World Cup "curve" 1930-1982-2034

[Auriaprottu]

There was a fun little thread here a couple years ago detailing the coincidental similarities between each of the the five Cups held before 1982 and its post-1982 mirror image. For example, Argentina won in 1978 and 1986, West Germany in 1974 and 1990, Brasil in 1970 and 1994, host and first time winners France (1998) and England (1966), Brasil again in 1962 and 2002. Does anyone have a link to the site that info came from? Thanks in advance.

[Walter3000]

There was a fun little thread here a couple years ago detailing the coincidental similarities between each of the the five Cups held before 1982 and its post-1982 mirror image. For example, Argentina won in 1978 and 1986, West Germany in 1974 and 1990, Brasil in 1970 and 1994, host and first time winners France (1998) and England (1966), Brasil again in 1962 and 2002. Does anyone have a link to the site that info came from? Thanks in advance.

judging by that looks like brazil to win it again in 2006, god i hope not.

[Auriaprottu]

judging by that looks like brazil to win it again in 2006, god i hope not.

It would also mean that they won't win anymore afterwards. Happy now? Also, if it keeps you from soiling your panties, Brasil doesn't have to win. A win by Argentina (CONMEBOL team wins in Europe, like '58) or a German loss to anyone in the final (host nation loses in the final, like '58- that's not such a strong connection, tho) would keep the pattern alive. What will be interesting, if all this does continue, is the 2014 Cup, which IIRC is likely to be held in Brasil- like 1950.

Don't get me wrong- I don't believe for a minute that there's anything going on here but coincidences. But it does make for interesting conversation that the last five Cups have gone as they have, in reverse to the five before Italy's '82 triumph.

[neovox]

Here it is:

http://www.futebolthebrazilianwayoflife.com/images/askalex/super.gif


In fact, it begins in 1950.

My post about it on the "Brazilian 'superstition tree' " thread (Brazil forum):

I´ve heard about it in 1993. Yes, a long time ago, a year before the 1994 WC. It was called The Pyramid Theory or The Mirror Theory. Brazil had won its last WC in 1970. So, it was exciting to think that the theory could be right. Well, it was.

p.s.

About England and France: both were host nations; they won their first (and only) WC; the third best team (Portugal in 66, Croatia in 98) played in the WC for the first time; the golden boot played in the third best team (Euzébio in 66, Suker in 98).

Well, it´s just a theory. But not a Brazilian theory. The Mirror Theory includes 1950 and 1954 WCs. According to the theory, Uruguay will win the 2014 WC, wich will be hosted by... Brazil. Exactly like in 1950. It´s not so funny, he?

[Auriaprottu]

Here it is:

In fact, it begins in 1950.



Thanks! Rep given.

But it doesn't really begin in 1950. It began in 1986. I mean, I know the chart you provided begins with 1950, but there wasn't anything for the Mirror Theory to "reflect" until after 1986. Up 'til then, it was just a normal series of Cups and winners. What is Brazilian about it? Did someone in Brasil make some sort of prediction way back when that this would happen?

I'm curious about what the theorists had to say before 1998, when the mirror's reflection was still perfect- three Cup winners. Stands to reason that England should have been the "chosen" team- but France won. My question is, did the theorists correctly predict a French win, or did they (logically) predict an English win and offer up the host/first Cup win/Eusebio/Suker connection (which is still reasonably weird) as a substitute only after the '98 final?

BTW, if the "tree" continues as it has done thus far, Brasil will win in 2006, but never again. The Selecao would lose at home in 2014, and the final World Cup would be held in 2034. Armageddon, anyone? :D

[ZeekLTK]

So what should we expect for 2010?

1954 was hosted by Switzerland due to a special circumstance of it being FIFA's 50th anniversiary (kinda like how South Africa got to host due to a "special circumstance" of the new 'rotating continents'). So we already have a start!

The 1954 cup format was changed from the 1950 one. There is already talk about expanding the field to 36, which would be a change from the 2006 one, so there is another possibility.

Also, one of the best teams of all time (Hungary) came into the cup on a rampage, destroying every team they faced, before being upset in the finals by Germany, a team they had defeated 8-3 in the group stage. Does this mean there will be some amazing Eastern European team (possibly Czech Republic?) who will seem absolutely unbeatable heading into the 2010 World Cup, make it all the way to the final only to lose to some "weaker" team they had already defeated... like Germany?

