LOL Europe

[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 ty 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.

come on

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 quan y 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 quan y 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.
NED seems to be ok, spain got burned once question is if they get brasil or not, fra is 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 quan y 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 . 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.
NED seems to be ok, spain got burned once question is if they get brasil or not, fra is 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 compe ion, 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 compe ion, 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 quan y 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_Wo...s_by_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 () 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_Wo...s_by_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. 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. 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 ing 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.