Actually, you had that in '86, with Schumacher, Matthaus, Briegel, Brehme, Littbarski, Rummenigge, Rudi Völler... sometimes when you have that kind of talent, egos get in the way, it's harder to build a "team"...
It happened in Argentina too after winning in '78, everybody thought they owned the world and '82 was a disaster, and the same all the way throughout the qualification to Mexico '86...
It actually took a guy like Diego (with Bilardo's blessing) to basically clean up all these guys full of it (ie: Passarella), and ended up with a star and 10 other guys working hard for him as a team. The other guys weren't bad players, but they knew their roles.
Today's Argentina has a lot of guys that are ball stoppers or think they're there to show off instead of playing as a team. Guys like Rojo, Banegas to an extent. Watch Higuain during a game, half the time he's ing he didn't get the ball. Tevez is another guy that complained he wasn't playing in the position he wanted to. Tata is a buddy coach, and I love Messi, but he's not the kind of leader that will align a team behind him. Sabella did a good job rebuilding the defense, and he looked like a more strict coach.
overrated team from a talent standpoint tbh. Compare them to what netherlands and argentina had on great generations and it's not even in the same ballpark. Rudi Völler was a boss though tbh.
Missi needs to grow a pair, he is like the lebeta of football, all the imaginable talent, dropping crazy stats in the regular season, but not enough balls and manhood to impose his will when his nation needs him the most.
In today's money laden, hyper-professional, it's-about-me soccer most players don't have it. Look at Portugal with CR7, they have always had same problem. Netherlands, for all the names and generations of talent, same problem. Germany in the past 30 years has been a big outlier. Same with the only Spanish team that ever won anything in a WC... Colombia had a lot of that going on too (although, despite the slack Pekerman gets, he's a good coach). That's why they keep flipping coaches, even if they're super stacked, and nothing changes. Not to name names, but in Argentina is well known we even had coaches that would ask for a commission to call up certain players to raise their trade value...
A lot of these country federations are heavily politicized too, and a lot of times that goes against the organizational structure you were talking about also. But soccer moves people in these countries, so while it sucks, it's understandable why that happens.
The only teams I remember winning pretty consistently on talent alone were the Brazils of Romario, Bebeto, Ronaldinho. But they also had very good utilitarian players like Dunga or Roberto Carlos, with a lot of personality. Italy always had players with personality, the last few generations just kinda suck talent-wise.
Don't necessarily disagree with this list, but it should be noted that guys like Batistuta did win Copa Americas (two IIRC), so they at least did have some silverware with them. It's the generation right after that has been a real major disappointment.
The Zanetti generation smh
Argentine NT has lost some mystic, but it's clear they have recovered since 2014. If they were to replay that finals WC game Argentina win 4 out of 5. The most clear chances were for their side, and the goal came out of an extremely difficult play.
In 94, Argentina didn't need Diego that much, they just got distracted otherwise they win it all that year. In 98 it was another great shot from Bergkamp that took them out. In 2002 if I recall correctly Ortega got expulsed in a silly aggression. Then the '06 don't remember much, it seems it wasn't a great team. And in '10 the coach was Diego in somewhat controversial decision to let him coach at a WC, but Argentina owed him that.
About the Copa América, it's not just A teams like Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil that can win, B teams like Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Paraguay can take anyone out in one game, sometimes C teams are quite good too.
Uruguay plays great at Copa América, not sure why they seldom play well at the Mundiales. And Mexico only recently plays in the Copa América, they would have already won it once at least.
Wouldn't agree that only 3-4 teams have chances. There are more teams in the European Championship, but it's far from predictable.
son wtf did I just read?seriously, what the .
Since '50, Uruguay has 3 4th places at '54, '70 and '10 mundials. Better than most teams, but they actually had bad luck.
At Copa América, since '50, they have won the tournament many times. 2 in the 50's, 1 in the 60's, 2 in the 80's, 1 in the 90's and the last one in '11.
well it goes to show you that winning a world cup or an euro isn't a joke compe ion like winning a copa america tbh. really, a compe ion with only two (brazil, argentina) top tier teams, where a couple of upsets let the compe ion wide open. Combine that with the fact that copa america could be won with a small number of games and that's exactly WHY uruguay has done so well in copa america and so poor at the world cup. Btw the only time an euro was won by a 2nd tier team was in 2004, and that was a dream run for greece. It was a fairytale story combined with heaps of luck and many of the contenders being in down years (england, france, spain, netherlands).
