South American Football > European Football

[Ruud van Nistelrooy]

Ecuador beat croatia, Ecuador Beat Poland, so yes Ecuador and Colombia could beat any euro team outside the top 6 with exception to portugal.

Ecuador produced Antonio Valencia, ergo they are ****

[Mario]

this has nothing whatsoever to do with football anymore. i hope you all are happy for being so die-hard isolated

[Uquillas]

How am I biased? Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't care either way, all I'm interested in is a solid argument and we're just not getting any from you. Face it, you start a thread saying because there are 4 SA teams in the quarters they deserve an extra spot and now there's only 1 left and you're sitting with egg on your face because you don't have the arguments to make a case.

the argument remains because Colombia/Ecuador are better the half the teams europe sends to the WC

[Mario]

why would anything be perfectly just in humanity AT ALL? let it go. those arguments you're sending to the europeans will not be heard, yet they will sit to watch the champions league and root for the 250+ south american players they have

look at historical facts. the gold that was in minas gerais, brasil is sitting in banks in london.

[silva_gunner]

Oh yeah, because our ancestors exploited you we're all automatically up our own arses then? You kind of have a point, but some of the stupid stuff you come out with about the European superiority complex has put me right off of the idea.

[T-IceMan]

This discussion is an utter joke, lets just have all 10 south american teams enter the world cup coz they are "better"

*sarcasm mode off*

[Mario]

Oh yeah, because our ancestors exploited you we're all automatically up our own arses then? You kind of have a point, but some of the stupid stuff you come out with about the European superiority complex has put me right off of the idea.

a bit yes. nothing to do with european superiority, that's quite the opposite to what i was thinking actually, you're just eurocentric

[gunner4eva]

the argument remains because Colombia/Ecuador are better the half the teams europe sends to the WC

I still disagree, i think many nations that europe didn't send would still beat Colombia and some of them Ecuador. We're talking your Russia's, Croatia's, Rep. of Ireland, Sweden, Norway.

[Candre168]

I still disagree, i think many nations that europe didn't send would still beat Colombia and some of them Ecuador. We're talking your Russia's, Croatia's, Rep. of Ireland, Sweden, Norway.

Ukraine and Turkey as well.

[Tele Santana]

Katarian,

You just proved how naive you are. Face it: FIFA is an organization based in Europe. Actually, if not for Jules Rimet himself, the WC might as well have been the European Cup, or a WC based in Europe every 4 years.

I´ll take my time analyzing your pointless b**** below.

"So in '66 FIFA or the Officals decided that a South American team couldn't win? Sounds like conspiracy theory ******** of the highest order to me. Unless you also think that Uruguay's easy ride in 1950 was fixed to ensure a European team didn't win three times in a row? Even if you believe that there is no proof that any European team participated in the conspiracy, so your just going to rile up most of the Europeans, and the English on the forum."

FIFA didn´t decide a South American team wouldn´t win. The organization of the tournament was set in a way that would heavily unfavour SA teams. Of course we could have a SA team winning it, but it would be highly unlikely. More than it is usual hard for a team from Europe winning in SA or vice-versa.

That meant, amongst other things, an officiating that was absolutely biased agains SA teams - being the most explicit action.

Now, in 1950, in Brazil, there was not anything like it. Actually, if you happen to know a bit about Brazil, you´d learn that, by that time, the greatest influence in Brazil was still from Europe, not the US, and that Brazil has an enormous divide culturally with other SA countries where language (Spanish vs Portuguese) is just the easiest aspect to spot.

For Brazil, it would be a lot easier actually to lose a World Cup to an European side. There was a sense at that time that anything from Europe was good, while there was a bitter rivalry with Uruguay and Argentina from the South American competitions.

By the way...Uruguay had such an "easy time" because Scotland and Turkey withdrew. Would you like me to explain further? I do guess it would win easily against both of them, but hopefully you´ll get my point.

And finally, there was no controversy at all in 1950 cited from the camps of the European teams that took part in the tournament. If you happen to discover one, please let me know, while in 66...

So no case at all comparing.

About population, here we go again...proportionally what is the gain? Of course in absolute numbers the difference will be less if you take a gender out, or if you take age groups out and so long so forth. What I meant, and I´m sorry if I assumed you would understand is that there will be still a significant difference.

