South American Football > European Football

[skybluedave]

They didn't play NZ with ideas of drawing 0-0 from the start though. And it wasn't a dead rubber. That would of been too risky, NZ would of only needed to nick 1 goal and Paraguay could of gone home. They played to win, couldn't score, and settled for a draw late in the game.

[HD]

I think it's understandable that there would be less intensity knowing you only need to draw with a team that you don't think can score on you.

[neutral]

They didn't need to beat NZ though, and Japan are a really negative, boring (like Bolton during Big Sam era) football side.

Fixed for you...

Sorry, I rated S Korea a level higher than them...

SA have like what, 10 nations, and you want to increase their allocations? Why don't we just award all those 10 nations to WC instead?

Saving a lot of time and cost, avoiding unnecessary injuries and traveling etc...

[HD]

I don't agree they should have more teams. 4.5 is plenty. This is the first time in a long time that South America has had this level of success, though I suspect they will replicate it next time also.

[Mario]

I think this time around there's no hegemony to put pressure on any strong team. A WC in Europe is usually frightening for the colonized as they face a progressive materialistic culture and organized structures and that made some painful memory to them; a WC in South Africa looked chaotic beforehand, but I get the feeling everyone is free to feel what they want to feel this time around, as the outsider background is good for everybody. There's no Eiffel tower to humble anyone, no arrogance.

I think this is the most neutral World Cup we had since USA

[Meitheisman]

A WC in Europe is usually frightening for the colonized as they face a progressive materialistic culture and organized structures and that made some painful memory to them

I never thought of it that way, is it something that South Americans player talk about when coming back from a WC in Europe or just an assumption you're making? (I'd also assume that the South Americans already playing club football in Europe would be immune to that effect)

[Heartwork]

You can't really allow for more than half the confederation to qualify can you?

[Mario]

I never thought of it that way, is it something that South Americans player talk about when coming back from a WC in Europe or just an assumption you're making? (I'd also assume that the South Americans already playing club football in Europe would be immune to that effect)

I'm assuming that today based on many stories I have heard and read about, I understand it sounds a bit anecdotal and it is because it is what it is, simple people facing outlandish life experiences.

The brazilian players who are already in Europe sometimes look too jaded, it's kinda the inverse problem, also a problem. Anyway, there's this undeniable abyss.

[Meitheisman]

I wasn't disputing your point, just asking where it came from. I can see it being a factor (even if only anecdotal as you said yourself). Thanks

[Mario]

Yeah, sure, I wasn't defending my point of view but giving further details to you. You're welcome

[Astafjevs]

They didn't need to beat NZ though, and Japan are a really good side.

They're not, they are an average side compensating for it by playing some very negative football at times. Like New Zealand and a host of other sides have done in this World Cup.

The reason Paraguay didn't beat them in normal time is because they too resorted to this style for that game - they (understandably) didn't want to lose, and it produced one of the worst games of the tournament.

[Troneas]

regardless of the fact that around 50% of the SA nations qualify to the WC, i think we can all agree that those SA nations that were left out are more competitive than some of the ones that did attend.

Asia for instance should have their spots reduced. North Korea? New Zealand? Australia? All jokes and are no match for a team like Peru.

Concacaf should be limited to two spots and one to dispute with Conmebol (instead of 3 spots and one). Mexico and the USA will probably qualify to most WCs but the rest are pretty much insignificant. Honduras?

i think the rest is pretty much spot on. europe didn't have the best of WCs but any team could have been competitive - same with africa if they sort out their political problems.

[Intruder-II]

I think South American and Top European teams are at the same level. But Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela would qualify to second round in the World Cup and are better than the likes of Slovenia, even may put 4 past them. South America is very hard. Europe is easy: Latvia, Andorra, Norway, Slovakia, Bosnia, etc.

[Divinity]

Asia for instance should have their spots reduced. North Korea? New Zealand? Australia? All jokes and are no match for a team like Peru.

You're an idiot.

[gunner4eva]

I think South American and Top European teams are at the same level. But Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela would qualify to second round in the World Cup and are better than the likes of Slovenia, even may put 4 past them. South America is very hard. Europe is easy: Latvia, Andorra, Norway, Slovakia, Bosnia, etc.

Venezuela putting 4 past Slovenia? I think your having a laugh mate.

and your whole point is made void by the fact you list Bosnia as an easy team . They're a good side who were a whisker away from qualifier for this summer.

[charlo116]

the truth is there are better european sides that missed out on the world cup like Russia and Croatia than the south american sides that missed out.

[Troneas]

You're an idiot.

and you attack me because you cannot attack my claim.

[Tele Santana]

Although I have been restraining myself to jump into this discussion, I have to answer Charlo´s post, which is a misconception, IMHO.

both Colombia and Ecuador have very decent teams that could be a match for almost all European teams. When you place this into perspective, you see that you have 7 potential WC teams in the continent, Venezuela growing in the last few years and only Peru and Bolivia a step below (although both sides have had better generations).

