South American Football > European Football

[Bielsista]

Controversial?, where?, Suarez hand-balled the ball, the referee said it was penalty and sent him off, Gyan shooted the bar and then Uruguay won the shootout, wheres the controversy there?, controversial would have been if the referee didnt say it was penalty. Oh, maybe you mean that you european guys are SO FAIR, SO GENTLEMAN, NEVER DO CHEAT...come on...you re right, Suarez should be in jail because of the hand, how a human been can aim so low?...(ironic, of course).

btw, europeans have ALWAYS thought the sun twists around them, that they are the centre of the world, why would have that changed nowadays?

They have the money, they have the power and they do whatever they want.

[RBKalle]

You are laughing at the thought of Ecuador being above a uefa team outside the top 6. I merely showed you that the 2 time Ecuador face European Teams outisde the top 6 in the WC, we beat them.

Ok.

Norway never lost to Brazil, and even defeated them in the 1998 World Cup (in addition to the 4-2 win the previous year).

So does that hint Norway is better than Brazil and should get an automatic WC spot?

Utter nonsense...

Aaaalso shall we mention NO South American team besides Brazil and Argentina has finished in the Top Four in an European-hosted World Cup since Uruguay finishing 4th in 1954?

So the alleged superiority just ends somewhere around the Round of 16?

Check this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_World_Cup#Results_by_confederation

[Uquillas]

Ok.

Norway never lost to Brazil, and even defeated them in the 1998 World Cup (in addition to the 4-2 win the previous year).

So does that hint Norway is better than Brazil and should get an automatic WC spot?

Utter nonsense...

Aaaalso shall we mention NO South American team besides Brazil and Argentina has finished in the Top Four in an European-hosted World Cup since Uruguay finishing 4th in 1954?

So the alleged superiority just ends somewhere around the Round of 16?

Check this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_World_Cup#Results_by_confederation

I wasn't the one making the ridiculous claim that Ecuador cant be better than a uefa team outside the top 6.

I simply replied with Facts.

[Uquillas]

Aaaalso shall we mention NO South American team besides Brazil and Argentina has finished in the Top Four in an European-hosted World Cup since Uruguay finishing 4th in 1954?

So the alleged superiority just ends somewhere around the Round of 16?

Check this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_World_Cup#Results_by_confederation

Europe also sends more countries than SA so what does that prove?

[Tele Santana]

Andehlson,

Gladly,

Carmona, Medel, Fernandez, Gonzalez, Valdivia and Sanchez would have to be considered for the Portugal line-up, if I were in charge. Not saying they would start, but they would contend. To be fair I believe Chile, offensively, except for Ronaldo, to have a better unit.

And Pepe is a starter in Portugal.

I think Lugano would have a place, when it comes to Uruguay.

As for Ecuador, I do think they would mount a challenge to any team out of the big 6 in any given day. On a good day, they´d win.

20Legend,

I disagree with your interpretation of the rule. Many times I´ve seen goals allowed when a cross is made to the box and the forward who´s not offside scores. The ball was away from the Paraguayan FW offsides. And the arm doesn´t count for an offside, since it´s not an eligible part of the game.

As for Spain trying to play, in the first half the CCCs were from Paraguay (including the disallowed goal).

So it is a matter of point of view. I think it´s a bit strong to say Spain was there to play and Paraguay not. They created counters, they had a goal disallowed and a penalty, etc...but then again, it is a matter of point of view.

Cheers,

Tele

[ANDEHLSON]

I wasn't the one making the ridiculous claim that Ecuador cant be better than a uefa team outside the top 6.

I simply replied with Facts.

Ridiculous? Ofc.. Andorra is outside the top 6. But the way he said it, it's like if they were better than every top 6 side.

Can you honestly say that Ecuador are better than Portugal for example? Or Colombia and Chile? (especially nowadays?) Mind you I like watching Chile play...

[Uquillas]

Ridiculous? Ofc.. Andorra is outside the top 6. But the way he said it, it's like if they were better than every top 6 side.