So, if roughly 25 million men in England create a basic pool of football talent, to simplify, and 20 million for Argentina, England would have 5 people for every 4 Argentineans to pick from its pool. Or 25% more. So, based on the population theory, which you applied and then confused with the fragmentation issue, England would have to be 25% more succesful than Argentina. Is it?

You of course fail to look at basics, such as standard of living and appropriate structure to raise youngsters, which, although is not case in Argentina usually, is too much of an issue in many countries such as Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, and even to some extent, still Brazil.

Anyways, my point was made.

I am sure the reasonable people who can live with other´s point of view agreeing or disagreeing won´t be offended, so I really don´t expect English users to come bullying, etc. - although it happened sometimes from some ill-mannered users. If it happens, I´ll deal with it, like always. No problem supporting my stands against uneducated people.

My opinions on 66, how FIFA works as a political entity today and historically - of course it changed and became softer or more sutile over time - how governments used sports as a political arena and things like that are hardly exclusive of me, Katarian. Neither they are conspiracy X-Files created by a bunch of alienated people.

There is a lot of documentation about such things, in books, in newspapers, in interviews, etc. I cited one work in my last post from a Brazilian late coach, journalist and writer. Fair enough. Many journalists and writers, including some European and English, wrote about that. If you fail to see how polytics can go in FIFA you should try to know Andrew Jennings´ work, for example.

Cheers,

Tele

[Uquillas]

I still disagree, i think many nations that europe didn't send would still beat Colombia and some of them Ecuador. We're talking your Russia's, Croatia's, Rep. of Ireland, Sweden, Norway.

Ukraine and Turkey as well.

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

ok then

[Jamos5000]

Ecuador beat Croatia 8 years ago? They must be better then!

This is a ******** argument. I don't think Europe > South America anymore than S.A. > Europe. The fact remains S.A. should get 0.5 more of a place at most. To be sending over half the continent to the finals is ridiculous, and makes a mockery of the qualification process. Sometimes Ecuador and Colombia will qualify, sometimes they won't. Boo ****ing hoo. Someone has to miss out, even the big boys now and then. We weren't there in 1994, Holland weren't there in 2002. The tournament goes on.

[Candre168]

ok then

Cyprus beat Republic of Ireland 5-2 two or three years ago (qualifiers), and as a fan of Cyprus due to heritage, I would NEVER claim Cyprus is better than Ireland. Cyprus also beat Bulgaria 4-1 last year, and I'd also be stupid to claim Cyprus are better than Bulgaria.

Your reasoning is flawed.

[Butts]

ok then

Conclusive proof that Macedonia are in fact better than Ecuador.

[Uquillas]

Cyprus beat Republic of Ireland 5-2 two or three years ago (qualifiers), and as a fan of Cyprus due to heritage, I would NEVER claim Cyprus is better than Ireland. Cyprus also beat Bulgaria 4-1 last year, and I'd also be stupid to claim Cyprus are better than Bulgaria.

Your reasoning is flawed.

That's why I didn't post the score to just 1 game vs european team (not in top 6) but all 12 of them from the past 10 years.

[T-IceMan]

Conclusive proof that Macedonia are in fact better than Ecuador.

And poland haha

oh i lol'ed at:

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

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

[gunner4eva]

Northern Ireland beat England a few years back.

**** man! N. Ireland so much better now!

[Candre168]

That's why I didn't post the score to just 1 game vs european team (not in top 6) but all 12 of them from the past 10 years.

Okay, here are a list of Cyprus' results more recently against clearly better teams:

2009:

Cyprus 4-1 Bulgaria

Cyprus 3-2 Slovakia

2008:

Cyprus 1-1 Ukraine

2007:

Cyprus 1-1 Ireland

2006:

Cyprus 5-2 Ireland

Cyrus 1-1 Germany

By your reasoning, Cyprus are better than Ireland, Bulgaria and Slovakia, and equal to Ukraine and Germany. Even I as a person who would have natural bias towards Cyprus, would NEVER make such an absurd claim.

Your reasoning is flawed as I said before.

[Uquillas]

Cyprus beat Republic of Ireland 5-2 two or three years ago (qualifiers), and as a fan of Cyprus due to heritage, I would NEVER claim Cyprus is better than Ireland. Cyprus also beat Bulgaria 4-1 last year, and I'd also be stupid to claim Cyprus are better than Bulgaria.

