well actually even worst .... Santos of the 60's was NOT even in the TOP10 cluibs of Brazil , but a small to median club - let along the rest of world and Europe, Actually thanks to PELE to have brought Santos into the limelight and make them become bigger and more "popular"
You still can't grasp the point I'm making that Santos are a rich club when compared to its COMPETITORS (sorry had to write that in caps as you really need it Highlighted) in South American football, not ********ing comparing Santos directly to the likes of Inter Milan on a financial level...jeez, you really are simple. Santos are basically one of the richer clubs in South America, Inter Milan are not considered a rich club in Europe due to their financial state, neither are Nottingham ********ing Forest lol...easier for you to get now? ********s sake. And in responce to your last reply...you prove me wrong? you haven't proving jack shit apart from putting your opinion across, like I have...and make silly, irrelevant comparisons and posting utter shite. This is now going off topic too, because you're trying to nitpick about things that doesn't matter...so I'll finish this by posting Bale>>>>Neymar
Come on now, Santos in the 60s was likely the best team in the World by far. Small club sure, but the best team in the world.
Even still you are making things up, Santos is not even a rich club compared to their competitors, didn't you see me make mention that all of their players are pretty much young kids on their first contract? they only were able to hold on to some of the players they currently have because they sold Ganso and Neymar. They are about to lose Neilton right now because he's signing elsewhere after his first contract is up. Stop making things up, honestly. Yup made it very easy and clear to see that you have no clue on what you're talking about when it comes to Santos. Care to say one more time how Santos is a rich club in South America, so more people from Brazil can come here and just laugh at your remark? Your opinion is noted, I'll make sure to keep track of Bale's accomplishments to see if they'll ever get close to what Neymar has already accomplished on his career.
yes that's what I meant, Santos was a small club team, but Pele led them to become the best team in the world wining 2 consecutive Libertadore and then 2 inter continental cups in 62 and 63. Pele left the best ever stats/performance in world clubs level: with 7goals+5ass/3games (destroyed Benfica of Eusebio and AC Milan of Rivera) now 50years later (half a century passed) Neymar led Santos to win another libertadore (2012) but he failed miserable vs the strong Barca of Messi there (loss 4goals) in intercont
Look if you look at Santos's turnover and compare it to most South American clubs (not just Brazilian clubs), they'd be right up there with other top clubs. If you compared Nottingham Forest to the biggest clubs in Europe there turnover would be tiny in comparison...I can't believe you would even try and argue this, then have the ********ing nerve to post i'm basically being stupid lol You post Santos have only been in Copa Libertores 5 times during the 2000's, how many times have Nottingham Forest been in the Champions League? as you seem to think Santos are a club of the same kind of stature as Nottingham Forest, I'll tell you...0 times, they haven't even played in The Premiership in the 2000's let alone the Champions League. It seems I know more about Santos, than you do about English/European football...that's for sure... But going back to the original point, which what I was making is that if Santos won the Copa Libertores or the Brazilian League that really wouldn't come as a huge surprise, however if Tottenham won the League or the Champions League i'm sure that would surprise most Europeans.
Well that doesn't make me ''wrong'', I didn't state Santos were in the top 5 of richest clubs did I? so don't post figures to suit your agenda. I posted that Santos would be one of the Richer clubs with better players in comparison to most clubs in South American football...whilst your clueless friend seems to think Santos are like the Nottingham Forest of Brazil, which is complete rubbish.
Remember my Initial comparison was with Inter Milan, here is a refresher... Notice the laughing face at the end there? Notice the sarcasm? no.. well it might get lost on interpretation you might have missed it, in case you did miss it.. that was sarcasm. oh boy... I've already said Nottingham Forest was an extrapolation, meaning sarcasm, because you were comparing the Santos of now with the Santos of the 1960s. Don't stop believing, hold on to feeeeeeling.
I wasn't comparing Santos of the 1960's, I'm on about Santos of recent years...and Santos are considered a bigger team in South America than Spurs are in Europe, and Santos would be expected to finish higher in the League in Brazil, than say what most people would expect Spurs to finish in England. Also...if Spurs won the Champions League, that would come as a much bigger shock than say if Santos won the Copa Libertores. And if you think differently, then you clearly know nothing about Spurs as a football club or European football. That was the original point we were both actually trying to make, but you obviously think that what I'm posting is ''rubbish'' ...laughable.
I think you two are going around each other. Santos, on history, is one of the greatest SA clubs of all time. However, in finances they are small, and their success is mostly owed to their "canteira" producing a great generation every fifteen years or so. In footballing stature, Santos is the equal of a Flamengo or Sao Paolo, but financially and on fan base, they are quite smaller. The European equivalent could be Ajax, a team with a great tradition, but not the richest nor most popular in Europe (although they have a great following amongst the connoisseurs). Tottenham is kind of the opposite, not super rich but with money to make a dent in the EPL, however, lacking the success and historical moments, in their own league and especially in the international stage.
Santos were considered a big team in South America when Neymar was there, simply because... Neymar was there.... People don't expect to see Santos finish anywhere near the top, they finished 7th last year and people expect them to be a middle of the pack team once again. I don't claim I know about the Spurs, never did, my friend is obsessed with them and I watch at least 2 of their games a month, and I still don't get why Paulinho is sitting. That's my knowledge on the Spurs... but I never claimed I had any. You on the other hand, claim that you know Santos, and you know how people view Santos and you know about their finances, their team etc... clearly you don't People didn't even expect Santos to have a good Paulistao, and by the way Santos lost their Regional Tournament to Ituano, a 4th division team in Brazil. So yes if Santos wins the Libertadores, it would be as big of a shock as it was in 2011 when Santos won the Libertadores while finishing 10th on the league. Here are Santos league finishes Since Neymar started playing for them 2010 - 8 2011 - 10 2012 - 8 2013 - 7 Isn't there kind of where the Spurs end every season? umm i think not.. I think the Spurs do better every time actually hahahaha 09-10 -4 10-11 - 5 11-12 - 4 12-13 - 5 I mean honestly... come on now... Santos won the Copa do Brasil in 2010, back then all of the top teams in Brazil did not play the Copa do Brasil (last year was the first time they did), so Santos got their Lib slot by winning the Copa do Brasil playing against Vitoria - Gremio - Atletico MG - Guarani - Remo - Naivirense While the top teams from that year were away playing the Libertadores...