Can you honestly say that Ecuador are better than Portugal for example? Or Colombia and Chile? (especially nowadays?) Mind you I like watching Chile play...

no, not portugal, but Ecuador is better than, Greece, Slovenia, Serbia and Denmark

[Mario]

What a pointless thread. Which of course degenerates into a SA vs. Europe shouting match... and I get the feeling the OP was just trying to troll.

Oh, and I thought this was funny:

How long? Because I see you whining about the Dutch all over these forums.

where exactly? please provide sources. from what i've seen we've been friendly and accepted defeat smoothly

[Tele Santana]

RBKalle,

Norway beat Brazil twice, yes. So you take an exception to prove your point?

Funny.

Ecuador since WC 06 beat Sweden once and draw once with it as well. It draw with legit WC qualifier Ireland. It lost to France. Nothing worse than any side of the top 6 would do, is it?

They have increasing their stature in football steadily, so...it´s not just a matter to look at the significant wins cited by Uquillas. Their trend is good.

Not really accurate to compare with Norway.

[Uquillas]

RBKalle,

Norway beat Brazil twice, yes. So you take an exception to prove your point?

Funny.

Ecuador since WC 06 beat Sweden once and draw once with it as well. It draw with legit WC qualifier Ireland. It lost to France. Nothing worse than any side of the top 6 would do, is it?

They have increasing their stature in football steadily, so...it´s not just a matter to look at the significant wins cited by Uquillas. Their trend is good.

Not really accurate to compare with Norway.

Ecuador also beat turkey 1-0 1-week before the 2002 WC where turkey finished 3rd

[Uquillas]

In fact here is a list of Ecuador vs European Teams (outside the top 6) from the past 10 years.

316. 12-Feb-02 Breda, Neth. 1-0 Turkey

318. 27-Mar-02 New Jersey, USA 3-0 Bulgaria

320. 08-May-02 New Jersey, USA 1-0 Yugoeslavia

324. 13-Jun-02 Yokohama, Jap. 1-0 Croatia XVII. World Cup

328. 09-Feb-03 Guayaquil 1-0 Estonia

329. 12-Feb-03 Quito 2-1 Estonia

367. 13-Nov-05 Barcelona, Spa. 0-3 Poland

374. 28-May-06 Getafe, Spa. 1-2 Macedonia

375. 09-Jun-06 Gelsenkirchen, Ger. 2-0 Poland XVIII. World Cup

381. 18-Jan-07 Cuenca 2-1 Sweden

382. 21-Jan-07 Quito 1-1 Sweden

385. 23-May-07 New Jersey, USA 1-1 Ireland

Games Played: 12

Victories: 8

Ties: 2

Defeats: 2

[dafuge]

no, not portugal, but Ecuador is better than, Greece, Slovenia, Serbia and Denmark

You need to remember that the likes of these prevented teams like Turkey and Croatia from qualifying, both of which have made the semi finals in recent(ish) World Cups. You could also include Sweden and Bulgaria if you go back to 1994.

Have any of the South American nations that 'missed out' ever made the semi finals?

[Tele Santana]

Not a bad showing, indeed.

[Uquillas]

You need to remember that the likes of these prevented teams like Turkey and Croatia from qualifying, both of which have made the semi finals in recent(ish) World Cups. You could also include Sweden and Bulgaria if you go back to 1994.

Have any of the South American nations that 'missed out' ever made the semi finals?

more european countries going to the WC = more chances at having teams reach the SF.

[charlo116]

So going by the logic of the OP we can now assume Europe > South America and Mueller > Messi. Which we all know is utter rubbish.

[copyprotection]

Let's cut this to bone shall we? There are 2/3 teams that matter in South America. That's Brasil, Argentina and maybe, with kindness, Uruguai.

Then someone talked about population and how these teams still manage to remain competitive with the almighty europeans (yeah right)... Well, Brazil has a population of almost 200 million people. That's bigger than every single one european country and apparently every male and their father play football. Ok maybe 99% (the rest are into cage fighting)...

