechtestein, Iceland, Armenia, Romania, North Macedonia

And there are more, I'm just tired of listing. Basically every group is a cakewalk except for one, maaaaybe two.

[Brazil]

"The only group"? :lol

Most of the groups are like that. I can keep listing if you want:

-Gibraltar, Latvia, Montenegro, Norway, Turkey

-San Marino, Andorra, Hungry, Albania, Poland

-Liechtestein, Iceland, Armenia, Romania, North Macedonia

And there are more, I'm just tired of listing. Basically every group is a cakewalk except for one, maaaaybe two.

you are not making any sense, just one is qualified... Colombia or Chile would end up in a group with France or Germany or Spain etc... what would be their odds ? smh... only one group would be manageable for SA teams outside Arg and Brazil and that's the Denmark. The other nine they don't pass

[DAF86]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUPg7XfWYAYu_C3?format=jpg&name=large

":cry But Conmebol is so easy :cry"

[DAF86]

you are not making any sense, just one is qualified... Colombia or Chile would end up in a group with France or Germany or Spain etc... what would be their odds ? smh... only one group would be manageable for SA teams outside Arg and Brazil and that's the Denmark. The other nine they don't pass

One direct spot and a playoffs chance. Chile and Colombia would get, at least, on of those. That's better than what they got in SA. :lol

[DAF86]

Germany couldn't beat Italy's subs. :lol

[ElNono]

so your arguments are it's harder because physically more demanding ? :lmao oh ok

the question here is not about europeans have better condition to play.. sorry if SA is an ass poor continent with ass poor instalations. Questions is: is it harder to qualify ? :cry because altitude :cry because pitches and :cry we don't have swimming pools :cry

Even considering you have 20 teams that suck that's 13 qualified over 35 i.e 37% vs. 50% for SA. Besides in those 20 you mentioned there at least 8 better than fucking Ecuador, Venezuela and even Bolivia.. :cry but but altitude :cry

It's an objective assessment. FIFA isn't throwing money for new stadiums nor mandating teams don't play in the altitude, etc, so effectively that puts an extra layer of difficulty that Euro teams simply do not face and know nothing about.

The odds are actually much better for European top teams, because they play in groups, meaning it's very difficult that a top team will face another top team during qualification. There's no such thing in SA, everybody plays against everybody, adding one more layer of difficulty.

Because most groups are built with 2, sometimes 3 shitty teams, it means the odds for any good Euro team is 50% or better.

[ElNono]

you are not making any sense, just one is qualified... Colombia or Chile would end up in a group with France or Germany or Spain etc... what would be their odds ? smh... only one group would be manageable for SA teams outside Arg and Brazil and that's the Denmark. The other nine they don't pass


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7PXqnFnUj4

This cucking was in France too, and only a few years ago...

[Canyonero]

Meanwhile Argentina owning another Euro powerhouse as we speak

[DAF86]

European NT play is on another level, tbh.

[ElNono]

The shit teams in Europe are just too shitty. And I bet Estonia is waaaay better than San Marin:lol

[Bynumite]

Stat-padding in a friendly against the 110th NT in FIFA rankings is peak midget tbh :lol

[lefty]

Stat-padding in a friendly against the 110th NT in FIFA rankings is peak midget tbh :lol

No lies detected

[ElNono]

Stat-padding in a friendly against the 110th NT in FIFA rankings is peak midget tbh :lol


No lies detected

Haters gonna hate, tbh

[Brazil]

:lol Argies

more difficult to finish top 4 on a group of 10 than finish 1st in a group of 5 or 6 :lmao

that's some south american logic right there... not surprising SA has only 1 fields medal but various nobel prizes in literature

[Brazil]

Stat-padding in a friendly against the 110th NT in FIFA rankings is peak midget tbh :lol

reading those guys, you would believe that South America won the last 4 WCs or something... :lol

[Brazil]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7PXqnFnUj4

This cucking was in France too, and only a few years ago...

and we can conclude from this game that Colombia > France and Colombia would qualify 1st in France Group

:lmao

[ElNono]

:lol Argies

more difficult to finish top 4 on a group of 10 than finish 1st in a group of 5 or 6 :lmao

that's some south american logic right there... not surprising SA has only 1 fields medal but various nobel prizes in literature

:lol Group of 5-6 half of which are countries like San Marin:lol or Est:lolnia...