Your reasoning is flawed.

Okay, here are a list of Cyprus' results more recently against clearly better teams:

2009:

Cyprus 4-1 Bulgaria

Cyprus 3-2 Slovakia

2008:

Cyprus 1-1 Ukraine

2007:

Cyprus 1-1 Ireland

2006:

Cyprus 5-2 Ireland

Cyrus 1-1 Germany

By your reasoning, Cyprus are better than Ireland, Bulgaria and Slovakia, and equal to Ukraine and Germany. Even I as a person who would have natural bias towards Cyprus, would NEVER make such an absurd claim.

Your reasoning is flawed as I said before.

are those ALL of Cyprus results agains uefa teams NOT in the top 6? or are you just cherry picking?

[PaulHartman71]

You're talking out your arse so much ffs. Including friendly results against European teams is also completely irrelevent. The only way to judge non-European sides against European sides is in a World Cup imo, friendly games the pressure is off. Your country didn't qualify for this World Cup, just get over it. There's lots of high reputation European teams that didn't qualify: Sweden, Czech Republic, Russia, Croatia, etc. Should Europe have extra spots because they could do better than some of the teams that qualified?

Whilst I believe that South America should have 5 automatic spots rather than fifth place having that play-off with the North American team, your arguments are ridiculous and biased to the highest level.

[Tele Santana]

Although this is not my discussion really...Candre, I think you missed the point.

Cyprus played other matches as well. Uquillas had to use friendlies since Ecuador didn´t play against European opposition in official competitions in the last years. Also, Uquillas didn´t include only teams he supposed would be better (so people came to talk to him about a loss to Macedonia...). In my interpretation, he wanted to give us a view on the campaign of Ecuador against European opposition in the last few years, which I think is a good assessment of quality.

Maybe I´m wrong, but the information I have is that in 2010 Cyprus drew with Iceland, in 2009 Cyprus lost to Serbia and Canada, in 2008 to Greece and Switzerland and in 2006 it lost to Slovenia and Romenia, just to pick the friendlies.

Since Uquillas point was the campaign of his team against European teams over the last years, either you could bring the same about Cyprus vs South American or non-European teams (unexpected to lose to Canada, really), or, if the point is to compare directly with Ecuador campaign, look at Cyprus campaign against Europeans, which doesn´t seem that much impressive either in friendlies, but it looks in some of the qualifying games.

Having said that, I empathyze with Cyprus as well and I believe its football is getting better and better.

Cheers,

Tele

[charlo116]

Although this is not my discussion really...Candre, I think you missed the point.

Cyprus played other matches as well. Uquillas had to use friendlies since Ecuador didn´t play against European opposition in official competitions in the last years. Also, Uquillas didn´t include only teams he supposed would be better (so people came to talk to him about a loss to Macedonia...). In my interpretation, he wanted to give us a view on the campaign of Ecuador against European opposition in the last few years, which I think is a good assessment of quality.

Maybe I´m wrong, but the information I have is that in 2010 Cyprus drew with Iceland, in 2009 Cyprus lost to Serbia and Canada, in 2008 to Greece and Switzerland and in 2006 it lost to Slovenia and Romenia, just to pick the friendlies.

Since Uquillas point was the campaign of his team against European teams over the last years, either you could bring the same about Cyprus vs South American or non-European teams (unexpected to lose to Canada, really), or, if the point is to compare directly with Ecuador campaign, look at Cyprus campaign against Europeans, which doesn´t seem that much impressive either in friendlies, but it looks in some of the qualifying games.

Having said that, I empathyze with Cyprus as well and I believe its football is getting better and better.

Cheers,

Tele

Honestly trying to defend Uquillas makes you sound biased too. Friendlies are pointless and can't be used to judge the quality of teams because some countries might send out their second string team and the pressure is off in those games as well.

Look at Croatia and Russia who made the semi-finals of Euro 2008 which proves that both those sides can beat good oppostion teams yet neither made it to the world cup, trying to continue an argument that seems to have descendd into some sort of hatred or rivalry between the two continents is pointless and i can't understand how some people are happy with what their posting in this thread because most of it its just stupid.