That's the same Brazil that has 5 World Cups.

From Conmebol close to half of their members get to go. In Europe 13/53 is a little less than a quarter. The competitive value of the SA Conmebol is already recognized in this. What do you want now? Direct access for all the members?

Plus this argument:

europe is quantity, SA is quality

This ain't Europe versus SA. European teams get knocked out mainly by european teams (just like it happened this time). You can send only Argentina and Brazil and you still have the exact same chances of wining it. Having Equator or Colombia there won't matter because it is highly unlikely they manage to go the distance. This is about a single team getting there. Heck, basically Brazil alone gives SA as much chance at wining it alone as if they had the whole 10 teams there...

And about teams that got left out in SA, do you believe there aren't comparable names in Europe, even with 13 spots?

Euro hate? because SA has better football throughout history compared to europe?

No SA as whole, just Brazil. The rest of SA with the exception of a hopeful Argentina is landscape. Brazil is basically the explanation for the amount of success SA has been having. That is basically due to the fact that it's a mega-country with a very football oriented population. To compare to Brazil's amount of players you would probably have to bundle up Germany, Italy, France and England together.

An interesting notion however is that if you take the world cup winners from the game and look at the teams who got the semi-finals and finals but did not won you'll see that basically they are almost all european. And this means that not minding the big boys who always win it, in the second line, you see an overwhelming majority or european teams, the hopeful outsiders.

Best players in the history of Futbol

1. Pele

2. Maradona

3. Di Stefano

what do they have in common?

Best players is highly subjective. Yashin is considered by many to have been the best goalkeeper there ever was, Maldini arguably the best defender and i personally consider Paulo Futre to have been the best winger i've ever seen on a pitch (yeah, that's right, better than Cristiano Ronaldo and whatnot). Many people swear that Pele had nothing on Eusébio. It just so happens that the first two of your list were very good and successful players that symbolized a lot for two big football countries. And Di Stefano become know at Real Madrid in the peak of its glory. There was a propaganda machine behind those players. Part deserved, part circumstantial.

[Uquillas]

Let's cut this to bone shall we? There are 2/3 teams that matter in South America. That's Brasil, Argentina and maybe, with kindness, Uruguai.

Then someone talked about population and how these teams still manage to remain competitive with the almighty europeans (yeah right)... Well, Brazil has a population of almost 200 million people. That's bigger than every single one european country and apparently every male and their father play football. Ok maybe 99% (the rest are into cage fighting)...

That's the same Brazil that has 5 World Cups.

From Conmebol close to half of their members get to go. In Europe 13/53 is a little less than a quarter. The competitive value of the SA Conmebol is already recognized in this. What do you want now? Direct access for all the members?

Plus this argument:

This ain't Europe versus SA. European teams get knocked out mainly by european teams (just like it happened this time). You can send only Argentina and Brazil and you still have the exact same chances of wining it. Having Equator or Colombia there won't matter because it is highly unlikely they manage to go the distance. This is about a single team getting there. Heck, basically Brazil alone gives SA as much chance at wining it alone as if they had the whole 10 teams there...

And about teams that got left out in SA, do you believe there aren't comparable names in Europe, even with 13 spots?

No SA as whole, just Brazil. The rest of SA with the exception of a hopeful Argentina is landscape. Brazil is basically the explanation for the amount of success SA has been having. That is basically due to the fact that it's a mega-country with a very football oriented population. To compare to Brazil's amount of players you would probably have to bundle up Germany, Italy, France and England together.

An interesting notion however is that if you take the world cup winners from the game and look at the teams who got the semi-finals and finals but did not won you'll see that basically they are almost all european. And this means that not minding the big boys who always win it, in the second line, you see an overwhelming majority or european teams, the hopeful outsiders.

