Aye, exploiting them by paying them money per week to play for their clubs. The French don't have slave ships patrolling the coast of Africa any more. It was the policy of former-colonial countries like England, France, and Holland to extend citizenship rights to people from various former colonies in the 60, 70s, and 80s, and with some countries those rights remain. I'd say that there's a much greater chance of an African country winning the World Cup, given that so many of their players also reecive fantastic schooling in football at French clubs and elsewhere in Europe. Added to this is the fact that there is a proportionately smaller chance of some countries winning anything because of the number of foreigners in their leagues, like England. However, you're right in the sense that the French do 'naturalise' more of these players than the English, and so can use them in their national team. But the majority of the players that you're referring to are not naturalised Frenchment, they're born and bred there.
Larf. Huzzah for the 19th century. I'm pleased to see that they've tracked it back to when football was only played by English villagers with 50-a-side and a pig's bladder for a ball.
1>Brazil 2>Italy 3>Germany 4>Argentina 5>Uruguay Can't really say they have done much for a long time but still they are twice World Champs and along with Argentina have won the Copa America the most times. 3 out of 5 from South America
Well, in your opinion. Other people don't just rank by the number of WC titles and then it becomes 8 out of 10 from Europe.
The thread is about the 5th best country outside of Brazil, Italy, Germany & Argentina, who are undisputedly the top 4 countries. Is it France, England or Uruguay? Italy does not belong in the #5 position they are 2nd or 3rd... Neither does England nor Spain belong in the top 4... Spain does not even belong in the top 7...they should contest for the #8 position together with Holland and Hungary and they are most likely in the #10 spot. Where is Germany not in the top 5?? Better look at your rankings again buddy
How so?? Explain yourself please, I have given my reasons as to why, Uruguay have been 14 times South American Champs as well, factor in the fact that we have less countries in South America, and only really two that are a world power now and then factor in that Brazil has 5, Argentina 2 and Uruguay 2 for a total of 9 WC's. Then we can start to talk club Fussball if you wish....... Your 8 out of 10, what is that refering to???
It refers to Uruguay who suck since they won their last world cup in 1950. They never reached the final again, failed to qualify 6 times, failed to get out of the group stage 3 times and two times they only reached the second round as a third placed team. The last time they were second in a group was 1970, the last time they were first in a group was 1950 and that was a group with only two teams!
No, no I think you were refering to perhaps the FIFA rankings , or how 8 of the 10 top teams in the world would thus be European, ( not the discussion at hand , now is it? Meinem leiber freund ) As the title of the thread seems to imply with the word "ever" it would to me conclude it has no time line , so once again your point is invalid of Uruguay now "sucking" . A statement in itself not true since they have had South American succeses, wich should be taken into account because even you with your first retort have stated that WC wins were not the only measure that should be used, correct? Fact is Uruguay has won 2 world cups, making them my first choice for fifth best "ever". Until France or England win another, then maybe we can talk.
So 30-50 years means "now"? If we take the Copa America into account then we should als count the EUROs. But it's very hard to compare those two competitions. 42 Copa Americas vs 13 EUROs No Qualification vs a very hard qualification 2 good opponents vs ~8 good opponents So apparently 1 Copa America is not equal to 1 EC. It's not only winning the cup it's to be there every time and being competetive. Which team is better? A Team which reach the final ten times in a row or a team that wins the cup once and never ever qualify for it? Or do you think Uruguay is better than Argentina because they won the same number of wcs and more Copa Americas?
Actually Copa Americas are equal 14 for Argentina, 14 for Uruguay. Ok now that , that is out of the way, you stated that maybe we should guage a success by how many times a team qualifies for a major tourney, is that correct? Would that then include all the regions? Meaning Africa, Concacaf and so on. Also I concede that at times depending on the luck of the draw qualifying in a European group is very hard, other times you have Lichtenstien and Finland, yes if you missed it that was a dig. The qualifying process that occurs in South America is a bloody marathon and it is played in some very hostile enviroments with lots of travel and in places altitude issues, there are problems with clubs releasing players and so on. So please it is not easy and it is false to think that there is not more quality aside from Argentina and Brazil, if anything their success just speaks of their total quality. Paraguay, Ecuador, Colombia, Chile and yes Uruguay were and are teams that play well and are dificult for any opponent, do not forget from South America only 4 spots are guaranteed for the WC. Now after all this arguing I think I missed what your answer to the threads question was, sorry can you repeat it? See some would say France, but honestly aside from a few successes many years ago they did not really show up until the 1970's then again in the mid 80's and then yes some very good play in the late 1990's, and yes the 2006 WC final. Holland, has won no world cups, was in two finals in the 1970's and had flashes in the Euro's England 1966, wow almost as long ago as Uruguays last win in the WC and then I think a few later round showings as well and Ok a few good shows at Euro's. So whom else is there?? The Czech, Hungary, whom?? Spain who recently won the Euro's but chocked in every WC played. I at the very least made my choice and explained my reasoning, I would ask the same of you please.
I just use this ranking: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft#Ewige_Tabelle based on all matches played during a world cup. I think the best team won the most games and gained the most points.
But I thought it was you that said the World Cup should not be the only way to gauge this discussion??
And to put 14 into perspective, 10 out of 14 have come before 1960. The latest being 1995 on PKs at home. Also the Copa America was played almost every year from 1917 to 1930 with Uruguay winning 6 times.
It's not my fault that Uruguay only won 15 games during 10 world cups. If they have a successful wc 2010 they could easily reenter the top 10. It is very close in this region.
And how do you intend to compare european and south american teams? Friendlies? Making up a formula for comparing EURO games with copa ameirca games, like 10 copa america victories = 1 EURO victory? Just using your gut feeling?
So no conclusion as to who is the 5th best country other than it is one of the following: Uruguay France England Although Uruguay's 2 WC wins are too old 1950 being the latest, so is England's 1966, so Uruguay should be over England, which makes it between France and Uruguay, with England occupying the #7
Seeing as how the thread title has the words "...best ever" in it, it should not matter if the WCs from Uruguay were from before the 50's.
I´m not sure how much sense it makes to compare pre-WWII teams to modern ones, any modern offense would overrun the loose defending of the 1930s.
So Italy's 2 WC titles from '34 and '38 shouldn't count either? That would still leave Uruguay with 1 WC which they won in 1950 - AFTER WWII. We are not comparing countries but their accomplishments over history - you can't take that away from anyone! Historically the numbers and statistics are there. The question states "best ever" not "best post WWII".