Uquillas started this thread to annoy some europeans and now the tables have turned because theres only one south american team left and he's trying to defend his arse out of this situation.

[Candre168]

You guys missed my point completely.

I was arguing that using head to head results to judge which National Team is better is pointless, because Cyprus had gotten results agaisnt National Teams far better, but it would be stupid to say Cyprus are as good as Germany because we drew with them.

I was calling you out for your line of reasoning.

[Tele Santana]

Charlo,

Sorry if I sound biased to you. You´ve been in the thread for a while so you can take your conclusions. I didn´t advocate for SA to earn more berths, although at some point I did imply that Europe could get a bit less and FIFA could send countries regardless of continent to some sort of global repechage.

I don´t know Uquillas well enough to judge his motivation either. But in fact, what I´ve seen here was a lot of offensive posts against his ideas - was it Voltaire (an European) that said that anyone was entitled to express his own ideas, and he would defend that right even if he wouldn´t agree with them at all? I must say the same reaction ocurred to my posts after I identified and pointed out what I saw as Eurocentric short-sight and silly (or not so...) stereotipying.

As for my last post, I disagree with you. The point is: if you don´t have anything else to judge a team for, you can look at the full international friendlies - why not?

I played football (though not as a senior) and never ocurred to me to enter a field without a clear goal to win, regardless of level or competition status. Of course it would be better if Ecuador faced European sides frequently in tournaments, but if not...friendlies are at least an indication - and nowadays remember most of them happen on FIFA dates, thus enabling teams to present full sides.

His point was to show his National Side campaign. And Candre showed some examples of matches against what would-be better opposition to counter the argument.

Again, I´ll stress my interpretation of Uquilla´s post which was to present his team run of results over a period of time, against European sides. The expected way to counter it would be showing Cyprus´.

From my side, I never intended to advocate that Ecuador is plain better than, say, Sweden, based only in a result.

But generally speaking, I could see a pattern of good results against the European teams out of the top 6.

Candre made it clear in his post that his argument was that no team should be deemed better than another based in a result, and I definitely agree with him (hence my reaction to the Norway-Brazil example before).

But to look at a run of results against a specific type of opposition seems very valid to me, conceding friendlies are not the best way to analyze it, but the only possible...

Cheers,

Tele

[charlo116]

You're missing the point, in friendlies a team may send out a weaker side to try out different players. Some of the better players may also have had a word with their club managers who don't want them to get injured, so they won't go out there to go hard into tackles and work all the time to get every ball.

Again i don't know why anyone can argue that europe should have less spots for the world cup when you have teams like Turkey, Ukraine, Croatia and Russia missing out who have some hugely talented players as well as some of these countries having good records at past world cups. This whole thread started because Uquillas had some misguided sense that SA was better than Europe because they had more teams left at the world cup and his argument have only gotten more and more biased.

[Uquillas]

Charlo,

Sorry if I sound biased to you. You´ve been in the thread for a while so you can take your conclusions. I didn´t advocate for SA to earn more berths, although at some point I did imply that Europe could get a bit less and FIFA could send countries regardless of continent to some sort of global repechage.

I don´t know Uquillas well enough to judge his motivation either. But in fact, what I´ve seen here was a lot of offensive posts against his ideas - was it Voltaire (an European) that said that anyone was entitled to express his own ideas, and he would defend that right even if he wouldn´t agree with them at all? I must say the same reaction ocurred to my posts after I identified and pointed out what I saw as Eurocentric short-sight and silly (or not so...) stereotipying.

As for my last post, I disagree with you. The point is: if you don´t have anything else to judge a team for, you can look at the full international friendlies - why not?

I played football (though not as a senior) and never ocurred to me to enter a field without a clear goal to win, regardless of level or competition status. Of course it would be better if Ecuador faced European sides frequently in tournaments, but if not...friendlies are at least an indication - and nowadays remember most of them happen on FIFA dates, thus enabling teams to present full sides.

His point was to show his National Side campaign. And Candre showed some examples of matches against what would-be better opposition to counter the argument.

Again, I´ll stress my interpretation of Uquilla´s post which was to present his team run of results over a period of time, against European sides. The expected way to counter it would be showing Cyprus´.

From my side, I never intended to advocate that Ecuador is plain better than, say, Sweden, based only in a result.

