What Happened to Uruguay?

[Dark Savante]

I've often wondered what happened to this nation who were once a true super power on the world stage. Their past-battles with Brazil and Argentina are legendary and for a long time the tension of the occassion when either Brazil or Argentina met them in competition was intense. So, what exactly happened to them? How comes the talent pool has dried up like it has and how did their fall from grace come about?

Is it financial or were they just fortunate to have all their great players come thru in the same era? In comparison to Brazil and Argentina how has Uruguays economy changed from the 40's to the present time?

[pololo]

I've often wondered what happened to this nation who were once a true super power on the world stage. Their past-battles with Brazil and Argentina are legendary and for a long time the tension of the occassion when either Brazil or Argentina met them in competition was intense. So, what exactly happened to them? How comes the talent pool has dried up like it has and how did their fall from grace come about?

Is it financial or were they just fortunate to have all their great players come thru in the same era? In comparison to Brazil and Argentina how has Uruguays economy changed from the 40's to the present time?

It's a mystery.

[Nerazzurri]

They have enough talent to make the WC, so I would say they are really underachieveing. Also they have had quite a few managers since the WC. Why the aren't a superpower is a good question? I think there was a drought of talent but also a change in the way futbol is played. I don't think they have adapted well. I hope an Uruguay fan responses.

[worldfootballgenius]

It's a mystery.

not as big as hungary

[Fiorentina lives!]

Dark, good question. I have no idea.

I do know Hungary and Austria have also seen better days (not like Uruguay but still) and now both MNTs are mediocre.

And I do know that, on the other hand, before 1974 the Netherlands were out of the picture.

Things change...

[X X I]

Well the domestic league in Uruguay is nowhere near as good as other ones in South America. Maybe that's one of the problems.

[pololo]

not as big as hungary

Well since Uruguay has won two World Cups and through all years produce lots of great players,is still a mystery why they don't keep the power.
While Hungary didn't have a new Puskas or Kocsis(sp)etc.

[RichardL]

It may not be the only answer, but the basic fact is that in Uruguay's heyday, a lot less countries played the game, and even in most of those that did, it was still a long way from becoming big. They had a massive head start, but others caught up and took over. For example, although viewed now as a huge shock, Uruguay's triumph of Brazil in 1950 was probably expected in unbiased circles, as at the time Brazil were still something of an emerging nation.

Also, due to the lack of competitive football between nations, and the total absence of TV coverage, countries were much less exposed to different tactics. It was possible for a team to excel like Hungary in the 1950s or Austria in the 1930s, not just because they had a golden generation of players, but also because they could play with a style that other countries weren't familiar with, and didn't know how to countertact.

[lanman]

Also, due to the lack of competitive football between nations, and the total absence of TV coverage, countries were much less exposed to different tactics. It was possible for a team to excel like Hungary in the 1950s or Austria in the 1930s, not just because they had a golden generation of players, but also because they could play with a style that other countries weren't familiar with, and didn't know how to countertact.

The other major advantage Hungary had was the total support of the government at the time (1930's-mid 1950's), and the favour was often replicated - many of the players were political activists and at least one was a sitting MP. Resources were put into the football team unlike in any other country and teams were also amalgamated so the players could spend more time together. The decline after the 1956 revolution was not rapid - they qualified for the 58, 62 and 68 World Cups reaching the last 8 in Chile and England and they were semi-finalists in the 64 and 72 European Championships, although much of this success could probably be attributed to the work done in the preceding two decades.

[Nerazzurri]

I don't think you can compare them to Uruguay. Uruguay has lost it's WC flair but still stays competitive in South America. Never a push over for Argentina or Brasil. The club football is only dominated by two clubs (Penarol and National), but they have won many Libertadores and the national team has won many Copa Americas (1995) the last and runners up in 1999.

2 WC titles that Hungary and Austria don't have. I don't believe either have a Euro title as well. You can't compare the melt downs. I still expect Uruguay to make a good run in Copa America and to make it to the WC 2006.

[Mhhz]

They still believe that a mere presence of history can beat any team this days...

Their decline as a national team, started way back in the late 50s, when most of the great names migrated to Italy and Spain. This pole of talent was really tough to replace, so in the 1958 WCQ, they got eliminated by Paraguay, which beat them up in Asuncion 5-0.

In the 1960s they got a new generation of good players but never reached the level of their predecesors. And is true that they reached the semifinals in the 1970 WC, before losing against eventual Champs, Brazil. But they faced the weakest path a semifinalist ever went through (First round: beat Israel, tie Italy, lost to Sweden; beat USSR in the 120th minute after the ball had abandoned the field; and lost to both Brazil and West Germany).

They qualified for 1974 WC, where they lost to Sweden and Holland.
And for the 1978 WCQ, Bolivia eliminated them.

A good generation of players made uruguayans believe that they could have a good run, but Denmark brought them back to reality when they beat the crap of the southamericans.

I guess, we all know the recent history of Uruguay. Their fans can't realize that the 2 Olympic Gold MEdals and the 2 World Cups belong in the Hall of Fame and are great but don't do any good when they have to play games.

As for the Copa Americas, it is true that Uruguay has won 16 or 17, but lets remember that at least 10 of them were won before 1950, when they used to play almost every year, and some of the tournaments only had 4 participants.

[argentine soccer fan]

They still believe that a mere presence of history can beat any team this days....

There is some truth to that.

This may be a bit symplistic, but some people who coached Uruguay complain that the Uruguayan player still has the mentality that football is all about 'meter huevos'. (play hard and with intensity.) For all their talent, Uruguayan teams tend to be the least disciplined, in a strategic sense, of South America. They seem to disdain modern tacticts as a foreign alternative to the Uruguayan way of 'meter huevos'. Most Uruguayan players and fans still will remember that in 1950 they won in Brazil 'metiendo huevos' (by playing hard), and they will argue that if they don't win anymore is because they are not 'metiendo suficiente huevos'. (Not Playing hard enough).

Uruguay needs to grow out of that mentality. What was good enough to win in 1950 is not good enough to win today. Daniel Passarella tried to instill some discipline into the team, but he was run out of town. Uruguayans have to realize that they don't need to emphasize so much hard play and intensity, because those are attributes which most Uruguayan players already have. Instead, they should combine that, which is their strength, with a modern tactical approach to maximize their talent.

Obviously, Uruguay is a small country with a small population to recruit from, and even at best it will be difficult for them to keep up with Brazil or Argentina. But they still produce a remarkable amount of talent, and if they could harness it with better tactical discipline, they could still be a player in the World's game.

[(TxT)]

It may not be the only answer, but the basic fact is that in Uruguay's heyday, a lot less countries played the game, and even in most of those that did, it was still a long way from becoming big. They had a massive head start, but others caught up and took over. For example, although viewed now as a huge shock, Uruguay's triumph of Brazil in 1950 was probably expected in unbiased circles, as at the time Brazil were still something of an emerging nation.

Also, due to the lack of competitive football between nations, and the total absence of TV coverage, countries were much less exposed to different tactics. It was possible for a team to excel like Hungary in the 1950s or Austria in the 1930s, not just because they had a golden generation of players, but also because they could play with a style that other countries weren't familiar with, and didn't know how to countertact.



I think this is probably about 90% right and the other 10% of their decline probably has to do with a thiner talent pool and funding for training. Not to mention they won the World Cups at home.

[CrewDust]

I think this is probably about 90% right and the other 10% of their decline probably has to do with a thiner talent pool and funding for training. Not to mention they won the World Cups at home.

The 1950 WC was won in Brazil.

[(TxT)]

The 1950 WC was won in Brazil.



I knew they won the first at home bu I wasn't sure about the second. Brazil is close enough. THX for correcting me

[condor11]

not as big as hungary

even bigger uruguay won 2 world cups and over 10 copa americas

[mini_2004]

Car accident?

[mini_2004]

Fell down a black hole?

[Philip in London]

The question is how they won two World Cups, not why they are weak now. A country of less than 3.5 million people can't possibly sustain a high level of success, if other many countries are utilising the talent they have available effectively. Uruguay has less than one 50th of the population of Brazil.