[Mobile]

I'm curious about what the theorists had to say before 1998, when the mirror's reflection was still perfect- three Cup winners. Stands to reason that England should have been the "chosen" team- but France won. My question is, did the theorists correctly predict a French win, or did they (logically) predict an English win and offer up the host/first Cup win/Eusebio/Suker connection (which is still reasonably weird) as a substitute only after the '98 final?

I clearly remember that before the 1998 WC there was a joke going around about the Mirror theory, and that it suggested England would be winners in 98.

In fact I was living in Germany at the time and I remember going round proudly showing my German friends the 'proof' of England's imminent victory :)

So I suppose the host nation/first-time winners thing was invented afterwards as a way of explaining France's shock win :D

[neovox]

Thanks! Rep given.

But it doesn't really begin in 1950. It began in 1986. I mean, I know the chart you provided begins with 1950, but there wasn't anything for the Mirror Theory to "reflect" until after 1986. Up 'til then, it was just a normal series of Cups and winners. What is Brazilian about it? Did someone in Brasil make some sort of prediction way back when that this would happen?

I'm curious about what the theorists had to say before 1998, when the mirror's reflection was still perfect- three Cup winners. Stands to reason that England should have been the "chosen" team- but France won. My question is, did the theorists correctly predict a French win, or did they (logically) predict an English win and offer up the host/first Cup win/Eusebio/Suker connection (which is still reasonably weird) as a substitute only after the '98 final?

Everybody loves a conspiracy, me included. After all, it provides some sort of logic for us to be able to think coherently.

It begins in 1950 because there was a gap after the 1938 WC. So, we don't know what could have happened in 1942 and 1946. But the 'curve' starts in 1986.

In fact, there is nothing Brazilian about it. As I said, I've heard about the Pyramid Theory in 1993, a yeard before the World Cup. By the time it came around again, in 1997, there were two possible 'winners': England and the host nation. I thought it was funny and ridiculous at the same time. England? France? C'mon! But... :(


BTW, if the "tree" continues as it has done thus far, Brasil will win in 2006, but never again. The Selecao would lose at home in 2014, and the final World Cup would be held in 2034. Armageddon, anyone? :D

It could start again in 2018! But 2014 frightens me more than losing in 2006!!! :eek:

Now just think about Pelé and Ronaldo. :)

1958 - Champs-with Pelé/2006-?-with Ronaldo
1962-Champs-Pelé/2002-Champs-Ronaldo
1966-Pelé/1998-Ronaldo - both with serious problems
1970-Champs-Pelé/1994-Champs-Ronaldo

[mrtandy]

Now just think about Pelé and Ronaldo. :)

1958 - Champs-with Pelé/2006-?-with Ronaldo
1962-Champs-Pelé/2002-Champs-Ronaldo
1966-Pelé/1998-Ronaldo - both with serious problems
1970-Champs-Pelé/1994-Champs-Ronaldo

Ronaldo (or Ronaldinho (meaning little Ronaldo)) as he was called in the 1994 World Cup (due to an older player allready haveing the nickname) didn't actually start any games in USA 94. Pele played a major part in all 3 of his World Cup wins.

[Auriaprottu]

Ronaldo (or Ronaldinho (meaning little Ronaldo)) as he was called in the 1994 World Cup (due to an older player allready haveing the nickname) didn't actually start any games in USA 94. Pele played a major part in all 3 of his World Cup wins.

I wasn't certain Ronaldo even got onto the pitch in '94. Did he?

But in terms of the "connection", he was there on the team, so it would still fit.

[Kaiser]

How about a chart showing the location of WC finals and the winners. Has a non-Euro team ever won in Europe?

[neovox]

Ronaldo (or Ronaldinho (meaning little Ronaldo)) as he was called in the 1994 World Cup (due to an older player allready haveing the nickname) didn't actually start any games in USA 94. Pele played a major part in all 3 of his World Cup wins.

Yes, but he was there. :)

[neovox]

How about a chart showing the location of WC finals and the winners. Has a non-Euro team ever won in Europe?

Only one nation won outside its own continent: Brazil, in 1958 (Europe) and in 2002 (Asia).

[Allamerican74]

So there's nothing on this that states when America will win it then...at least not until 2010.

[ferx203]

Since 1962...

