Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'BigSoccer Polls' started by ITALIA1982, Sep 12, 2011.
Aye. It's a pretty compelling case.
What would Argentina and Uruguay get from the same formula if one were to include Copa America and its appropriate multiplier??
One could however only compare those values within one confederation, i.e. Uruguay vs Argentina. Germany vs Italy.
Unless one also takes account of the fact that the Copa America's had a whole lot more editions and is easier to win than the EURO.
Perhaps I'll look into such stats. Not that the above formula is my preferred one. I merely showed what the numbers were even when one didn't value the EURO much.
I personally think that for a European nation, both the EURO and WC are the pinnacle of two-year-long campaigns. And while the EURO is a slightly shorter tournament, it's arguably (at least) as tough a tournament to win as the WC. So in pure sporting terms, I think winning the one is quite similar achievement to the other.
Yet the WC has more prestige. It involves everyone and is the older competition. So I feel say FIFA's 75% EURO VS WC calculation, a reasonable assessment. Yep, FIFA gets some stuff right at times! (It also has to be noted that the shorter tournament further reduces the impact of EURO-derived points, so the effective relative importance would be somewhere in the 60-70% range (guesstimate, haven't done the math yet).
The BOCAFAN-derived calculation is absurdly low. Nobody in his right mind would say that Germany's historical record is only 18% EURO-derived... But that exercise showed that even an extreme underappreciation of the EUROs has Germany come up on top, if giving equal measure to titles and overall performance (hence the multiplication of title number & overall points tally).
Well put it this way ...
- By theory, on papers and trophies won: Italy #2
- By traditional consistency and performance on pitch: Germany #2
Germany has one more than Italy.
WC is weighted more ... and rightly so ...
And bought by Italians in '34..
Except that Italy stomps on Germany anytime they match up. Germany loses, all brainer.
We can by all means discuss how the two tournaments compare (and this has been discussed at length here).
But saying Italy has won more trophies is simply factually wrong.
those are the top five all time rankings
Do you really know what consistency means?
Italy weren't consistently good, because they failed to qualify for quite some tournaments (1958 WC and 64, 72, 76, 84, 92 EURO) and also failed to survive many first group stages (50, 54, 62, 66, 74, 96, 04, 10).
Italy has no Adidas behind them, who sponsors referees. If Germany comes into troubles such as against Portugal in 1997, they just send someone of. A star player for example; Rui Costa.
Honestly? Italy - famed for cheating themselves into titles - is supposed to be a 'clean' team?
Which cheating? You mean the illegal fielding of players? I tell you a secret: this is written on wikipedia by Germans but those Germans won't tell you that they fielded in the past players without a German passport too.
Oh, Puckywucky. Were those mean Germans bullying you again?
It is unfair and it is an injustice.
That whole thing of Italy fielding illegal players is researched by the IIFHS, a German organizations, financed with German money, and led by Germans. That is a fact. This bunch researched that and this source is mentioned on wikipedia. These brought it to the collective consciousness.
What they never tell you though is that Germany also fielded illegal players. Rainer Bonhof was fielded in his early days without possessing a German passport. Furthermore, there were also some strange going on during the famous anschluss in the 1930s.
Apart from a one-sided story it is also hypocritical. Those things happened in many more nations. Italy wasn't the only one. That is why I call it unfair.
Honestly... 'you idiot'? C'mon... let's be civil
When it comes to your hated Germany, you are looking for the tiniest signs that something fishy went on that advantaged them. But when it comes to your beloved Italy, you ignore the most obvious signs. The 1934 World Cup is the mother of all dubious "home" World Cups but you are willing to white-wash them simply because the German-based IFFHS is involved in covering up details about that World Cup. I agree btw, the IFFHS is not as good a source for things like this as I once thought (good for statistical stuff, though) and their longtime president Alfredo W. Pöge is a dubious character, but that doesn't mean that Italy in 1934 did not benefit from being the home country. The signs are all over the place, why do you ignore that? Just imagine that 1934 World Cup had been held in Nazi Germany and Germany would have won it, you would be all over the place with your accusations. But Italy in 1934? Untouchable in your book.
I did not ignore that some fishy things were going on although it is not as a clear cut case as many think. An user called OWN GOAL - despite his illuminati theories - had once great information about this.
I only said in the past that I do not like the hypocrisy. I still think that those things (playing without having a passport) happened quite often. After all, which supra-national body checked those things? And if there was a supra-national one, such as the anti-doping agency installed at the 1966WC, they had not the sufficient power.
What I said a few months before is that "I can also think about some Olympic medals to rescind". That is what I think, indeed. As sidenote, in my own 'great' country I also read stories about friendly favors towards 'Nazi Germany' in 1934.
Agree that it is arguably the most fishy of all World Cups.
By the way, some of my 'hatred' to Germany is also simply related to football. That is: the type of football they used to play and also how they are hyped by the international press regardless of it.
The last thing is also simply a consequence of the fact that they are a high-profiled nation - and not just because they are Germany. Still, I tuned in at the BBC last week and heard about how much better Germany was than Portugal, in every aspect, and heard them implying that Nani was a diver. I'm sensitive for these things; that is the same with England and Spain in many ways.
Do also not forget that big exceptions existed, even at the high point of the rivalry in the 1970s. Mönchengladbach was at that time very popular and it was a known destination for football supporters crossing western borders of Germany.
ahahaha i have no idea how i got to this thread (honestly) but reading the first page and the last two made me laugh so hard!! This is just amazing read!!!
and that even funnier part its now 24 pages!!!! LOL
what a waste of bytes this thread is ....
they say, if its on wikipedia (the most reliable site on the internet ) then its true!
And they are again rigging it. If Germany ends first in their group then they have probably an easy route to the final with Ukraine and Czech Republic.
Not that it should be surprising. Yesterday, the German ref Wolfgang Stark led the tie between Russia and Poland. He helped Russia a bit in finishing first in their group, which means that Germany would at least evade Russia in the quarter-finals. Germany will meet the second placed team of group A, Czech Republic or Poland. Well done Stark.
What the hell game were you watching? I'm neutral, but historicallty hate Russia's guts... Even so I have to agree that Poland got lucky on various calls that could have ended with free kicks on the edge of the area, a possible penalty (albeit a less than 50/50 call) and multiple yellows for reckless and/or professional fouls.
If anything Stark helped Poland. Just a bit and not really enough to influence the game, but your eyesight is definitely skewed.
i thought the whole thread was skewed!
omg! i cant believe i have been missing all the fun in this forum! i am gona be a regular user here from now on!!