:lol Heads of the groups never play against each other

:lol Pretending only 10 teams qualify (10 groups), when you have 13 spots

:lol "logic"

[ElNono]

and we can conclude from this game that Colombia > France and Colombia would qualify 1st in France Group

:lmao

We can conclude a team like Colombia isn't scared to play against France in Europe, or anywhere else. It would be competitive.

Can you say the same about San Marin:lol playing any South American team? Of course not :lol

[Brazil]

:lol Group of 5-6 half of which are countries like San Marin:lol or Est:lolnia...

:lol Heads of the groups never play against each other

:lol Pretending only 10 teams qualify (10 groups), when you have 13 spots

:lol "logic"

oh look a fields medalist in action

:lol pretending I haven't addressed that already 12 hairdressers teams over 55 teams meanwhile group of 10 with Venezuela and Ecuador

:lol pretending that playing 20 games is not better for big nation vs. 10 or 12

:lol pretending I haven't addressed that already, 13 out of 55 or even 43 removing the hairdresser still less than 4 out of 10. Also for SA it can be 5 out of 10 and not just 4.

:lol fields medal.. I have checked, no Argentinean tbh :cry

[Brazil]

We can conclude a team like Colombia isn't scared to play against France in Europe, or anywhere else. It would be competitive.

Can you say the same about San Marin:lol playing any South American team? Of course not :lol

:lol cherry picking
:lol Colombia would qualify 1st in France group
:lol comparing Colombia with San Marino

[diego]

oh look a fields medalist in action

:lol pretending I haven't addressed that already 12 hairdressers teams over 55 teams meanwhile group of 10 with Venezuela and Ecuador

:lol pretending that playing 20 games is not better for big nation vs. 10 or 12

:lol pretending I haven't addressed that already, 13 out of 55 or even 43 removing the hairdresser still less than 4 out of 10. Also for SA it can be 5 out of 10 and not just 4.

:lol fields medal.. I have checked, no Argentinean tbh :cry

This is your problem here, you think Venezuela and Ecuador are comparable to the weak teams in Europe when they are several levels better.

The 10 seeded teams in Europe absolutely have easy path to WC, I haven't got the exact number but I'm certain they qualify over 90% of the time.

[pgardn]

Do you guys think this inequality in choosing teams is mainly due to TV/streaming revenue.
Its always been clear the US and Mexico, two very high population countries are given the easiest way in.
Europe is very densely populated, so it might be the same deal? Europeans will watch all the European teams.

Or its just the powers that be, FIFA and or UEFA, are mainly European run operations?

Or I am way off on all counts?

[DAF86]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUgp5_HUcAAnQ7y?format=jpg&name=small

Just another stat that ilustrates the competition usually faced in each confederation.

[DAF86]

reading those guys, you would believe that South America won the last 4 WCs or something... :lol

No, it's just that folks talk of European football as if it were on another level and the truth is that it just isn't.

Same with the qualifiers. It isn't harder on Europe, it's just that it has a shitty ass format and you could be left out losing just one or two games. But that doesn't mean they are harder. In South America you know that if you aren't at your best, you can lose any game. In Europe you cruise through most of the games vs amateur level teams and only play two or three competitive games per group.

About the World Cup, it will most likely go to Europe again. The odds will always favour them: it's Argentina and Brazil vs 6 or 7 countries from Europe that can win it, but that's a matter of quantity, not about the quality of play being on another level.