But generally speaking, I could see a pattern of good results against the European teams out of the top 6.

Candre made it clear in his post that his argument was that no team should be deemed better than another based in a result, and I definitely agree with him (hence my reaction to the Norway-Brazil example before).

But to look at a run of results against a specific type of opposition seems very valid to me, conceding friendlies are not the best way to analyze it, but the only possible...

Cheers,

Tele

If the point I was trying to make was not clear, I think Tele Santana interpreted pretty well, thanks.

Like I said, I don't advocate for SA to get all 10 tickets, I was arguing for 1 more spot and uefa for 1 less.

[Uquillas]

Again i don't know why anyone can argue that europe should have less spots for the world cup when you have teams like Turkey, Ukraine, Croatia and Russia missing out who have some hugely talented players as well as some of these countries having good records at past world cups. This whole thread started because Uquillas had some misguided sense that SA was better than Europe because they had more teams left at the world cup and his argument have only gotten more and more biased.

I bring friendlies, you guys say friendlies don't count because noone takes them seriously, I bring official WC matches, and it doesn't count because you say they had poor teams those years.

Who is biased?

[charlo116]

i'm not biased, i'm neither european nor south american. Its my own personal opinion that ecuador and Colombia aren't as good as teams like Croatia or Russia. Real Madrdi were beaten by Alcoron that doesn't make them better, you have to look at the success each team has as a whole and i don't think Ecuador or Colombia could have done as well at Euro 2008 as Russia and Croatia did. In general i'm more impressed with the european teams that just missed out rather than the SA teams that just missed out.

If you start a thread the way you did no one will take you seriously, the truth is most of your posts have been glaringly biased and full of rubbish.

[Tele Santana]

Charlo,

'You're missing the point, in friendlies a team may send out a weaker side to try out different players. Some of the better players may also have had a word with their club managers who don't want them to get injured, so they won't go out there to go hard into tackles and work all the time to get every ball.'

I´m not. This holds true to both teams playing. They sometimes won´t go as hard as they could in tackling, that is true, but again this is applied to both sides playing. It is common for the better team to win as much as it is in tournaments.

'Again i don't know why anyone can argue that europe should have less spots for the world cup when you have teams like Turkey, Ukraine, Croatia and Russia missing out who have some hugely talented players as well as some of these countries having good records at past world cups.'

As long as I see talent in the countries you cited, I see it as well in both Ecuador and Colombia, also left out. So why not send these teams alongside the playoff winners in Europe, the almost-qualified in Asia, Africa and Concacaf to a quick tournament to decide the last spots, after the top teams from each continent fill the initial berths?

About the SA vs Europe thing, I share his feeling, but not because all 5 SA teams qualified from group stage. Simply because if you look at the 10 teams in SA and think of them, on average, they´ll have a better talent pool and index than Europe in general. It doesn´t mean Europe hasn´t got the best team in the world at the moment, which I believe it does in Germany, by the way they have been playing in the tournament - brilliant football, I should add.

But even if you look at the original 33 teams from Europe before the fragmentation started at the late 80´s and their highest succesful heirs (i.e. Serbia in Yugoslavia atm, etc.) and create a ranking amongst all those teams and the SA ones, my opinion is that the weakest SA team, Bolivia or Peru, would be placed in the top 25, and better than the weaker European sides, not just only over tiny countries such as Andorra.

Again, this is just an opinion. You´re entitled to yours always :-).

Cheers,

Tele

[Tele Santana]

And on a note, Charlo, have you seen Ecuador playing the WC qualifying round in South America?

They played in a very good level.

I followed the European qualifiers as well and I do think they would match the teams left out in the European playoffs, and are actually better than Slovenia and Greece.

[charlo116]

I´m not. This holds true to both teams playing. They sometimes won´t go as hard as they could in tackling, that is true, but again this is applied to both sides playing. It is common for the better team to win as much as it is in tournaments.

As long as I see talent in the countries you cited, I see it as well in both Ecuador and Colombia, also left out. So why not send these teams alongside the playoff winners in Europe, the almost-qualified in Asia, Africa and Concacaf to a quick tournament to decide the last spots, after the top teams from each continent fill the initial berths?