For me it is pretty clear that the worst South American side is much better than the worst European side (or 10 sides - think about it: Andorra, Faroe Islands, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Malta, Letonia, Luxembourg, Estonia, Latvia and Albania).

Cheers,

Tele

[Meitheisman]

I'd agree that he shouldn't call you an idiot but your claim didn't really spark debate either, you included New Zealand in a list of teams in the Asian confederation for a start.

Edit: @ Troneas.

[charlo116]

Although I have been restraining myself to jump into this discussion, I have to answer Charlo´s post, which is a misconception, IMHO.

both Colombia and Ecuador have very decent teams that could be a match for almost all European teams. When you place this into perspective, you see that you have 7 potential WC teams in the continent, Venezuela growing in the last few years and only Peru and Bolivia a step below (although both sides have had better generations).

For me it is pretty clear that the worst South American side is much better than the worst European side (or 10 sides - think about it: Andorra, Faroe Islands, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Malta, Letonia, Luxembourg, Estonia, Latvia and Albania).

Cheers,

Tele

I don't disagree, but you have to also consider the size of Europe compared to South America, and the quality of teams like Russia and Croatia that missed out. Russia and Croatia have some very talented players and their teams could be a challenge for an top sides in the world.

Its a bit pointless to compare the worst south american and european teams but instead the quality of teams who just miss out on qualifying should be compared. Imo Russia and Croatia are better than Colombia and Ecuador although i will admit to not having seen a lot of Ecuador so i may be well off the mark. I don't think any of the qualifying spots should be changed down to one world cup ever.

[Svenc]

For me it is pretty clear that the worst South American side is much better than the worst European side (or 10 sides - think about it: Andorra, Faroe Islands, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Malta, Letonia, Luxembourg, Estonia, Latvia and Albania).

Sure, but that is no surprise. There are 53 teams that competed for a spot in Europe, there are ten that do so in South America. South America is hardly broken into as many states as Europe, all competing with their own international side to boot. Anyway, I strongly disagree with people arguing about how lesser confederations should have taken spots away from them. This is a World Cup, and whilst it has historically been a very European and American-centric competition, at one point exclusively, the football world has moved on. And the competition is reflecting this, it's not as if half of South America have a chance of qualifying. And last time I checked UEFA is still filling almost half the slots.

[Meitheisman]

World Qualifications would be an easy way to avoid these discussions.

[Troneas]

I'd agree that he shouldn't call you an idiot but your claim didn't really spark debate either, you included New Zealand in a list of teams in the Asian confederation for a start.

Edit: @ Troneas.

hmm i thought australia and new zealand were in the asian confederation...

if they aren't it is even more ludicrous.

who do they play against then? each other and they both qualify? or do they play salomon islands and the french Polynesia?

no wonder they are in.

[Meitheisman]

Australia's in Asia, not NZ so yeah they do play the neighboring islands.

[charlo116]

but oceania doesn't have any automatic qualifying spots, so the winner of oceania still has to win a play-off to qualify.

[G-Man11]

The funniest thing is that Australia used to have to play-off against the 5th place team in SA for a world cup berth (before moving to Asia) and in 06 knocked out Uruguay while in 02 narrowly lost to Uruguay making your statement that teams like Peru are much better than Asian teams like Australia a total joke.

[Tele Santana]

Charlo,

I don´t really agree Russia and Croatia would have an easy time beating Ecuador (Colombia is in a bit of a lowlight these days, but generally speaking it does have many talents). What I am saying is that I may miss Ecuador as much as you may miss Russia or Croatia. And the same would go to Colombia most of the time.

At the same time, I can hardly see what Slovenia or Greece brought of value to this WC.

If, on the other hand, you look at the best teams in the world, historically, there are two from South America and two from Europe, namely Brazil and Argentina on one side and Italy and Germany on the other side. even though Europe always have had much more independent states (even when they were 30 something).

The odds in a competition like the World Cup are completely against the South American sides from the statistical standpoint of a competition in a format like it is. In 1990, for instance, Brazil and Argentina met in the round of 16.

This year, the same happened between Brazil and Chile. Say Chile could have been matched with Ghana, for instance, and you might well be looking at a round of 8 with the 5 SA teams still in play.

So, the usual claim I hear from European friends that more European sides end up in the first 4 positions is pretty biased, and also taken in fact that Europe has had much more tournaments played at its soil at times when there was not a clear reason for that and South American teams didn´t go (best examples would be Uruguay in 34 or Argentina in 38).

I do believe that, on average, South American sides are better. Our current worst team, Peru is no-brains better than those 10 teams I cited and probably some more, and our best teams are arguably amongst the top of the world with Spain, Holland and Germany.

