Once again its the over moderation at big soccer that is slowly killing it. Its a joy kill and main reason i rarely show up here. Thers always a mod moving stuff around or sending anoying pms.
Because Supercups are kind of pointless. What exactly is that trophy about? Winning your league is about becoming national champions, winning the champions league is about becoming continental champions, winning the CWC is about becoming world champions but what is the point of a Supercup? What 'title' are we playing for? Why would the UCL champions for example that are already the best team in Europe need to beat the Europa League winners for further validation considering that the Europa league is the cup of losers?
The CWC is also basically a supercup. And let's not pretend this is some kind of world championship of clubs. They can call the competition how they want, this is a glorified supercup When Raja Casablanca and Guangzhou are the 3rd/4th best teams in the world. And Monterrey wouldn't have been a better choice for 3rd 4th place I like supercups, they kickoffs the season. They are not important of course but you can basically win 3 trophies for 4 games. I would give it my best honestly to win it
Well, you might be right in that the standard is too low to call it a true world championship but at least that's what it officially is. A Supercup is just nothing.
The CWC is not in any way a supercup. A supercup pits the winner of a competition vs 1 of the losers from that same competition. Which is pointless. The CWC is completely, 100% different. The CWC is the final phase of the world championship of clubs that has been ongoing for the past 2 years. The bracket may be lopsided so that the 3rd and 4th best teams were already eliminated in the UCL, but they were still a part of this process. The lopsidedness is only due to geography, but that's a minor inconvenience so that we can have world sport's only true world club championship. It's a small price to pay.
The winner of the CWC is considered the champion of the world. And why not? It involves the continental champions from each region (bar the token host). The winner of a super cup is considered the champion of... what, exactly?
@SoccerScout - you don't have to start the exact same thread every year. Moved to general CWC discussion.[/quote] Haha.
According to who? you. 2005: São Paulo 1-0 Liverpool 2006: Internacional 1-0 Barcelona 2012: Corinthians 1-0 Chelsea
The same way how the confederations cup winner is the world champion? I know that there is no proper clubs world cup but if that doesn't exist it doesn't mean the CWC is a proper substitute. No it pits the winners of 2 different competitions exactly like the CWC. The difference being the number of teams
Alert: It does exist. CWC = Club World Cup You may not like the format, but given the constraints of the footballing calendar it's the best that can be offered. Just because it doesn't conform to your standards of what a tournament should be doesn't mean it's worthless. As for the Confederations Cup, I equate it with super cups: The winner of the Confederations Cup is the champion of... what, exactly?
Our American friends can call it World Series all they want it's still not You missed my edit. I put proper there. If the Confederations Cup was called the World Cup that wouldn't make it a world cup. If the WC was called FIFA Cup people would call the winner the world champion And you are right Confederations Cup is not the winner of something. And CWC = Confederations Cup. The style is different as the the CC at least has 2 groups but they are basically the same. Winners of a continental tournament + a host + the world cup winner (a competition we don't have for clubs). I mean you can see how the 2 competitions are almost identical? CWC is a super cup. And if you think supercups are meaningless so is the CWC
A reference to the silly self-declarations in North American sports doesn't really strengthen your point because here everyone does get to participate. Again, you may not like the format but the competition is open to most club teams globally through the various continental competitions. As a European hockey fan I would settle for any kind of format to take on the Stanley Cup winners. And if your main complaint is number of teams and length let me remind you that the EURO used to be four teams until 1980. Four games total (two semis, third place and final)
Not my point. It's simple. You can name stuff how you want it doesn't make it more or less true. I have no complaints about this competition. I understand why things are how they are I understand the point of it but I can't get behind the point that the winner is the best club team on Earth CWC is a supercup. That is all. Like I said I like supercups.
In knock-out competitions you will always have debates whether the winner was actually the best. We certainly had it with Chelsea in the UCL last year.
You're making it too easy. Any sports competition has a reputation and if the general feeling is that it's not representing the best then the public will not perceive it as such. Look at it this way - Galo just finished in 10th place I believe in the Brazilian league. If they win the CWC on Saturday then how can they be considered the best club team in the world if they are not even among the best teams in Brazil? Chelsea last season when the CWC was held just finished 5th in England, lost the european Supercup 4-0 and crashed out of the CL in the first round yet they represented Europe in the CWC as the only team even though they were a million miles away from being the best there. Yes, you will say that that's the luck of the draw and that others have had their chance 12 months prior etc. etc. but I believe you're looking at this too rationally. The public needs to FEEL that the competition they're watching has the best in the world in it as they feel when they're watching the Olympics in swimming or running or the World Cup. Yesterday the first semi- final of the CWC was held in an almost empty stadium with a team on the pitch that would have trouble playing in the first division of France. Compare that to the UCL where you get Man City vs Barca, Milan vs Real Madrid, Bayern vs Arsenal, big matches with the world's best players in full stadia and huge drama. The CWC pales in comparison to the UCL or the Copa.
As pointed out by Brazilian posters the Libertadores winner never does well in the following Brasileirão. The entire season becomes a preparation for the CWC. That's how important the CWC is in Brazil. I don't see the sense in comparing a tournament that lasts from September to May with the ten-day CWC. I see one as the extension of the other. The cherry on top if you will.
If you don't mind my changing the subject... At first, I honestly thought I would be more opposed to a host team making the CWC final. But now that it's happened, I can't help but give Raja Casablanca credit: they didn't win the African CL, but 1) they had the longest path to the final, and 2) they just beat three continental champions in a row. I ain't mad at 'em.
In 2000 Real Madrid won the UCL while finishing fifth in La Liga. In 2005 Liverpool won the UCL while finishing fifth in the Premier League.
So you believe if Brazil fail to win the World Cup next year they'll take solace in knowing that they're "the champion of champions"?