But that isn't why I bolded your text, uruguay has done excellently at the WC, 3 4th places means they had 3 generations which played great football, that's a top 10 country tbh. If anything it goes to show you that no 2nd tier team, no matter how overachieving, can win a world cup or an euro (except lotto wins like *greece). Now look at the compe ion in the knockout stages of this year copa america, if you have a greatly diluted talent pool it's normal for weaker teams to win as there is less compe ion.
Last edited by dfens; 06-13-2016 at 05:19 PM. Reason: fucking autocorrect
Urugay and Argentina are the less populated countries to ever win a WC.
You shouldn't put too much stock on Copa America.
Before 1975, it was called Campeonato Sul-Americano and it was essentially amateur stuff.
There was no rotation for countries hosting the tournament (hence why ARG was the host 7 times, Uruguai 6, Chile and Peru 5 and Brazil only 3 before 1975) , it was decided by points (no playoffs) and it was totally random. It happened in straight years, it happened once every 2 years, it happened once every 4 years and it even happened twice in the same year (1959). There were several editions where NTs simply declined the invitation to play it.
Uruguai dominated football until the 50s and then they fell apart after that as a World Class NT. They did well in 70 and 10, but they had no real shot to win a WC. South America has been carried by Argentina and Brazil worldwide for the last 50 years. In the case of Brazil, they never bother to send their A team to Copa America. Pele only played it once when he was 18 years old and never played it again. Ronaldo only played it twice when he was very young.
Results in Copa America mean as much as results in Panamericano Games tbh. They're not a thermometer for WCs at all. Countries send their A team to WCs. They don't when it comes to Copa America. Argentina is only sending their A team to this Copa America because they haven't won since 93 and there's a lot of pressure for Messi to win a le with the NT. Otherwise, I'm positive that you wouldn't be watching Messi and cia playing it.
The problem with not sending good squads for Copa América is that at some point Brazil had less than half the les (4?) of Argentina or Uruguay (around 14), and they started sending good teams with Ronaldo and Romario included otherwise it was very difficult to win.
In '11 Argentina really wanted the cup with Messi, since it was hosted by Argentina and they didn't win anything in long time. But Uruguay won.
I think Brazil sent their best squad, Neymar included, to the '15 edition. Same Argentina with Messi, Agüero and Di Maria. Chile won.
About Uruguay, I'm sure they are going to win another World Cup at some point in the future. I wouldn't agree they didn't have chances the times they made it to the semi finals.
Last edited by dunkman; 06-13-2016 at 10:07 PM.
I saw Denmark winning once, I think it was the '92 edition.
Everyteam sends their A team to the Copa America now that is played every 4 years. The only reason you didn't know is 'cause you want gold medal.
I still can't believe Dybala isn't in the Copa squad.
WTF
Damn, s love 'em some Dybala in here.
Why wouldnt teams send their A-teams? It's not like these teams play together the whole year to properly develop a high level of chemistry.
Familiarity is huge. 3 of the past world cup winners have had squads that have played together since they were in their early 20s and they always tried to play together as much as possible even with friendlies.
miracles happen son, 2nd tier teams won euro a staggering 2 times out of 14 compe ions. And besides those 2 miraculous wins even the finalists were all world class teams: the great belgian generation, the yugoslavians and the portuguese gold generation (figo, rui costa, young penaldo, and so on).
you are just proving my point...
Checoslovakia won in '76.
The Soviet Union won in '60.
Neither it's clear Spain was first tier team when they won in '64 or in '60 when they declined to play the Soviet Union for political reasons.
son wtf your knowledge of football is abysmal.
soviet union was QF in WC'58, winners in EU'60, tankend in WC'62, finalists in EU'64, 4th in WC'66, 4th at EU'68 ....... that's was a consistent world class team son wtf are you talking about?
czechoslovakia were somewhere between 1st tier and 2nd tier, they were 3rd in EU'60 WC finalists '62, winners EU'76, 3rd EU'80 ... that's a great haul for a smaller european team. they weren't a greece or denmark team, they were more like urugay as quality.
son leave the politics out of this tbh, if it weren't for the soviet union sides like czecs, yugoslavia, romania or poland would've amounted to much more, not to mention germany would probably lead in rings.