I don´t agree we should have extra spots for South America, but it would be nice if there was a kind of World-repechage like it happened for a while in Olympic qualifying for sports like basketball.

But to be honest with you all, I do think 32 teams is far too much for a World Tournament. I think 24 was a better number, that would avoid embarassingly poor games at the finals. But that´s me. :-)

Cheers,

Tele

[Divinity]

and you attack me because you cannot attack my claim.

No, I call you an idiot because you're an idiot. Only one group has two quarter finalists, and it's the group Australia were in (and only failed to qualify from on goal difference, despite playing close to half the tournament with ten men).

So half of the Asian sides qualified for the round of 16, with one missing out on goal difference, compared to less than half of the European sides. And if North Korea hadn't had a complete blowout in the Portugal match most people would have been praising them after the way they went against Brazil.

Added to that, you named New Zealand.

You also conveniently ignored the previous matches of Australia and New Zealand against South American opposition in the last four years.

So, you're an idiot.

[charlo116]

Charlo,

I don´t really agree Russia and Croatia would have an easy time beating Ecuador (Colombia is in a bit of a lowlight these days, but generally speaking it does have many talents). What I am saying is that I may miss Ecuador as much as you may miss Russia or Croatia. And the same would go to Colombia most of the time.

At the same time, I can hardly see what Slovenia or Greece brought of value to this WC.

If, on the other hand, you look at the best teams in the world, historically, there are two from South America and two from Europe, namely Brazil and Argentina on one side and Italy and Germany on the other side. even though Europe always have had much more independent states (even when they were 30 something).

The odds in a competition like the World Cup are completely against the South American sides from the statistical standpoint of a competition in a format like it is. In 1990, for instance, Brazil and Argentina met in the round of 16.

This year, the same happened between Brazil and Chile. Say Chile could have been matched with Ghana, for instance, and you might well be looking at a round of 8 with the 5 SA teams still in play.

So, the usual claim I hear from European friends that more European sides end up in the first 4 positions is pretty biased, and also taken in fact that Europe has had much more tournaments played at its soil at times when there was not a clear reason for that and South American teams didn´t go (best examples would be Uruguay in 34 or Argentina in 38).

I do believe that, on average, South American sides are better. Our current worst team, Peru is no-brains better than those 10 teams I cited and probably some more, and our best teams are arguably amongst the top of the world with Spain, Holland and Germany.

I don´t agree we should have extra spots for South America, but it would be nice if there was a kind of World-repechage like it happened for a while in Olympic qualifying for sports like basketball.

But to be honest with you all, I do think 32 teams is far too much for a World Tournament. I think 24 was a better number, that would avoid embarassingly poor games at the finals. But that´s me. :-)

Cheers,

Tele

I didn't say russia or croatia would have any easy time beating ecuador or colombia but when you look at the players that russia and croatia produce they are pretty talented sides. Also i'm not european, i've never lived in europe and i have no immeadiate family that is european so i don't think i'm being biased towards european countries.

I agree with pretty much everything else except that slovenia were pretty entertaining at this world cup and only a loss to USA in their final group game saw them unlucky to get out of their group.

[Red_Hector]

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

[Katarian]

The odds in a competition like the World Cup are completely against the South American sides from the statistical standpoint of a competition in a format like it is. In 1990, for instance, Brazil and Argentina met in the round of 16.

This year, the same happened between Brazil and Chile. Say Chile could have been matched with Ghana, for instance, and you might well be looking at a round of 8 with the 5 SA teams still in play.

From a statistical standpoint the odds are against the Europeans. They are much more likely to meet and knock out a European team due to having 40% (not 50% as someone else said) of the teams in the competition. You managed to mention two examples in 20 years of South Americans knocking each other out, I'm sure there have been more examples, but so far three European teams have knocked out other Europeans just in this tournament's knockout stages.

So, the usual claim I hear from European friends that more European sides end up in the first 4 positions is pretty biased, and also taken in fact that Europe has had much more tournaments played at its soil at times when there was not a clear reason for that and South American teams didn´t go (best examples would be Uruguay in 34 or Argentina in 38).

The Europeans hardly turned up for the early World Cups that weren't in Europe. A lot countries from all over the world didn't take the World Cup seriously until the late 50's early 60's. FIFA play the tournaments where they think they can milk the most money out of the competition, unfortunately for the rest of the world that has historically been Europe.

I do believe that, on average, South American sides are better. Our current worst team, Peru is no-brains better than those 10 teams I cited and probably some more, and our best teams are arguably amongst the top of the world with Spain, Holland and Germany.

Of course Peru are better then the ten teams you mentioned (actually you mentioned Latvia twice so only nine), they have between 10 and 1000 times the population. Peru could beat every team in the Oceania region, and probably all the teams in the Asian and North American/Caribbean regions.