Best players is highly subjective. Yashin is considered by many to have been the best goalkeeper there ever was, Maldini arguably the best defender and i personally consider Paulo Futre to have been the best winger i've ever seen on a pitch (yeah, that's right, better than Cristiano Ronaldo and whatnot). Many people swear that Pele had nothing on Eusébio. It just so happens that the first two of your list were very good and successful players that symbolized a lot for two big football countries. And Di Stefano become know at Real Madrid in the peak of its glory. There was a propaganda machine behind those players. Part deserved, part circumstantial.

all I keep hearing is, the only ones with chances are argentina and brazil every WC, well news flash, the same argument can be made to europe, germany, italy and france.

[Mario]

brasil would be good with 90 millions, hardly a thing dependent on population size.

don't tire yourself too much, telê. you're throwing pearls away, no one cares, believe me. i agree with you by the way

[Tele Santana]

Hey Mario,

I am actually having a fun time in this discussion...:-)

copyprotection,

I was reading your post seriously until your claim on a fair comparison between Eusebio and Pele. Just a joke to chill up.

Ok, now I regained my focus and will try to answer your claims seriously.

Now, if "it matters" is somehow related to Brazil and Argentina being the superpowers of SA, just as Italy, Germany and to lesser extent England and France are the powers of Europe, you could be right.

I´d place Uruguay there with the Netherlands and Spain, perhaps over them since Uruguay is, indeed a fair World Champion and have been a dominating force at the dawn of the international game. Actually won 2 Olympics in a row at a time there was no WC. And people seem to forget they were semifinalists two other times. Actually one could argue they are more important historically than France and England, oh my. But let´s keep it this way.

In Europe, next, there would be perhaps Portugal, Russia, Sweden (historically) etc. I don´t have a reason to believe that Paraguay, Chile and Colombia wouldn´t be in the same mix as this 3rd tier, which has a Romenia, a Bulgaria, a Croatia there sometimes. But really, you´d expect that, when you have 30 something countries in your continent (not 10).

Now if there´s a 4th tier in Europe, even before the tiny countries and which ocasionally have a team breaking through WC qualification like, say Slovenia, certainly Ecuador (sp of the country) would be better than most of them. Venezuela is growing, Peru is in a low and Bolivia is weak.

You´re right about Brazil having close to 200 million people.

But have you seen the population ranking? Russia, Germany, Turkey, France, England, Italy, Spain, Ukraine. Huge countries before the next South American after Brazil in size. You could arguably say that Russia and France have a wider interest in sport - for the others I believe football culture is right up there with South American countries. Undisputed national sport.

But for France let me add that they have the privilege of spotting talent in overseas territories and former colonies, just like the Dutch. Which kind of brings down the full population theory since they´re limited pools, but with immense talent when you look at how they´re represented in these national teams over the times.

Or you could use Henry´s phrase that Brazilians kids don´t go to school to play football (sic).

The notion of a quarter of European countries going to the WC is also quite new. In 1986, for example, 14 out of 24 WC teams came out of Europe. And Europe had 33 countries subscribed - the same number of 1990, which changed to 39 in 1994. So this notion of fragmentation is something fairly recent but is actually an argument that displays a potential decrease in strength for the sides influenced by it (e.g. Yugoslavia would have a better team than its successors, Czechs and Slovaks together would have a stronger team, etc.).

Nevertheless, if Europeans think there is a fair division of berths now, can you imagine how it was when 14 of their 33 associations were granted access to the Finals? That´s 42%. And, in a tournament of 24 teams, 58% of the teams (wow!!!!!). Not far away, in the 80´s...So can we claim that European success in the second line could be associated with this kind of overwhelming qualifying share in the past?

Anyways, where was I? Former Checoslovakia has 2 finals in its belt. When will Czech Republic or Slovakia reach this kind of success?

As for your rationale that there are comparable teams in Europe to the ones left out in SA, the best way to see this would be a global repechage. I am pretty sure some teams that squeezed through, like Greece, could be beaten by Croatia or Russia. And yet, by Ecuador and Colombia as well. So, what I mean is that in terms of quality, they´re all in the same mix so there shouldn´t be much privilege, even if you use a theory of teams that matter - which are the few I cited at the start of the post.