[ElNono]

oh look a fields medalist in action

:lol pretending I haven't addressed that already 12 hairdressers teams over 55 teams meanwhile group of 10 with Venezuela and Ecuador

:lol pretending that playing 20 games is not better for big nation vs. 10 or 12

:lol pretending I haven't addressed that already, 13 out of 55 or even 43 removing the hairdresser still less than 4 out of 10. Also for SA it can be 5 out of 10 and not just 4.

:lol fields medal.. I have checked, no Argentinean tbh :cry

Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia as shitty as they look, run circles around the Estonia, San Marino, Gibraltar (lol), Moldova, etc. Heck Ecuador not only qualified for this World Cup, they're ranked #12 worldwide by FIFA. :lol

This is the problem with this argument, the shitty teams in Europe are substantially shittier.

Also, that you 'have addressed' the total count doesn't actually address the fact that the group setting means top teams never play against each-other to qualify, and that does skew the odds each team actually has to qualify.

Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, they all have to play against each other, potentially drop points, give other teams a chance to get points and qualify. The whole 'head of the group' setting basically makes it easy for top teams to have substantially better odds to make it. There's no such thing in SA.

[ElNono]

:lol cherry picking
:lol Colombia would qualify 1st in France group
:lol comparing Colombia with San Marino

:lol You didn't answer the question.

And it's you that's trying to drive down the lower-tier of SA teams to justify Europe is harder (trying to prop up San Marin:lol would be ridiculous).

[ElNono]

Also, Colombia or Chile are great examples, because they're teams that are competitive with any nation in Europe, yet couldn't survive the SA qualifiers. Ecuador made it, Peru will play against Australia for a spot. Chile was only 4 points behind.

Another tidbit: Venezuela is the only team that never qualified to a World Cup in South America. All the other teams have multiple appearances (at least 3+) in various World Cups.

In UEFA all these teams never been there: Finland, North Macedonia, Albania, Luxembourg, Georgia, Estonia, Montenegro, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kosovo, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Faroe Islands, Latvia, Cyprus, Andorra, Moldova, Gibraltar, Malta, San Marino and Liechtenstein.

That's 22 out of 55 teams which are absolute trash, and I'm skipping over Iceland, Slovakia, Bosnia and Israel that only made it once, otherwise we're talking just about half of the teams there.

Also lol @ only the first one in the group qualifies. Second teams go to a playoff, and even some third place teams can qualify via the Nation's League.

[Phenomanul]

The South American teams have a tougher qualification without a doubt… most of their unqualified teams would still be able to best some of the qualified teams from Europe.

[Phenomanul]

Argentina and Brazil are favorites to win the 2022 WC IMHO.

[Bynumite]

.

[Brazil]

This is your problem here, you think Venezuela and Ecuador are comparable to the weak teams in Europe when they are several levels better.

The 10 seeded teams in Europe absolutely have easy path to WC, I haven't got the exact number but I'm certain they qualify over 90% of the time.

:lol the % of the 10 seeded is still lower than Argentina and Brazil. Both have never failed to qualify :lol but it is still certainly because of their competencies :cry

[Brazil]

The odds will always favour them: it's Argentina and Brazil vs 6 or 7 countries from Europe that can win it, but that's a matter of quantity, not about the quality of play being on another level.

:lol that's the point.
Argentina won 2 WC same as France, 1 one less that west Germany, 2 less than Italy. Italy size is not twice the size of Argentina
Brazil won 5 with twice the size of Germany 4

wtf is that argument of quantity

So qualifier in Europe is easier but Arg and Brazil never lost a qualifier :lol ok

[Brazil]

Also lol @ only the first one in the group qualifies. Second teams go to a playoff, and even some third place teams can qualify via the Nation's League.

:lol there is no way this discussion can be done without everybody not reading what has been posted tbh... I have already addressed that, 13 teams in Europe qualify on a pool of 55 vs 4 on a pool of 10. We remove the clearly worst teams than Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, that's still lower off than 40%.