Ok, then fair enough...I will put my hands up and admit I have been quite off after seeing what you've posted where Santos have finished in recent years. I have always been under the impression Santos were one of the big teams in Brazil, like a top 3 team, but obviously I'm wrong on all of that...its seems they're more historically successful. That's why I thought Santos would be one of the Richer teams in South America, as I thought they were playing in the Copa Libertores each year, Like say Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea etc do with the Champions League. So I will apologize for that, I was wrong. But I still think what Neymar has done for Santos is still kinda irrelevant when comparing what Bale has done for Spurs, just because Neymar has won the Copa Libertores with Santos, that doesn't indicate that Neymar is the better player....
Yes, because those "mediocre" teams like Portugal, England, France, Croatia etc are still competitive. These are teams that have actually won WCs and/or possess world class players. If you want to reduce the size of the WC and maintain competitiveness, you must eliminate the likes of North Korea, Honduras and Algeria first. UEFA teams perform very well in the World Cup, that's why they get so many spots. Only CONMEBOL teams do as well, but since there are only 10 countries in CONMEBOL obviously they can't get as many spots as UEFA. PS... you must really hate the Copa Libertadores. They have 6 Brazilian teams and only 3 Bolivian teams. They should eliminate 3 Brazilian teams to make it more competitive and fair, right?
WC02: Senegal 1 France 0, South Korea 2 Poland 0 WC06: Ghana 2 Czech Republic 0, Trinidad Tobago 0 Sweden 0 WC10: Ivory Coast 0 Portugal 0, Japan 2 Denmark 1 The mid to lower end European teams are not necessarily better than African, Asian or Concacaf sides.
I actually liked it when the Copa Libertadores was less teams, you're talking to the wrong person, I think there are too many teams already, especially since it includes the Mexican teams just to fill the tournament which is over extended as it is. I'm ok with League Winner + Cup winner being the only ones invited from Brazil to the Copa Libertadores
Exactly my thought, I think they should cut down the WC in size once again, like the 1994 cup with 24 teams, but a different breakdown on teams 5 -S America 3 - AFC 4 - CAF 3 - Concacaf 8 - UEFA 1 - Host This would be the best tournament format to me. Let's see how the WC would look in this format Host - Brazil CONMEBOL - Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Uruguay CAF - Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Cameroon, Ghana (yes i'm excluding Algeria because they played nobody in qualifying, best team they played was Bukina Faso) AFC - Japan, Iran, S. Korea Concacaf - United States, Costa Rica, Honduras UEFA - Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, Bosnia, Italy, England. taking out of the group stages the games vs the weakest opponents in order, just like UEFA does for their ranking. I think that's a better tournament.
Of course, just like the WC, CL, Lib, Euro or any other tournaments, the more teams the merrier since they'll make more money off it. So it will never reverse to having less teams, I know that.
Yeah but those are the best teams from CAF, AFC and CONCACAF you just listed (mostly anyway). The weakest UEFA teams are better than the weakest of these other 3 confederations. They might not win 100% of the time in head-to-head meeting, but they'll win more than they lose (=> better). Therefore if you want to make the WC more competitive and smaller the first teams that should be dropped are CAF, AFC and CONCACAF. After we've eliminated the cannon-fodder then we can talk about the weakest UEFA teams (many of which still reach the second round BTW) This is simple statistics (fact).
Yes, clearly way better. Who wants to see Ronaldo, Ribery, Mandzukic, Modric, etc at the World Cup? I for one much rather see Jerry Bengston!
How about this, I worked out how groups would look if it was 24 teams Group A Brazil - Cameroon - Japan - Switzerland Group B Argentina - Nigeria - Iran - Bosnia Group C Spain - Chile - Netherlands - Honduras Group D Uruguay - Costa Rica - Ivory Coast - England Group E Germany - Ghana - USA - Ecuador Group F Belgium - Colombia - S. Korea - Italy. Sorry man that's a better tournament, each group has at least 3 different teams that can come out of those groups. Plus the 4 best 3rd places would go across, which makes this even more competitive. Games count all the way to the end, and only 2 "cannon fodder" teams.[/quote]
You can say the same thing about the 8 actual groups for 2014: Group A: all 4 teams can advance Group B: 3 teams can advance Group C: all 4 teams can advance Group D: 3 teams can advance Group E: 3 teams can advance Group F: all 4 teams can advance Group G: all 4 teams can advance Group H: 3 teams can advance 3 teams in a group advance? lol That makes it less competitive, not more.
The problem is the misconception Not sure you are understanding what I'm saying, Group C matches will be empty, Group E matches will be empty, Group H matches will be empty. Then I tell you what... let's do slots per confederations going into the knockout stages (%) of teams going through the knockout stages UEFA - 57% CAF - 18% AFC - 41% CONCACAF - 50% CONMEBOL - 78% to me that simply says... CONMEBOL has too few teams, while CAF has too many teams. UEFA should have 12 slots CONMEBOL 6 slots CAF 3.5 OFC 0.5 AFC 4 CONCACAF 4 + host + previous winner... that's a good 32 team tournament