This year, to keep on the SA "second tier"...Uruguay qualified out of a group where the only European was left out (France). Paraguay qualified in spite of Italy and Chile left Switzerland out. So it is not that much about only European teams knocking out other European teams.

On your account of Brazil having such a gigantic football structure, it is a half truth. England by itself has much more organized footbal than Brazil. Simply put, Brazil has 4 National Divisions (the 4th just organized recently with average wages of less than 300 euros per month). England has 4 full-fledged professional divisions (PL, Championship, L1, L2) and how many more in its ladder? Was it 7 divisions of organized football and then regionals?

About semifinalists...look how interesting. In 1950, Brazil and Uruguay were amongst the final four (Argentina declined to play and it could be right up there actually). In 1962, back in South America, Chile and Brazil were there. In 1970, Brazil and Uruguay again. In 1978, Brazil and Argentina. So it is not true that Europe dominates that much when the Cup is played outside of home, especially when you consider the amount of European teams that enter the finals as compared to the number of SA teams.

Meanwhile, in Europe, Uruguay was semifinalist in 54, Brazil in 58, and in 66 there was a hunting season against South America. In 74, Brazil again broke into semis (at the expense of Argentina in the game before, I might add).

Finally, although I agree with subjective being part of player rankings, Pele needed no propaganda at all. Look at his numbers and you´ll understand. Watch a video and you´ll understand even more. As for the rest, Yashin could be argued in goal, Eusebio was great but not near Pele and to mention Futre, I´d highly recommend you to try to find Garrincha videos. Or for that matter, Julinho, Canhoteiro, Evaristo just out of my head to talk solely about Brazilians (shame we don´t have videos of them online). Maldini is also an example of limiting your choices by sight. There have been many defenders who could be well ranked over him over the years from South America.

Cheers,

Tele

[VamPook]

Paraguay were cheated?

More like the Guatemala ref tried to cheat Spain out of the semi finals

[Red_Hector]

Just a thought, if the South Americans all lose their QFs will that mean Africa > South America?

A crossbar away from being correct.

[Katarian]

You´re right about Brazil having close to 200 million people.

But have you seen the population ranking? Russia, Germany, Turkey, France, England, Italy, Spain, Ukraine. Huge countries before the next South American after Brazil in size. You could arguably say that Russia and France have a wider interest in sport - for the others I believe football culture is right up there with South American countries. Undisputed national sport.

I've kind of lost track of the entirety of this thread, but weren't you saying that population was unimportant at one point? Spain and Ukraine are barely larger then Colombia and only 12% bigger then Argentina. If you've listed those countries in popultion order then you've made the mistake of thinking Englands population is the same size as the UK's popultion which it isn't, knock 10m - 12m off the UK figure to get England's population. Still bigger then anyone but Brazil. The population differences are even smaller once you start to consider how many people are actually available to play, for example halve the figures to remove the women and you greatly reduce the population differences.

As for the bias to England in 66. Why pick that out specifically? Just because the South Amercians were on the wrong end of some bad decisions? There have been 5 World Cups won by the host country, and I imagine that all of them featured big decisions going the hosts way, as any country who wins the world needs decisions to go their way. Just for an example Uruguay in 1930 and 1950 played less matches then other teams but still managed to win the competitions. In 1950 they only had to play one group game, and only played 4 matches in total when Brazil had to play 6.

[robbert_o154]

Luckily, we have a way of measuring all this, and it's called the FIFA World Rankings. If I look at the top 32 teams in the rankings, the breakdown is as follows:

Europe                18
Africa                 6
South America          5
North/Central America  2
Asia                   1

Hope that helps with the discussion, lads.

[Candre168]

^ The European nations bribed FIFA to get there.

[Uquillas]

Luckily, we have a way of measuring all this, and it's called the FIFA World Rankings. If I look at the top 32 teams in the rankings, the breakdown is as follows:

Europe                18
Africa                 6
South America          5
North/Central America  2
Asia                   1

Hope that helps with the discussion, lads.

because the FIFA rankings aren't a Joke

[bomma]

He has a point, the rankings are just ridiculous.