European Host - European Winner.
1966 : England.
1974 : Germany.
1982 : Italy.
1990 : Germany.
1998 : France.
2006 : An European Team

Non-European Hosts - South American Winner.
1962 : Brazil
1970 : Brazil
1978 : Argentina
1986 : Argentina
1994 : Brazil
2002 : Brazil
2010 : A South American Team.

[Auriaprottu]

How about a chart showing the location of WC finals and the winners. Has a non-Euro team ever won in Europe?

Year Winner- Host, Continent
1930- Uruguay- Uruguay, South America
1934- Italy- Italy, Europe
1938- Italy- (I think)France, Europe
1950- Uruguay- Brasil, South America
1954- West Germany- (I think)Switzerland, Europe
1958- Brasil- Sweden, Europe
1962- Brasil- (I think)Chile, South America
1966- England- England, Europe
1970- Brasil- Mexico, North America
1974- West Germany- West Germany, Europe
1978- Argentina- Argentina, South America
1982- Italy- Spain, Europe
1986- Argentina- Mexico, North America
1990- West Germany- Italy, Europe
1994- Brasil- USA, North America
1998- France- France, Europe
2002- Brasil- Japan/Korea, Asia


Brasil (1958 Europe, 1994 North America) and Argentina (1986 North America) have won outside their home continent.

[Walter3000]

So what should we expect for 2010?

1954 was hosted by Switzerland due to a special circumstance of it being FIFA's 50th anniversiary (kinda like how South Africa got to host due to a "special circumstance" of the new 'rotating continents'). So we already have a start!

The 1954 cup format was changed from the 1950 one. There is already talk about expanding the field to 36, which would be a change from the 2006 one, so there is another possibility.

Also, one of the best teams of all time (Hungary) came into the cup on a rampage, destroying every team they faced, before being upset in the finals by Germany, a team they had defeated 8-3 in the group stage. Does this mean there will be some amazing Eastern European team (possibly Czech Republic?) who will seem absolutely unbeatable heading into the 2010 World Cup, make it all the way to the final only to lose to some "weaker" team they had already defeated... like Germany?

--The CZECH REPUBLIC?!?!?! look i know they had a good euro 2004, but so did greece. pavel nedved retired from international play, and theyre in 4th in their qualifying group right now......coming back down to earth

[deejay]

Only one nation won outside its own continent: Brazil, in 1958 (Europe) and in 2002 (Asia).

Depending on your definition of continent you can extend that to Brazil winning in USA '94 and Mexico '70 and Argentina winning in Mexico '86. But both Argentina and Brazil were massively favored by the population in Mexico, they played like they were at home.

[Auriaprottu]

Depending on your definition of continent you can extend that to Brazil winning in USA '94 and Mexico '70 and Argentina winning in Mexico '86.

Not trying to turn this into a geography lesson, but no reasonable definition of "continent" would combine North and South America, yet separate Europe and Asia.

But both Argentina and Brazil were massively favored by the population in Mexico, they played like they were at home.

Mexico was simply the venue at the time- Brasil '70 would have been favored against any NT anywhere in the world, except perhaps the '58 team. There are some good things to be said for Hungary '54, but they failed without Puskas (or with an injured Puskas, don't recall if he played the final). The greatest teams win the important matches, and sometimes that requires depth.

As for 1986, Argentina had Maradona, which made them dangerous anywhere (obviously- he made them champions in '86), but I'll always wonder what happened to the Soviet Union. They crushed their group and were unfortunate not to advance any further than they did. Belgium, for some reason, did not play well against Argentina in the semis. Tele Santana should have instructed someone other than a just-on-the-pitch Zico to take the PK (I don't know if coaches do this at the professional level or not- might be left up to the players) that would have put Brasil ahead of France in the QF. That match stands out to me as the one that Brasil allowed to get away, even more than the horrid shooting performance by Brasil in the '90 second round. Of course, since Brasil screwed up that France '86 match and did not win, there can be no excuses.

[neovox]

Not trying to turn this into a geography lesson, but no reasonable definition of "continent" would combine North and South America, yet separate Europe and Asia.

Well, the concept of three different continents (North, Central and South) is relatively new - for a thirtysomething like me at least ;) As we know, there is not a personal definition of what is a continent, but concepts change. Anyway, the American continent is a single portion of the globe known as the three Americas - in fact, anyone can search the internet and find hundreds of web sites about the American continent.