Now let's go on your boat considering that the 22 teams you listed are worst than Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.. that's 13 over 33, 40% still worst than South America that is with 40% and a chance at 50%. :lol

Then one can and should argue that among those 22 some are better than Venezuela for instance.

[lefty]

Plus both teams cheated , respectively in 78 and 98 tbh

[pgardn]

:lol there is no way this discussion can be done without everybody not reading what has been posted tbh... I have already addressed that, 13 teams in Europe qualify on a pool of 55 vs 4 on a pool of 10. We remove the clearly worst teams than Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, that's still lower off than 40%.

Now let's go on your boat considering that the 22 teams you listed are worst than Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.. that's 13 over 33, 40% still worst than South America that is with 40% and a chance at 50%. :lol

Then one can and should argue that among those 22 some are better than Venezuela for instance.

Its gotta be advertising money on TV.
Concacaf also gets 4 just to try and make sure the US and Mexico get in.
South America will definitely view, but if you have an add for some fancy time piece that goes on a wrist who is most likely to buy...
You own a company advertising fancy stuff, you want your $ well spent.

[DAF86]

:lol that's the point.
Argentina won 2 WC same as France, 1 one less that west Germany, 2 less than Italy. Italy size is not twice the size of Argentina
Brazil won 5 with twice the size of Germany 4

wtf is that argument of quantity

So qualifier in Europe is easier but Arg and Brazil never lost a qualifier :lol ok

Argentina did lose a qualifier once. Brazil never missed the WC, but they wouldn't miss the WC on Europe either. Just like Germany never did.

And yes, the qualifiers in Europe are way easier. You can go an entire qualifier without facing a quality opponent. A "tough" group in an Euro qualifier consists of one good opponent, one medium, and a bunch of amateur level ones.

[Brazil]

Argentina did lose a qualifier once. Brazil never missed the WC, but they wouldn't miss the WC on Europe either. Just like Germany never did.

forgot about dat one, I read it was a one month qualifier with no home and away formula. Again Argentina would not have lost a qualifier over 3 years in this pool of 10.


And yes, the qualifiers in Europe are way easier. You can go an entire qualifier without facing a quality opponent. A "tough" group in an Euro qualifier consists of one good opponent, one medium, and a bunch of amateur level ones.

No the qualifiers in Europe are not way easier and indeed way harder.

Also you take this qualifier for this WC following the one good one medium logic but look at 2018 WC qualifier... group A France / Netherlands / Sweden group G Spain / Italy and you can go on on 2014 qualifier and before.
A miss step in South America qualifier in this format is impossible for Arg and Brazil when 1/2 can qualify in a group of 10. A miss step in Europe can happen when you have groups of 2 top teams and a strong medium, it happens all the time. Look at France for 2014 WC.. finished second to Spain and had to go to a tricky elimination game against Ukraine we almost lost. :lol way easier

you guys are making no sense

[DAF86]

forgot about dat one, I read it was a one month qualifier with no home and away formula. Again Argentina would not have lost a qualifier over 3 years in this pool of 10.



No the qualifiers in Europe are not way easier and indeed way harder.

Also you take this qualifier for this WC following the one good one medium logic but look at 2018 WC qualifier... group A France / Netherlands / Sweden group G Spain / Italy and you can go on on 2014 qualifier and before.
A miss step in South America qualifier in this format is impossible for Arg and Brazil when 1/2 can qualify in a group of 10. A miss step in Europe can happen when you have groups of 2 top teams and a strong medium, it happens all the time. Look at France for 2014 WC.. finished second to Spain and had to go to a tricky elimination game against Ukraine we almost lost. :lol way easier

you guys are making no sense

The problem you seem to have on this discussion is making a distinction between "level of play/difficulty" and format. It has already been established, by all parts, that the European format sucks ass, but that's not what we're arguing here. Here we are arguing level of play. And, sorry, but when 70% of the qualifying games are played vs semi-amateur teams that you know you have no chance of losing to, those qualifiers aren't "difficult".