[georginho_juventusygr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings

Europe: 18

South America: 6

North America: 2

Africa: 3

Asia: 3

[Uquillas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings

Europe: 18

South America: 6

North America: 2

Africa: 3

Asia: 3

would you look at that awesome ranking, Croatia is #8 in the world, LOL

THey are not even in the WC.

[robbert_o154]

If you want to convince us that a ratio of 3:1 is incorrect, you really need to come up with more solid debate than simply ridicule every statistic put in front of you.

[Micado]

If you want to convince us that a ratio of 3:1 is incorrect, you really need to come up with more solid debate than simply ridicule every statistic put in front of you.

Seconded .

Getting silly this thread..

[Uquillas]

If you want to convince us that a ratio of 3:1 is incorrect, you really need to come up with more solid debate than simply ridicule every statistic put in front of you.

Here are my statistics.

In fact here is a list of Ecuador vs European Teams (outside the top 6) from the past 10 years.

316. 12-Feb-02 Breda, Neth. 1-0 Turkey

318. 27-Mar-02 New Jersey, USA 3-0 Bulgaria

320. 08-May-02 New Jersey, USA 1-0 Yugoeslavia

324. 13-Jun-02 Yokohama, Jap. 1-0 Croatia XVII. World Cup

328. 09-Feb-03 Guayaquil 1-0 Estonia

329. 12-Feb-03 Quito 2-1 Estonia

367. 13-Nov-05 Barcelona, Spa. 0-3 Poland

374. 28-May-06 Getafe, Spa. 1-2 Macedonia

375. 09-Jun-06 Gelsenkirchen, Ger. 2-0 Poland XVIII. World Cup

381. 18-Jan-07 Cuenca 2-1 Sweden

382. 21-Jan-07 Quito 1-1 Sweden

385. 23-May-07 New Jersey, USA 1-1 Ireland

Games Played: 12

Victories: 8

Ties: 2

Defeats: 2

[robbert_o154]

Here are my statistics.

Hmmm, yeah, so? None of those teams are in the WC either, so by your own way of reasoning are an irrelevance.

[jmr]

You lost to Poland and Macedonia? :D Awful team, should be nowhere near a World Cup.

[Micado]

Here are my statistics.

I read them like this:

Played 2

won 2 (so that is good, right)

Played 10 friendlies (who not many team take serious if those team didn't qualify to for a tournament or if the friendly is in the middle of the season, do you know if it were all full strength teams?).

won 6

draw 2

lost 2

+ you are missing this one:

25 juni 2006

Engeland 1 - 0 Ecuador Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion, Stuttgart, WC 2006 Round of 16.

as England was outside the top 6 in 2006

[Uquillas]

You lost to Poland and Macedonia? :D Awful team, should be nowhere near a World Cup.

We've beat Brazil and Argentina several times, whats your point?

[jmr]

My point is your country is **** at football.

[Micado]

We've beat Brazil and Argentina several times, whats your point?

So did we last friday

[Kill Rock Stars]

reading this thread i've counted about two european posters who've been talking nonsense, out of lots who've posted, but pretty much every south american bar a couple who's made a post has been out of his tree mental

from this, i conclude that south america is a continent populated 80-90% by *******

[Uquillas]

You lost to Poland and Macedonia? :D Awful team, should be nowhere near a World Cup.

I read them like this:

Played 2

won 2 (so that is good, right)

Played 10 friendlies (who not many team take serious if those team didn't qualify to for a tournament or if the friendly is in the middle of the season, do you know if it were all full strength teams?).

won 6

draw 2

lost 2

+ you are missing this one:

as England was outside the top 6 in 2006

Is England not considered a top 6 team with their WC?

Italy

Germany

France

England

Holand

Spain

Europe's Top 6

[Micado]

reading this thread i've counted about two european posters who've been talking nonsense, out of lots who've posted, but pretty much every south american bar a couple who's made a post has been out of his tree mental

from this, i conclude that south america is a continent populated 80-90% by *******

Brilliant

Is England not considered a top 6 team with their WC?