About the SA vs Europe thing, I share his feeling, but not because all 5 SA teams qualified from group stage. Simply because if you look at the 10 teams in SA and think of them, on average, they´ll have a better talent pool and index than Europe in general. It doesn´t mean Europe hasn´t got the best team in the world at the moment, which I believe it does in Germany, by the way they have been playing in the tournament - brilliant football, I should add.

But even if you look at the original 33 teams from Europe before the fragmentation started at the late 80´s and their highest succesful heirs (i.e. Serbia in Yugoslavia atm, etc.) and create a ranking amongst all those teams and the SA ones, my opinion is that the weakest SA team, Bolivia or Peru, would be placed in the top 25, and better than the weaker European sides, not just only over tiny countries such as Andorra.

Again, this is just an opinion. You´re entitled to yours always :-).

Cheers,

Tele

Wouldn't that mean you're comparing two weakened teams? Doesn't prove a thing.

And it also proves nothing to compare the weakest sides of each continent because Europe has several small nations that just don't match up compared to SA's handful of nations. You're better off comparing the top teams and the teams who just miss out on the world cup and imo Europe is stronger on the second count.

[charlo116]

And on a note, Charlo, have you seen Ecuador playing the WC qualifying round in South America?

They played in a very good level.

I followed the European qualifiers as well and I do think they would match the teams left out in the European playoffs, and are actually better than Slovenia and Greece.

Yes i have seen Ecuador and i do think they are better tha Greece but Slovenia were remarkable and other teams that lost in the playoffs were unlucky and stronger than Ecuador.

Ecuador are a good side and i'm not arguing that Europe should get another spot but why should south america when teams like Russia who were amazing against Holland two years ago are missing out? There are good countries in both continents that are mssing out the only thing i don't agree with is the idea that SA should get another qualification spot and Europe should lose one.

[Tele Santana]

Charlo,

You missed my point. I stressed the comparison to go down to the weakest sides. But of course it has to include the top and second-tier sides as well.

What wouldn´t be fair would be to create circumstancial and limited comparisons. That is my whole point when talking about continents.

Say, hipotetically (!) you agree Brazil is SA superpower. Brazil is the world superpower historically. By then SA is better than Europe, because say Brazil has a better record than Italy?

Then say Germany is the second power in Europe. Let´s assume that (I´d argue, but ok) it is better than Argentina, it has a stronger record, etc.

Would that match the continents?

That is my point, if you keep going down, why do you need to stop at the one´s who qualified or barely missed?

So let´s say you have a point about the European tiny populated nations, under a million people. Cool. Take them out, work out a ranking and see how the countries will fit (not FIFA´s...).

South American giants will sit on top alongside Italy and Germany. Than you´d have England, France, Netherlands, Spain and Uruguay all in the mix. And I truly mean that. Uruguay is a frequent semifinalist, two times World Champion and two times Olympic Champions in a time when there was no World Cup. Despite the would-be conclusion Uruguay has been dormant, it can be said in World Cup level to some extent, but their ratio of big talent producing for their 3.5 million population is insane (so much for the population theory). Francescoli, Sosa are just two examples from the 80´s.

Then I´d definitely place Chile and Paraguay alongside the next wave of European powers. Portugal could be considered for the paragraph above, but nevertheless, Portugal, Serbia, Russia, etc. I saw Ukraine playing recently and found it utterly disappointing. And for Croatia, well, they played well two years ago. These teams would be in the mix, I just don´t see a point telling they would be better than Chile and Paraguay.

Ecuador and Colombia would be real close, and probably better than Greece which was in the WC, imo Slovenia, etc.

Next in line, Venezuela, Peru and Bolivia, imo, are better sides than the likes of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Northern Ireland, Wales, even Hungary these days, etc.

I am not talking about Andorra, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and other tiny countries.

This is my take on South America having a better overall football scenario due to a balance between the top tiers (not even taking Brazil´s historical record into account) but edging when you get the comparison down to the weaker side of the ladder.

I am not contending for an extra berth, though. All I said in regards to this was that it would be more fair if teams failing to qualify directly met regardless of continent to bring the 'best of the rest' out of a global pool.

Cheers,

Tele

[georginho_juventusygr]

If the point I was trying to make was not clear, I think Tele Santana interpreted pretty well, thanks.

Like I said, I don't advocate for SA to get all 10 tickets, I was arguing for 1 more spot and uefa for 1 less.

