cteresa Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Iceman, I am not talking of "superiority", I am talking of density of potential "superior" teams. Plus a higher level of sophistication in "anti-football", or ways to stop adversaries from playing - not totally cynical or ilegal, just higher tactical sophistication. I got a phone call to find a tv to watch - this is still just the first decision but Porto is indeed out of next season´s CL. They got chances to appeal but we will seee. I have not stopped grinning yet... and they are nervous indeed, it has been so much fun to see the tone in the press chance from supercilious dismissal to making vague mentions to higher powers than UEFA and how small lines on an email about something else might mean An Excuse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 cteresa, I believe we're talking about the same thing. I'm just pointing out the reason is regular, "superior" opposition, which forces you to play a certain way if you don't want to lose every match by double digits. So how do you feel about Flores? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cteresa Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 [quote name='Homem de Gelo do Norte' post='1382997' date='Jun 4 2008, 11.57']When it comes to the "superiority" of European national teams, I believe it comes down to the level of opposition. Take Chile and Switzerland, two teams that are close to each other at the FIFA ranking. Chile only gets to play two "world class" teams on a regular basis, while Switzerland play against several "world class" teams on a regular bases. Since 1982 Chile got to the finals twice, but were disqualified/banned for another two. Switzerland has also participated twice in the same period. In the last two World Cups that Switzerland participated (1994 and 2006), they reached the second round. The 1998 World Cup was the only time (except the Chile World Cup) that Chile managed to get through to round 2.[/quote] I am not sure I agree. On a cicle of 4 years Switzerland will play 2 qualification rounds - each qualification round will probably have a group of 6 or 7 teams, from different levels of competitivness. Unless somebody gets very unlucky usually just one of those adversaries will be really top10 in the world so to speak. At worst 2 adversaries. Maybe none Meaning maybe on that 4 year period it will play on average 4 games against really top position in the world. and it will be up to them to qualify, they might very well not and have no more important games. While Chile ( and I am totally ignoring the ban, was it over the goalkeeper faking injury at the Maracanã? if so, well done for FIFA, cheating cheaters that cheat!) in the same 4 year period will automatically play in Copa America ( chances are play brazil or argentina assuredly in the first phase) and for WC qualification will play ALL other 9 Conmebol countries, meaning 4 assured games against worldcup serious contesting countries ( Brazil and Argentina). Plus it´s much easier for them to qualify ( they can end 4th of a group of 10. or end 5th in a group of 10 and win a playoff) for the world cup than for switzerland ( who might have to end up 1st or 2nd in any group which might conceivably include 2 world cup contesting countries). I can see your point regarding maybe other confederations, but Conmebol is IMO a bad example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I agree that Conmebol is better off than most others, but still. Looking at the the matches starting with the qualifying for WC 2002 and ending with the qualification for WC 2006 against teams that reached the semi-finals in one of the four last WC, Chile played Brazil 3 times in official matches, and had a friendly against France and Turkey. (3 official, 2 friendlies). Switzerland had 5 official matches against France, Turkey and Croatia, and 7 friendlies against Italy, Germany, France and Sweden. If you include quarter finalists as well, (thus adding Argentina and England to the list). Chile has 5 official and 2 friendlies, and Switzerland has 6 official and 7 friendlies. I did not include the Swiss matches in the last World Cup here. (BTW, congrats on the CL spot! It's official now isn't it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cteresa Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Spot is not official, there will be appeals, and it will only be so in a month, by the deadline before the draw, but it is looking serious now. They will appeal of course, but as I said it has been so much fun to see them scurry around from untouchable arrogance to actually being nervous. Plus *everybody* is wanting to leave, Paulo Assunção called a Webster, Quaresma is out saying he wants a transfer this summer, Lucho Gonzalez to Atlético is looking serious. They were so used to being untouchable this actually having to pay a tiny little bit is going to hurt them. About Chile and Switzerland and numbers of games, I am not as convinced - friendlies do not count. Seriously. Really. They are interesting to solve inner problems, but not serious, I don´t think teams improve by playing great teams in friendlies. - I think you are reaching putting Turkey and Croatia on the same level as Italy or Brazil. the fact that Croatia and Turkey reached semifinals is of course going to be biased towards european teams because duh maybe 20 or so european nations have done it in the past. - if it´s experience against good opponents which makes teams more competitive, how come Argentina or Brazil managed to become competitive in conmebol? Nowadays there are lots of friendlies played in europe but that is a blip, maybe just since 2000. In the 80s, the 60s, no such thing. My argument for that is size, population and culture ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 [quote]My argument for that is size, population and culture[/quote] In my original post, I was about to say that based on these three criteria Chile ought to have been much better than Switzerland. But i ended up leaving that bit out... :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraig Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I would agree with Teresa about Conmebol. Countries in South America have even said that the current WC qualifier system is helping them improve as it gives them a lot more competitive fixtures then the older one. [quote]In the last two World Cups that Switzerland participated (1994 and 2006), they reached the second round. The 1998 World Cup was the only time (except the Chile World Cup) that Chile managed to get through to round 2.[/quote] That's hardly statistically significant anyhow. :P [quote]Regarding surprise winners: in 12 installments, 9 different countries have won the Euro (by comparison, in 18 World Cups only 7 different nations have lifted that trophy), which is of course in part explained by the fact that some of the bigger nations declined to participate originally, but I'm still going to use it as an indicator that an upset is not that unlikely[/quote] My interpretation is that the additional persence of Argentina and Brazil make it even more difficult for a "secondary" team to win. Even if the European teams are playing badly or are unlucky, it also requires Argentina and Brazil to play badly or be unlucky. It's just not very likely. And as Teresa said, the extra matchs in the WC also make it more difficult for "secondary" teams to come through. Roughly, 1/3 of winners seem to be a surprise in the European Championship. While surprises don't happen in the WC (when it comes to winning anyhow). [quote]Greece's success was due to fantastic defending and organisation. Scotland did a similar thing in the qualifying, and it nearly worked.[/quote] I would find it depressing if football was a sport where an average team playing with good organisation could beat [b]several [/b]of the best teams in the world playing at (or near) their best. With a bit of luck, they could beat 1. With a huge amount of luck, they could beat 2. But anything beyond that becomes farcical. Of course, its very unlikely such a team would ever play 3 great sides, so it becomes more a philosophical argument than anything else. :) Anyhow, the problem has always been (IMO) that some of the best teams don't play at their best. (And its not because a team doesn't allow a very good side to play). France in Euro 2004 weren't at their best. The Czech's lost Nedved etc. I should add that Italy is a team which is noted for organisation, especially in defence but the best Italian teams always had players of the highest quality, including some lethal strikers (e.g. Rossi). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cteresa Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 [quote name='Homem de Gelo do Norte' post='1383262' date='Jun 4 2008, 15.01']In my original post, I was about to say that based on these three criteria Chile ought to have been much better than Switzerland. But i ended up leaving that bit out... :P[/quote] Another factor, which i did not mention because it did not much serve to diferentiate between south american countries, is WEALTH. it can help to overcome a lot of things. I read a paper ( a real paper) not sure I can find it online or even refind its references since this is just a hobby of mine, but authors argued that factors in sucess were - population size - gross national product - historical - regarding foundation of clubs and so on ( i remember this less well) and ta-da - Culture. "Latin" as in official language being portuguese spanish italian or french meant those nations did slightly better statistically than others. Not making this up ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.