Italy

Germany

France

England

Holand

Spain

Europe's Top 6

No, not considered a top 6, not if you take a unproven 16 year old striker to a WC.

[Uquillas]

So did we last friday

exactly my point

[robbert_o154]

exactly my point

If you think that us beating Brazil is conclusive proof that Ecuador is equally good as Holland, you're having a laugh.

I'm getting frustrated by all this. I don't even CARE who's better and who isn't, I just want some good debate, with sound arguments going back and forth. It seems that every thread I turn to the last coupla days is littered with ***** just reiterating their opinions over and over again, without even attempting to back them up.

[dafuge]

more european countries going to the WC = more chances at having teams reach the SF.

Since 1982, more than four times as many different European nations have made the semi finals compared to South American nations. Sure there are more teams, but not that many more.

[Uquillas]

If you think that us beating Brazil is conclusive proof that Ecuador is equally good as Holland, you're having a laugh.

I'm getting frustrated by all this. I don't even CARE who's better and who isn't, I just want some good debate, with sound arguments going back and forth. It seems that every thread I turn to the last coupla days is littered with ***** just reiterating their opinions over and over again, without even attempting to back them up.

not better than Holland, but better than Greece, Slovenia, Serbia and Denmark

[RBKalle]

RBKalle,

Norway beat Brazil twice, yes. So you take an exception to prove your point?

Funny.

Ecuador since WC 06 beat Sweden once and draw once with it as well. It draw with legit WC qualifier Ireland. It lost to France. Nothing worse than any side of the top 6 would do, is it?

They have increasing their stature in football steadily, so...it´s not just a matter to look at the significant wins cited by Uquillas. Their trend is good.

Not really accurate to compare with Norway.

AHAHAHAHAH

So if, say, Ecuador win some friendlies against allegedly better opposition is a FACT, but if Norway (or any other mediocre European team) defeat a better South American opponent it's an EXCEPTION that proves nothing?

With a few handpicked results you can pretty much prove ANYTHING... Taking into account 2008-2010 Slovakia are, for instance, better than Italy, France, Russia, Czech Rep, Sweden...

But does that mean Slovakia should suddenly become a Top Seeded nation?

Ditto for Uruguay... One "random" semifinal at the World Cup after what, 40 years of mediocrity, and boom now it looks like La Celeste should be regarded as a Top Nation again, as if it was 1950?

Dude, wouldn't just be easier and less excruciatingly tiresome for all of us if you just said

"I think we're better because I say so, don't bother arguing with me because I'm not listening anyway"?!

[Uquillas]

Since 1982, more than four times as many different European nations have made the semi finals compared to South American nations. Sure there are more teams, but not that many more.

Have you also won 4 times as many World Cups since 82?

[Trildor]

This entire thread is ridiculous.

South American Football = European Football

[RBKalle]

Have you also won 4 times as many World Cups since 82?

Take Brazil and Argentina out of the picture, and South America is on par with Africa and Asia in terms of World Cup achievement...

So you see... the whole "SA is better overall" is a fallacy based on ONE random good run by Uruguay and Paraguay.

But it's bound to happen in every WC... it might be Cameroon, Senegal, Bulgaria, Sweden, South Korea, Turkey... There will ALWAYS be a dark horse exceeding the expectations, but it's not that meaningful in the long run.

So, I ask that again...

Ignore Brazil and Argentina... What was the best result by a South American team from 1982 to 2006?

Does that result should earn SA another WC berth in the future?

[dafuge]

Have you also won 4 times as many World Cups since 82?

No, it is just 3-2, although how close has anyone other than Brazil/Argentina come to winning it for South America?

[georginho_juventusygr]

not better than Holland, but better than Greece, Slovenia, Serbia and Denmark

Yet Equador lost to Poland and Macedonia? Norway never lose against Brazil, but it doesn't mean that they are better than Brazil, eh?

Get over it, Uquillas. Equador were going down from the point where Delgado isn't as good as he was in the past.