For what? I don't see any good performance from Colombia, Ecuador, and friends in the past years. If your argument is that Ecuador are better than tne half of European representatives, show the results.

[Tele Santana]

georginho,

well, Ecuador in qualifying did this: drew Argentina in Buenos Aires, then beat the Argies at home. They also won against Chile at home and drew Uruguay away.

If it weren´t for their poor showing at the start in 2007 and a heartbreaking loss against Uruguay at home and they could have been in the WC.

I don´t see many teams able to beat Argentina even in their home soil out of the big 6 of Europe, much less getting a draw in BAs or Montevideo.

When faced against European opponents, uquillas already mentioned the campaign, which seems pretty decent winning against their would-be-mix...

[joe__the__man]

In world football right now:

Brazil & Argentina - - = Germany, Holland, Spain.

Uruguay & Chile - - - = England, Portugal, Italy, France.

Paraguay --- - - - - - = Russia, Croatia, Ireland, Denmark, Slovakia, Sweden, Bosnia, Switzerland, Ukraine, Serbia.

Colombia & Ecuador- = Turkey, Norway, Finland, Greece, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Belgium, Wales, Czech Rep.

Peru & Venezuela --- = Scotland, Iceland, Montenegro, Austria, Belarus, Hungary.

Bolivia - - - - - - - - - = Macedonia, Cyprus, Albania, N.Ireland, Israel.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -= Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Estonia

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -= Lithuania, Moldova, Liechtenstein, Andorra, San Marino, Malta, Faroe Is.

Based partly on the current World Cup, partly on qualifying and partly on previous tournaments and games.

Based on that, to give SA 4 spots would mean 7 for UEFA, to give SA 5 would mean 17 for UEFA - therefore 4.5 for SA = 12 for UEFA, which I think would be fair enough.

Any disagreements?

[Tele Santana]

Hey Joe,

I´ve gotta go now, but your post is very interesting. Maybe we could have 4/8 or 10 and some berths to be decided altogether between the next in line from each continent.

Cheers,

Tele

[joe__the__man]

Yeah. Like top 4/top 8 qualify automatically from SA/UEFA, then the next 4/next 12 play playoffs of which 8 go through, perhaps.

[Uquillas]

In world football right now:

Brazil & Argentina - - = Germany, Holland, Spain.

Uruguay & Chile - - - = England, Portugal, Italy, France.

Paraguay --- - - - - - = Russia, Croatia, Ireland, Denmark, Slovakia, Sweden, Bosnia, Switzerland, Ukraine, Serbia.

Colombia & Ecuador- = Turkey, Norway, Finland, Greece, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Belgium, Wales, Czech Rep.

Peru & Venezuela --- = Scotland, Iceland, Montenegro, Austria, Belarus, Hungary.

Bolivia - - - - - - - - - = Macedonia, Cyprus, Albania, N.Ireland, Israel.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -= Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Estonia

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -= Lithuania, Moldova, Liechtenstein, Andorra, San Marino, Malta, Faroe Is.

Based partly on the current World Cup, partly on qualifying and partly on previous tournaments and games.

Based on that, to give SA 4 spots would mean 7 for UEFA, to give SA 5 would mean 17 for UEFA - therefore 4.5 for SA = 12 for UEFA, which I think would be fair enough.

Any disagreements?

How are any of these teams even better/equal to Ecuador?

Bosnia has never even been to a world cup.

Ireland made to only 1 out of the last 3 WC.

Finland, never made it to a WC.

Slovakia only made to 1 of the last 3 and only won 1 game.

Croatia lost to Ecuador in 2002.

Serbia performed worse than Ecuador in their last 2 WC, didnt advance group stage.

Greece only made to 1 of the last 3 and only won 1 game.

Bulgaria has not made it to the last 3 WC

Romania has not made it to the past 3 WC

Wales has not made it to the past 3 WC

Belgium only made to 1 of the last 3 and only won 1 game.

Slovenia made it to 2 WC but never passed group stage.

Poland, Ecuador beat Poland.

[georginho_juventusygr]

georginho,

well, Ecuador in qualifying did this: drew Argentina in Buenos Aires, then beat the Argies at home. They also won against Chile at home and drew Uruguay away.