[Meitheisman]

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

It would for the Africans whilst the South Americans would find an excuse. It's how these things always work, everyone's ridiculously biased towards their confederation or the one they like best. The only way to avoid these is to have world qualifications, if Peru had been drawn in a group with Australia, Egypt, Bosnia, Honduras and Russia we'd know if they actually deserve to be there more than Australia/Honduras/Russia...

[jmr]

Oh dear, #3 European team just beat the #1 South American one.

[Duffman]

One down, come on Ghana, Spain and Germany

[Fausto]

well i hope South America keep the 4.5 spots with Brasil out, that way we can hope to Quals i know its a long way and very hard but i believe Venezuela can quals for Brasil 2014

[Tele Santana]

Charlo,

I wasn´t implying that you were European, I was citing some actual European friends I have.

Katarian. I think you´re missing my point, so I´ll try to make it more clear.

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.

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.

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?

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.

In fact it can be described as very odd that a continent with 10 sides has been so succesful at the world sport as it is clearly not the case in every other sport. That should mean something.

Having said that, I rest my case for a while and will go straight to the Portuguese speaking forums to engage in the most popular sport right now in Brazil: Dunga verbal abuse.

Cheers,

Tele

[Uquillas]

So you outperform Europe in 1 World Cup and all of a sudden you a superior, or are you choosing to forget when Europe raped South America in 2006.

ok, lets divided every SA team at the WC by the number of titles.

Then do the same for every Europe team at the WC by the number of titles.

You let me know which one got better numbers.

[Worcester City Researcher]

ok, lets divided every SA team at the WC by the number of titles.

Then do the same for every Europe team at the WC by the number of titles.

You let me know which one got better numbers.

Done the maths - and the results are as follows:

Brazil 1

Netherlands 2

[Rebs]

Heard an interesting bit from Tim Vickery (South American football correspondent) on Talksport the other morning. He was claiming that the reason why SA teams are doing so well in this tournament is that they changed the qualifying a few years ago in SA where they now all play one another.

This means that is very competitive and is almost like a fully-fledged separate league alongside the club football commitments for SA players. He said even the worst teams, Bolivia and Venezuala, both drew 0-0 in Brazil in this year's qualifying so the competitiveness is pretty high. He went on to compare their qualifying with European by saying the European was "it's almost a case of only playing 1-maybe 2 big teams and then the rest it's just a goalfest againmst the little teams" - claiming there's absolutely no real 'top-level' play for big European teams in qualifying.

Not sure how much this has really had a bearing on what's happened at the WC - although he is usually pretty good on his stuff.

[PMLF]

I don't think this is the main reason, we have been using this format since the 1998 WC or so and only in 2010 SA did so well.

[HD]

It is a brilliant format though.

[Bielsista]

Well, not reducing the topic just to national teams, European leagues/teams (I mean the big ones) would be A LOT less attractive and good if they wouldnt be allowed of signing foreings players. And Im speaking not just from SA but from Africa too. But as they always colonize things (first by invasions, then economically, and "football speaking" buying the best players) we "3rd world countries" gotta accept those conditions without complaining. And DONT tell me this is JUST football, there is a HUGE background back there.

[PMLF]

It is a brilliant format though.

Yes, it is, but you guys have the EC too that gives the teams a good chance to actually test the teams before the WC.

I love the SAmerican format and it's the fairest possible one, but TV is overestimating it.

[Rebs]

I definitely think something needs to be done with European qualification. When the likes of England, Spain, Italy etc. are playing home against Andorra, Luxembourg, Estonia etc it just isn't a good test for either team, completely imbalanced really.

Nothing wrong with having smaller nations competing against larger, but there has to be some form of competitiveness in qualifying. The Euro Championships aren't really a test for the World Cup, 2 years is a looooong time in football and a more rigorous qualifying campaign that is a real test would probably help in some way surely.

It would also be great to see smaller nations have the ability to win against similar ranked nations and then the best of those to go through to a qualifying campaign against larger teams.

I do like the SA qualifying and surely the increased competitiveness must have improved the standard of international football...just not sure if that's the reason why their teams are doing so well at this WC.

[Mario]

tim vickery is a crook, don't listen to him, learn portuguese and do your own study on brazilian football

[Rebs]

tim vickery is a crook, don't listen to him, learn portuguese and do your own study on brazilian football

I've always liked what he says...seems to know his stuff...but you are more in the knowhow...so I might get the portuguese language book out and get going.

[Richie P]

So for the 2014 world cup, Brazil are already qualified, so I assume it's 4.5 places for 9 teams?

[PMLF]

It's possible they give one of SA spots to Africa IIRC.

[Richie P]

Doesn't the host continent usually get the additional spot? Certainly has for the last 3 world cups.

[PMLF]

Yes, but I think FIFA won't want SA to have potentially 6 spots.