[DAF86]

forgot about dat one, I read it was a one month qualifier with no home and away formula. Again Argentina would not have lost a qualifier over 3 years in this pool of 10.



No the qualifiers in Europe are not way easier and indeed way harder.

Also you take this qualifier for this WC following the one good one medium logic but look at 2018 WC qualifier... group A France / Netherlands / Sweden group G Spain / Italy and you can go on on 2014 qualifier and before.
A miss step in South America qualifier in this format is impossible for Arg and Brazil when 1/2 can qualify in a group of 10. A miss step in Europe can happen when you have groups of 2 top teams and a strong medium, it happens all the time. Look at France for 2014 WC.. finished second to Spain and had to go to a tricky elimination game against Ukraine we almost lost. :lol way easier

you guys are making no sense

The problem you seem to have on this discussion is making a distinction between "level of play/difficulty" and format. It has already been established, by all parts, that the European format sucks ass, but that's not what we're arguing here. Here we are arguing level of play. And, sorry, but when 70% of the qualifying games are played vs semi-amateur teams that you know you have no chance of losing to, those qualifiers aren't "difficult".

[Brazil]

The problem you seem to have on this discussion is making a distinction between "level of play/difficulty" and format. It has already been established, by all parts, that the European format sucks ass, but that's not what we're arguing here. Here we are arguing level of play. And, sorry, but when 70% of the qualifying games are played vs semi-amateur teams that you know you have no chance of losing to, those qualifiers aren't "difficult".

I stated right at the beginning that's I was not discussing the level of difficulty in regards of general opposition or altitude or infrastructure, discussion is about is it harder or easier to qualify meaning how likely it is to miss the WC. In that regard Europe is harder for all the reasons I mentioned. Playing against Andorra is obviously easier for a top team that playing even against Venezuela but getting out of a group of 6 when you must finish first or go through elimination games is harder that getting out of a group of 1 out 2 is qualified for any top team in the world. Italy would have qualified in that format.

group A and G of 2018 WC are example of that, like France group for 2014 WC. This qualifier tho no big team has any excuse to not have gone through.. therefore the :lol Italy. On a side note, I would have hated to be in that Italy group, Switzerland is a pain historically for France. If you are an argie or brazilian fan, qualifiers are no reasons to sweat, for an european fan you always are concerned about falling in a death pool knowing you need to finish first to not end in a tricky elimination game.

Imagine being Argentina getting Brazil in your group, just one get to qualify, the second needs to win in an elimination against the equivalent of Portugal.

[ElNono]

:lol there is no way this discussion can be done without everybody not reading what has been posted tbh... I have already addressed that, 13 teams in Europe qualify on a pool of 55 vs 4 on a pool of 10. We remove the clearly worst teams than Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, that's still lower off than 40%.

Now let's go on your boat considering that the 22 teams you listed are worst than Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.. that's 13 over 33, 40% still worst than South America that is with 40% and a chance at 50%. :lol

Then one can and should argue that among those 22 some are better than Venezuela for instance.

:lol you continue to ignore and neglect that the competition in both cases is different, and this is why you're not comparing apples to apples.

At least 10 of the 13 teams in Europe don't ever face top tier competition to qualify, while the 4 in South America have to face everybody. That intrinsically gives the top European teams much better odds to qualify.

You can keep throwing percentages around, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

[ElNono]

If you really want to do percentages based on the actual competition teams have to face to qualify, in Europe every team starts with a 20% chance to qualify (5 teams per group) or 17% (6 teams per group).

In South America, it's 10% (10 teams, everybody against everybody).

[Brazil]

If you really want to do percentages based on the actual competition teams have to face to qualify, in Europe every team starts with a 20% chance to qualify (5 teams per group) or 17% (6 teams per group).