Face it, copa america isn't even comparable to an euro historically (frequency, bad rosters, small number of teams, etc). If you'd rate the difficulty of winning a trophy historically it would probably be like this:
WC - 100%
EU - 85%
Copa america 30%
Asia Cup - 15%
Africa Cup -15%
This is given by the number of constant contenders (germany/netherlands/brazil/france/italy/argentina) and strong 2nd tiers (spain/england/uruguay/soviet union/czecholsovakia/poland/belgium/portugal/sweden) and 2nd tiers ( load of euro teams, colombia, chile, mexico). FFS this should be common knowledge.
Copa america has been getting tougher in the last 20 years, with more compe ion and less frequency (except centenario
WC - 100%
EU - 80%
copa america 50%
asia/africa 20%
Europe is kinda down right now (italy after calciopoli lacks talent, england starting to realize the 60s have passed, france are young, netherlands imploded) but still has a clear edge in tactics, talent and quality sides. The americas are balanced but not top heavy with argentina as the only legit contender followed by brazil/mexico/colombia/uruguay (2nd tier teams). I won't bother with africa/asia. Looking forward you have to imagine that italy/england
So yes, euro might not have many goals but as a compe ion is much closer to the world cup than to copa america. Real talk sons.
also
You cannot be possibly serious, those are second tier teams.son wtf your knowledge of football is abysmal.
soviet union was QF in WC'58, winners in EU'60, tankend in WC'62, finalists in EU'64, 4th in WC'66, 4th at EU'68 ....... that's was a consistent world class team son wtf are you talking about?
czechoslovakia were somewhere between 1st tier and 2nd tier, they were 3rd in EU'60 WC finalists '62, winners EU'76, 3rd EU'80 ... that's a great haul for a smaller european team. they weren't a greece or denmark team, they were more like urugay as quality.
son leave the politics out of this tbh, if it weren't for the soviet union sides like czecs, yugoslavia, romania or poland would've amounted to much more, not to mention germany would probably lead in rings.
Face it, copa america isn't even comparable to an euro historically (frequency, bad rosters, small number of teams, etc). If you'd rate the difficulty of winning a trophy historically it would probably be like this:
WC - 100%
EU - 85%
Copa america 30%
Asia Cup - 15%
Africa Cup -15%
This is given by the number of constant contenders (germany/netherlands/brazil/france/italy/argentina) and strong 2nd tiers (spain/england/uruguay/soviet union/czecholsovakia/poland/belgium/portugal/sweden) and 2nd tiers ( load of euro teams, colombia, chile, mexico). FFS this should be common knowledge.
Copa america has been getting tougher in the last 20 years, with more compe ion and less frequency (except centenario
WC - 100%
EU - 80%
copa america 50%
asia/africa 20%
Europe is kinda down right now (italy after calciopoli lacks talent, england starting to realize the 60s have passed, france are young, netherlands imploded) but still has a clear edge in tactics, talent and quality sides. The americas are balanced but not top heavy with argentina as the only legit contender followed by brazil/mexico/colombia/uruguay (2nd tier teams). I won't bother with africa/asia. Looking forward you have to imagine that italy/england
So yes, euro might not have many goals but as a compe ion is much closer to the world cup than to copa america. Real talk sons.
South American teams usually always pass the group stage at Mundials, and some good teams always fail to qualify. And no, it's never easy to win the Copa América.
Brazil just chocked the last WC game vs Germany, the 7:1 isn't the real measure of Euro vs South American football. Remember that Germany lost to them in '02 and the then West Germany to Argentina in '86.
son you are either :
a) awful at football
b) awful at trolling
c) both.
EDIT: seeing you're a canadian real madrid fan i'd argue for a) tbh.
I'm not Canadian, I arrived few years ago. Part of my ancestry is from central Castile. Keep in mind that Real Madrid is from there too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote