Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

South American Football > European Football

Uquillas

By Uquillas,
in 2010 World Cup Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 796
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Katarian

Katarian

Posted
Posted
There was not a single group in this World Cup where there were 3 European teams together. So, Europe had exactly the same chance to advance with all its teams to the round of 16 as South America did. At the same time, statistically, there were 50% chances of an European going through in 5 of the 8 groups (while just 25% for the South American sides in every situation).

Statistically, the fact that Europe has almost three times more teams than South America starting the tournament makes it more likely that more European teams will come out in the top places.

Three times as many is an over exaggeration, it's actually 2.6 times as many otherwise Europe would have two more teams. Nitpicking I know :p. The draw for the group stages is fixed to ensure the progress of teams from as many different confederations as possible. South America actually benefits as they don't end up with two or three teams in the same group. When Europe has two teams in a group it actually increases the both chances of a European team qualifying for the next and of a European team being knocked out. That's assuming all the teams have the same chance of winning a match, which they don't as the current qualifying campaigns (except for South America) allows too many "weak" teams to qualify.

That is truth in all of the World Cups except for 30. Even in 1950, when you make a claim of late 50´s start of interest from Europe - this is lack of history knowledge from you, really. England sent a team with Stanley Mathews to Brazil, Italy was in, etc. Just Germany, for obvious reasons, didn´t come.

I said countries from all over the World not Europe, and in 1950 India, Scotland and Turkey all pulled out of the competition, and France and Portugal refused to replace them. So teams that were qualified and could of played were still making the choice not to participate. It was 1954 before every team that qualified actually played in the tournament.

Just for clarification, the bottom European sides I cited are: Andorra, Faroe Islands, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Malta, Letonia, Luxembourg, Estonia, Latvia and Albania. My mistake: replace Letonia with Lithuania.

Uruguay has 3.5 million people, and it is historically the 3rd best South American side. Personally, I think economics, football culture itself and other factors would play a more important role than population. Otherwise, the old USSR would be winning a lot, wouldn´t it?

3.5 million is still around 50 - 100 times the size of four of those countries. A South American country which a population of between 30k - 50k is going to be just as bad Andorra, Faroe Islands, San Marino, and Liechtenstein. Those teams are never going to qualify for the WC (and will always be the whipping boys in UEFA), and there have been suggestions that there should be prequalifying for the European qualifying competition to try and improve the competitiveness. The Baltic and Eastern European teams I don't really know that much about so can't really comment, but football isn't always that popular.

Anyways, my take doesn´t change. I prefer the way the game is played by South Americans, with flair, deft touches and change of pace. And a World Cup result won´t change it.

I generally prefer the way the game is played in South America. Still a bit too much play acting, diving, etc... for my liking but even the Europeans are doing it far too much now.

Overall unless we remove geography from World Cup qualifying and get the 32 best performing teams at the tournament the current system works okay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tele Santana

Tele Santana

Posted
Posted

Katarian,

Almost is not 3 ;-). You might remember that in previous editions the balance had been 4 against 14, so even worse (Spain 82, e.g.).

I didn´t discuss the qualifying rules in each continent, but statistically I think I couldn´t clarify more that, based on their numbers European sides have more chance of reaching the round of 16 and so on so forth. If there was a chance that 4 European teams would be put together in one group, than I´d agree this could balance the issue.

The way the tournament is drawn nowadays actually provide more chances to Europe.

And you said the odds were against European sides. Not really. Of course there may be Europeans out, but generally speaking chances are you´ll always see a majority of European sides in the later rounds. For this not to happen is really something (ie like in this World Cup).

About your next statement, you´re right. But you wrote before: 'The Europeans hardly turned up for the early World Cups that weren't in Europe' - so I showed you that is not true, since in the second World Cup out of Europe just Scotland, from Europe, chose not to come.

Again on the country size issue, you may have a case on the less populated 4 you cited, but apart from them, how would you explain Trinidad and Tobago qualifying in Concacaf, just to give you a blatant example? Not really about population sizes. We used to say, regardless of size, that Venezuela never would make a WC Finals appearance and nowadays it seems fair enough they might.

As for playing style, not too much to add. What I do find interesting is how South Americans have been perceived as dirty historically and many European sides performed consistently like that. Brazil in 58 had to endure a brutal Soviet side, and in 66 the World Cup was officiated in a way that was absolutely biased towards European hard hitting sides. Just watch the Brazil games against Hungary and Portugal (and even Bulgaria) or the officiating in the Uruguay-Germany and Argentina-England matches. Not saying the outcome would change, but it was a brutal World Cup by any standards.

Also, some Eastern Europe sides used to play a violent football.

There´s a story of Joao Saldanha, Brazil manager before WC 70, being interviewed and asked about Brazilian team being violent in BBC before that World Cup, which he found ludicrous, especially after 66. He replied that the Europeans were much more violent and his team would be prepared.

I don´t have an issue with South America being awarded an extra spot or not, but it´s important to clarify that by standard Europe is expected to have more countries in the final stages of the WC Finals, not due to quality, but by statistical odds.

As I mentioned before, it might be a case of unifying the second layer of qualification for a World-general repechage for the final berths, after each continent has a fair representation qualified.

Cheers,

Tele

Link to post
Share on other sites
Katarian

Katarian

Posted
Posted
About your next statement, you´re right. But you wrote before: 'The Europeans hardly turned up for the early World Cups that weren't in Europe' - so I showed you that is not true, since in the second World Cup out of Europe just Scotland, from Europe, chose not to come.

Your right I wrote Europe in one sentence and World in the next. Still Turkey, Portugal, and France are also European teams. And European teams in general were reluctant to turn up to World Cups outside of Europe until Chile in 1962 (54 and 58 having been played in Europe).

Again on the country size issue, you may have a case on the less populated 4 you cited, but apart from them, how would you explain Trinidad and Tobago qualifying in Concacaf, just to give you a blatant example? Not really about population sizes. We used to say, regardless of size, that Venezuela never would make a WC Finals appearance and nowadays it seems fair enough they might.

Trinidad and Tobago has 1.5m inhabitants, which is massive compared to Andorra. They also play in one of the weakest confederations, they wouldn't come anywhere near qualifying if they played in Europe or S. America. It isn't all about population, but if you only have 30k people in your entire country you are never going to be able to compete with countries that have more registered clubs then your entire population.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tele Santana

Tele Santana

Posted
Posted

Katarian,

From your first point, the same applied to Uruguay in 34, and to both Uruguay and Argentina in 38. So South America in 34 was Brazil and Argentina and in 38 was Brazil (3rd place despite the difficulties of travel, etc.).

So actually European teams didn´t turn out in masses for the 1st World Cup and notably one of them decided not to go in 1950 after qualifying, despite the fact that England showed up in the WC for the first time, Italy was in Brazil, Yugoslavia, Spain, Sweden, etc.

So even if we distance ourselves to look at the quality represented - i.e. Austria could be pointed out as a miss in 1930 - there´s only one World Cup where Europeans could say they weren´t truthfully represented - due to their own problems, I must say, and an eurocentric view that Jules Rimet fought by bringing the tournament to the Olympic champions.

To your second point, I already agreed to that, when it comes to really tiny countries, even though one can argue that in Luxembourg for instance there could be better football fields than in Trinidad - I know this to be a fact in terms of swimming pools, e.g. So, with 50thousand people living well, well-fed and able to use sporting facilities against a country of 1.5 million people without the same structure, what are the chances the least populated nation could mount a challenge? Pretty decent, one could believe.

So, generally speaking, out of the 4 countries you mentioned, once there´s a minimum pool of people, there are no excuses to explain Trinidad Tobago´s success (or for that matter, Uruguay´s). The country is the 14th in population in the Concacaf region and yet qualified, over nations that have 10x or plus more population, such as Guatemala and Canada.

Population is not a decisive factor. Uruguay has much less than 1/10th of Colombia´s people.

Cheers,

Tele

Link to post
Share on other sites
PMLF

PMLF

Posted
Posted

Population is a limiting factor, but of course having a big population and poor coaching and no football culture don't help either.

Uruguay have a small population, but very good coaching and a football culture that is as strong as Brazil's or Argentina's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
copyprotection

copyprotection

Posted
Posted

So South America should get an extra spot because european teams were eliminated by european teams? I'm sorry, but i'm laughing right here... Portugal, Slovakia and England got knocked out by european teams.

Lets say that in the next games Germany wins and Spain does too. With the Netherlands win against Brasil that leaves Uruguai in the semi-final. Would that then mean that SA should lose a spot in the next WC?

Bring on the World qualifications and this issue will go away. You'll probably have Brasil, Argentina and then Ghana and maybe another african team and some 28 european teams on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
masteR+_+

masteR+_+

Posted
Posted
Bring on the World qualifications and this issue will go away. You'll probably have Brasil, Argentina and then Ghana and maybe another african team and some 28 european teams on it.

1) World qualification defeats the purpose of qualification at all, why don't you just make the World qualification the World Cup itself?

2) 28 European teams. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Intruder-II

Intruder-II

Posted
Posted

I think Non qualified South Americans are much harder than Eastern European. That's why Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay struggle so much in qualifying zones. Maybe the last positioned South American teams should be sent to play against the winners of best seconds in Europe, like Greece. Results like Venezuela 3 Slovenia 0, and Colombia 3 Greece 0 are not unrealistic, from my point of view, comparing skill, technique and talent.

Venezuela may beat Uruguay in one of the qualifying rounds. It's much much tighter. Anything can happen in SA. Argentina had it difficult; then went to Europe and beat Germany in a friendly. Uruguay depended of Colombia's result, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Simpo

Simpo

Posted
Posted

I have enjoyed the fact that European teams have struggled.

We see Eurpean teams playing each other so often due to qualifying matches going on for 18 out of every 24 months.

And then at the European Championships, more Europe vs Europe games.

Some of the teams who have played each other this summer may not face off again for 8 years, or 20 years, or ever again! It is one of the main reasons, for me, the World Cup is so special.

Having said that, Europe has a large depth of talented teams, so should not lose too many spots.

Maybe, as well as the extra place for the hosts, each hosting continent could get another extra place on top of that, and the previous hosting continent gets one less in a trade-off. This would give each tournament more 'local flavour'

As for 2014, I would like to see a South American team which hasn't qualified recently earn the extra spot. Venezuela maybe!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Micado

Micado

Posted
Posted

Some of the teams who have played each other this summer may not face off again for 8 years, or 20 years, or ever again! It is one of the main reasons, for me, the World Cup is so special.

Yep, for me too, :thup:

As for 2014, I would like to see a South American team which hasn't qualified recently earn the extra spot. Venezuela maybe!

:thup:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uquillas

Uquillas

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Wow, the OP got it spectacularly wrong.
c'mon now, like you werent being a smug git and gloating about SA football being better, whether you predicted the semi finals or not.

even if only 1 SA made it to the semifinals, they have still had a good WC, remember, we send only 4.5 teams, where europe sends like 13?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tele Santana

Tele Santana

Posted
Posted

Although I disagree with Uquillas on an extra berth for SA, it is kind of funny to see some Europeans (majorly British) come in the thread try to make fun of South America even though it was proven in some of my posts that the odds are absolutely in favour of a setup like the one which is being drawn.

Europe had always had much more berths than South America, usually 3 or more against 1, exceptions in 30 and 50.

I repeat what I said: for South America to obtain 4 spots in the final 8 is a very strong show.

To have all of its 5 teams qualifiying for the round of 16 is pretty strong as well.

Having said that, I was very impressed with Germany´s display against Argentina. Victory with a capital V.

I believe Spain will beat Paraguay and thus we´ll have the 3:1 setup for the semis which is common based on the number of nations by each continent.

Uruguay was a pleasant surprise as well. Dynamic attacking duo - even if not by the numbers, they really concern opposition and open the game for the rest of the team. Unfortunately for them, Suarez and Lugano are both out so Holland will have the edge.

Cheers,

Tele

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uquillas

Uquillas

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Well just have a Euros every 2 years and casually invite Brazil and Argies in every 3-4 tournaments. We could make them beg for it like the Old Firm do, desperate for a little bit of Prem action.

you realize that european leagues would be worthless without SA players right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tele Santana

Tele Santana

Posted
Posted

Oh,

And beffrey and others...amazingly nobody talks about the penalty on Kaka in the first half of Bra x Hol match when Brazil was leading 1x0, or the fact that there wasn´t a foul in the play that originated the lucky goal from Holland...isn´t that funny?

Or that the play that originated what some here call cheating play by Suarez originated from a questionable foul as well and there are issues with offsides at the play.

If you´re so quick to judge a would-be South American 'typical' cheating when any player from any team with presence of mind would try what Suarez did, why not stick to the rules of the game. So, if the referee calls a foul that there is not, it originates a play, a player benefiting from an offside position takes part in the ensuing play (Appiah, #10 coming right off the offside position) is not called and after that a defending player hands the ball, we must focus on his play to justify a team qualifying to the semis? Wow. Talk about eurocentrism. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...