In South America, it's 10% (10 teams, everybody against everybody).

not working like that :lol you have 4 spots to qualify in south america that's 40% it does not matter if you are first or fourth :lol 10% would be if only one team qualify :lol

[ElNono]

not working like that :lol you have 4 spots to qualify in south america that's 40% it does not matter if you are first or fourth :lol 10% would be if only one team qualify :lol

No, this is what are the actual odds every team has against their competition when qualification starts. Everybody starts with the same odds (except in Europe, where the group size can affect it).

Are we in agreement that every team technically starts off with the same odds when the competition starts (barring that 5/6 group size?). Obviously, the level of teams is different on paper, but when the competition starts, everybody is afforded the same odds to make it. Agree?

The fact that every team in South America has to best another 9 teams, makes it 10%.

The fact that every team in Europe has to best another 4 or 5 teams, makes it 20%-17%.

[Brazil]

No, this is what are the actual odds every team has against their competition when qualification starts. Everybody starts with the same odds (except in Europe, where the group size can affect it).

Are we in agreement that every team technically starts off with the same odds when the competition starts (barring that 5/6 group size?). Obviously, the level of teams is different on paper, but when the competition starts, everybody is afforded the same odds to make it. Agree?

The fact that every team in South America has to best another 9 teams, makes it 10%.

The fact that every team in Europe has to best another 4 or 5 teams, makes it 20%-17%.

no nono, in south america you don't have to best than another 9 teams, you have to be among best 4.

take a bag, you have white and dark balls, in Europe you have 1 white 5 blacks, in south america you have 4 whites and 6 blacks. if you have to draw a white, you rather pick Europe or South America bag ? you have simply better odds to qualify in SA.

This is when all balls are equal obviously which is not the case but we already went through that.

on another news, FNT starts to worry me even though that team against Croatia was more of a c team than a b team. Only players in that roster that should go to WC are Maignan, Kimpembe, Tchou and Nkunku.. the rest is from meh to pure trash

[lefty]

no nono, in south america you don't have to best than another 9 teams, you have to be among best 4.

take a bag, you have white and dark balls, in Europe you have 1 white 5 blacks, in south america you have 4 whites and 6 blacks. if you have to draw a white, you rather pick Europe or South America bag ? you have simply better odds to qualify in SA.

This is when all balls are equal obviously which is not the case but we already went through that.

on another news, FNT starts to worry me even though that team against Croatia was more of a c team than a b team. Only players in that roster that should go to WC are Maignan, Kimpembe, Tchou and Nkunku.. the rest is from meh to pure trash
Maignan is the best GK in the World imo
Lloris will probably retire from the NT after the WC and Maignan will take the #1 spot

You shouldn’t be worried ahead of the WC, DD is trying different combos, some work and some just don’t

[FrostKing]

> Maignan, Kimpembe, Tchou and Nkunku

Very French names

[DAF86]

:lmao England and lol Italy. Although Italy was at least playing with the subs and against Germany. :lol

[dunkman]

> Maignan, Kimpembe, Tchou and Nkunku

Very French names

There’s a French say: “Africa stats at the Pyrenees”.

[dunkman]

There was a time when it was improbable Venezuela would take points from other teams, but they eventually improved a lot. Ecuador is average and plays in Quito, Bolivia plays in La Paz and has qualified for WC before, that’s high altitude even Brazil got to lose points there.

[ElNono]

no nono, in south america you don't have to best than another 9 teams, you have to be among best 4.

take a bag, you have white and dark balls, in Europe you have 1 white 5 blacks, in south america you have 4 whites and 6 blacks. if you have to draw a white, you rather pick Europe or South America bag ? you have simply better odds to qualify in SA.

Let's take your own example: All balls have the same color before you pick a ball out of the bag (they all start with zero points and play the same amount of games). What odds each ball has before you draw? In the bag with 6 balls, it's 17%. In the bag with 10 balls, it's 10%.