If it weren´t for their poor showing at the start in 2007 and a heartbreaking loss against Uruguay at home and they could have been in the WC.

I don´t see many teams able to beat Argentina even in their home soil out of the big 6 of Europe, much less getting a draw in BAs or Montevideo.

When faced against European opponents, uquillas already mentioned the campaign, which seems pretty decent winning against their would-be-mix...

But missing out is missing out, isn't it? The Netherlands missed out in 2002, yet they didn't request an extra spot for Europe because they were (surely) still better than Uruguay or Paraguay were.

Oh, regarding the results that he showed, they are flawed. Ecuador might win against Turkey, but still lost against Macedonia.

And as I already stated, berths are assigned based on performances in the World Cup although not only it. This is the reason that FIFA hardly wants to give Oceania an automatic spot.

[DJ]

Brazil & Argentina - - = Germany, Holland

You wish

Holland > Brasil

Germany > Argentina

Berths:

2 : 1

[charlo116]

I'm not going to argue about how good Ecuador is anymore, my point is simply both continents have very good sides that will miss out each world cup so there's no point in South America getting an extra spot at Europe's expense like Uquillas suggested. Its a stupid suggestion and i'll leave it at that.

[Divinity]

I'm loving this. Based on the ******** logic above, Australia are better than every South American side because we beat Uruguay 5 years ago to qualify for Germany 2006, and they're now semi-finalists. Can't wait for that trophy to be awarded to us.

[SeanNUFC]

Ecuador beat Croatia 8 years ago? They must be better then!

This is a ******** argument. I don't think Europe > South America anymore than S.A. > Europe. The fact remains S.A. should get 0.5 more of a place at most. To be sending over half the continent to the finals is ridiculous, and makes a mockery of the qualification process. Sometimes Ecuador and Colombia will qualify, sometimes they won't. Boo ****ing hoo. Someone has to miss out, even the big boys now and then. We weren't there in 1994, Holland weren't there in 2002. The tournament goes on.

^ This. Now enough with the essays/ridiculous arguments please people.

[football_master_94]

Good logic from the South Americans Keep on talking about the past.

If Ecuador are so mighty, why didn't they qualify for this WC?

[gunner4eva]

How are any of these teams even better/equal to Ecuador?

Bosnia has never even been to a world cup.

Ireland made to only 1 out of the last 3 WC.

Finland, never made it to a WC.

Slovakia only made to 1 of the last 3 and only won 1 game.

Croatia lost to Ecuador in 2002.

Serbia performed worse than Ecuador in their last 2 WC, didnt advance group stage.

Greece only made to 1 of the last 3 and only won 1 game.

Bulgaria has not made it to the last 3 WC

Romania has not made it to the past 3 WC

Wales has not made it to the past 3 WC

Belgium only made to 1 of the last 3 and only won 1 game.

Slovenia made it to 2 WC but never passed group stage.

Poland, Ecuador beat Poland.

This is brilliant, laughing so much at you at the moment.

Croatia are light years ahead of Ecuador mate, just because they lost to them in 2002 then they are worse . Your a joke mate. I agree with the original post, ALL of those teams are better than Ecuador, your just so ridiculously biased.

Just because team X beat team Y 8 years ago that isn't conclusive proof that team X is better.

[Candre168]

Greece only made to 1 of the last 3 and only won 1 game.

Let me point out, this Greek team was at the stage when the old players were too old and the young players were too young. I can assure you by 2014, Greece will be a stronger National side.

I should also add, do you really think Ecuador would do anything if they played Argentina, South Korea and Nigeria?

[football_master_94]

Let me point out, this Greek team was at the stage when the old players were too old and the young players were too young. I can assure you by 2014, Greece will be a stronger National side.

I should also add, do you really think Ecuador would do anything if they played Argentina, South Korea and Nigeria?

By his logic, if Ecuador has beaten any of the teams in the past, they are better so... Ecuador would get 9 points ;)

[Candre168]

He's just picking on European countries he's never heard of. He can't take the fact that a small new nation like Slovenia, are better than Ecuador despite Ecuador having a seven times larger population.

[Micado]

By his logic, if Ecuador has beaten any of the teams in the past, they are better so... Ecuador would get 9 points ;)

Like that logic, as we won against Italy and France at Euro 2008, so we should win the final then this year