But, in reality, half the groups are really 5 teams, so they start off with a 20% odds. On top of that, a little less than half the team are absolute garbage (at the very least one per group), which means the odds, in effect, are 25% or more.

You can't do that math in SA. Perhaps with the exception of Venezuela, everybody plays everybody and are decent teams. You can argue that Argentina and Brazil are a notch above right now, but that's not always been the case.


This is when all balls are equal obviously which is not the case but we already went through that.

on another news, FNT starts to worry me even though that team against Croatia was more of a c team than a b team. Only players in that roster that should go to WC are Maignan, Kimpembe, Tchou and Nkunku.. the rest is from meh to pure trash

France will show up to the world cup.

[Brazil]

> Maignan, Kimpembe, Tchou and Nkunku

Very French names

Maignan is actually a very French name but we all know that you remarks are about skin colors not actual names you pos you

[Brazil]

Let's take your own example: All balls have the same color before you pick a ball out of the bag (they all start with zero points and play the same amount of games). What odds each ball has before you draw? In the bag with 6 balls, it's 17%. In the bag with 10 balls, it's 10%.

But, in reality, half the groups are really 5 teams, so they start off with a 20% odds. On top of that, a little less than half the team are absolute garbage (at the very least one per group), which means the odds, in effect, are 25% or more.

You can't do that math in SA. Perhaps with the exception of Venezuela, everybody plays everybody and are decent teams. You can argue that Argentina and Brazil are a notch above right now, but that's not always been the case.

Statistics don't seem to be your forte :lol my example is representative of the reality, 1 qualified out of 5 or 6 = 1 white 5 blacks, south america is 4 out of 10 = 4 whites 6 blacks. Your example is 1 qualified over a pool of 5 or 6 and 1 over a pool of 10 not the situation at hand for both qualifiers. 1 out of 5 is lower odds than 4 out of 10.. really quite simple and basic but you have other qualities :lol



France will show up to the world cup.

nice jinx

one also said that about Germany in 2018

[lefty]

Statistics don't seem to be your forte :lol my example is representative of the reality, 1 qualified out of 5 or 6 = 1 white 5 blacks, south america is 4 out of 10 = 4 whites 6 blacks. Your example is 1 qualified over a pool of 5 or 6 and 1 over a pool of 10 not the situation at hand for both qualifiers. 1 out of 5 is lower odds than 4 out of 10.. really quite simple and basic but you have other qualities :lol




nice jinx

one also said that about Germany in 2018
Whoever said that about Germany in 2018 is fucking stupid tbh

Nah I think France will be fine tbh

Old Drunk Paysanne Face is experimenting with different lineups and formations - Justin Trudeau as a LM lol - but he won't do that shit in the WC, don't worry

Not trying to jinx with this post tbh

My team on my profile is an attempt though

[FrostKing]

Maignan is actually a very French name but we all know that you remarks are about skin colors not actual names you pos you
Haha when are the French gonna stop robbing these poor nations of their human resources

[ElNono]

Statistics don't seem to be your forte :lol my example is representative of the reality, 1 qualified out of 5 or 6 = 1 white 5 blacks, south america is 4 out of 10 = 4 whites 6 blacks. Your example is 1 qualified over a pool of 5 or 6 and 1 over a pool of 10 not the situation at hand for both qualifiers. 1 out of 5 is lower odds than 4 out of 10.. really quite simple and basic but you have other qualities :lol

I work with statistics all day, tbh, math is actually one of my strengths. The problem here is that we're talking about two different things. As a matter of fact, if we were to take statistics more seriously, you would need to account for the number of games each team has to play, since they're spaced out, and teams that play more games have higher odds of having things like injured players, etc. But, I'll agree to disagree on this one.


nice jinx

one also said that about Germany in 2018

Or Spain the time before that. But generally speaking, if they're going to relax because they're the champs, they can do that in the group stage. I think they'll be sharp when it matters.