GRAND THEFT. Fifa takes S. America spot

[Rafael Hernandez]

The point is that

A)South America countries actually have a tough draw and don't face teams that get beaten 31-0.

B) All South American teams are competitive and never get embarass contrary to places like the AFC, where even in the tourney they hosted, they had the two laughing stock teams who blew chunks all over the field.

C)CONMEBOL has 9 WC. Meanwhile the AFC has 4 teams that have passed the first round and Oceania has never gotten a win in the WC.

D) Confederations like Africa are babied because they have promise, etc. Meanwhile they only have 1 good team per cup. CONMEBOL is a reality yet it has to pay.

FIFA is basically rewarding the number of federaions which is BS. So apparently what South America has to do is start a bunch of civil wars and disband into numerous countries so that they count or something. This is just total BS and I hope it explodes in their faces.

[deejay]

Originally posted by Dune
While I do agree that giving Australia a direct entry to the World Cup is very unfair to all other confederations I don't understand the crying among the COMEBOL people.
COMEBOL gets 4 out of 10 to the WC, and everybody knows that the only two teams that can compete there is Argentina and Brazil.
Sure, Uruguay has won 2 cups but the last one was 50 years ago. Anyone who tries to make a case for COMEBOL should remember that the last time another COMEBOL team than Argentina or Brazil made the last 8 of a WC was Peru in '78.

Well, The last time that a CONMEBOL country has left the tourney without points was 1950. Meanwhile UEFA, AFC and CAF have had dozen of countries that they've brought and had no points at all. Geez, I mean if we're only going to take countries that have a chance of winning the World Cup then it may as well be three from South America and five from Europe to make it an even eight.

[deejay]

Originally posted by Screech
Maybe this is because this region has been granted too many places in the past.



Hey better check up on your stats when you say stuff.

Bolivia got to the '94 undefeated except for an away loss against Brazil

Ecuador came in second to make it to '02.

They both would have made it even if CONMEBOL had three spots. Argument doesn't wash.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by SoccerScout
>> And you are skewing the numbers. CONMEBOL >>

No. WC has 32 Nations, SA takes 4. Thats 12.5% of all WC participants. Meanwhile Europe fills up almost Half of all WC spots and AFrica for example 15.6%.

:rolleyes:

Yes, you are taking it out of context and are looking at the statistics from too narrow a point of view. There are 32 teams that qualify for the WC. There are 10 countries eligible from CONMEBOL. 4 of those ten countries, or 40%, are going to go directly to the World Cup. Forget about the grand total - CONMEBOL is not eligible for all 32 spots. What other confederation can say: "at least 40% of all members in our confederation qualify directly to the WC?"

I know that I am not helping your argument - but the fact that it's 12.5% of all WC participants is moot considering almost half of the confederation goes - and 50% ended up going in 2002. You have to consider the size, and relative strength of the confed. Okay, so Europe has 14 teams. What percentage is 14 out of 52 assuming I didn't miss the count? That is not half - that is 27%. I can name 14 UEFA nations that are probably more than a match for Australia. Hell, there might even be 4 in CAF and CONCACAF too.

It is like another poster said - your beef shouldn't be with UEFA.

I haven't forgotten about this being the WC, and that the point is for other countires to be involved in the WC - global football etc. etc. I just don't think it's fair for the stronger confeds to be punished for being stronger confeds. Okay fine - if Australia gets a free ticket, then expand the WC pool of teams. Make another group or two since we're handing out free tickets... Sure, there is obvious talent saturation but that is the point, right? More isn't necessarily better, IMO, and lack of quality will equate to lack of interest...

At the end of the day, CONMEBOL should keep the extra half spot, and Oceana hasn't really warranted an additional full spot if they cannot defeat the final fringe country in Asia, let alone CONMEBOL. Make it a merry-go-round and this time make them play CONCACAF and in 2010, CAF.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by Oscar

UEFA and CONMEBOL still send more teams %-wise than any other confed (methinks) if the non-big 2 South American teams are as good as some here would like to believe (3 didn't even make it out of the 1st group this time around, and surprise surprise, only Brasil was left after the 2nd group stage) then they will no doubt have a case to regain their ½ spot for the World Cup following the one in 2006.

Well, to flip it a bit, - CONCACAF had 33% of their teams advance in 1998 and did not lose a spot or half a spot. CONCACAF had a side that finished worst in the tournament even. CAF had 1 team advance this time around - just like in 1998 and they did not lose a spot or half a spot. Why start now to set the "precedent"?

[AFCA]

Originally posted by SoccerScout
I can see why EURO's dont care about this. The World Cup is composed of 44% Euro teams while SA only gets 12.5% and 15.6% of teams are African.

It just doesnt seem right that the Continent that has won 53% of All WC titles gets only 12.5% of the WC spots. On the other hand if that doesnt show you how much better SA's are at soccer than the rest of the world, nothing will. If Euro soccer was that good & with usually half or more of all the WC participants shouldn't be losing to 1 lowly represented continent. But they are.

Euro soccer is mostly a myth. They import all the best SA players for their clubs and they NEVER win a WC away from Europe. Don't fool yourselfs, European soccer is 2nd tier. They can only dream of having the flair of a Brazilian, Argentinian or other talented South AMerican. Michael Owen for example would sit on the bench in many South American Clubs...

4 teams from SA. That's Brazil, Argentina (two topnotch sides, especially Brazil ofcourse), Uruguay and one other. I reckon that's enough. Uruguay is not even THAT good (haven't been THAT good for a long time) but should be represented at a WC. But do you seriously think that the other South American teams would really make an impact? I'll tell you.... they never really have (maybe Colombia a little bit).

Argentina is not any better than Europe's top teams. And most European club teams still have more Europeans than South Americans in them.
And you're right. The likes of Roy Makaay, Ruud van Nistelrooy, Van der Vaart (wait n see) are just secondclass suckers. So were van Basten, Cruyff, Puskas. Euro soccer? Hahaha.

Get real. We all know South American footballers are fancy dribblers and good footballers in general, but you're making an ass out of yourself here.

[sinner78]

Originally posted by SoccerScout
I can see why EURO's dont care about this. The World Cup is composed of 44% Euro teams while SA only gets 12.5% and 15.6% of teams are African.

It just doesnt seem right that the Continent that has won 53% of All WC titles gets only 12.5% of the WC spots. On the other hand if that doesnt show you how much better SA's are at soccer than the rest of the world, nothing will. If Euro soccer was that good & with usually half or more of all the WC participants shouldn't be losing to 1 lowly represented continent. But they are.

Euro soccer is mostly a myth. They import all the best SA players for their clubs and they NEVER win a WC away from Europe. Don't fool yourselfs, European soccer is 2nd tier. They can only dream of having the flair of a Brazilian, Argentinian or other talented South AMerican. Michael Owen for example would sit on the bench in many South American Clubs...

You;re kidding yourself...
South america has only got Argentina and brazil .The rest are nothing...Even argentina arent that good as they proved in the world cup.
You're living in cloud cuckoo land .LOL
Brazil won the world cup in sweden many years ago but south american teams have failed dismally ever since in Euro hosted world cups..


You can whine all you want...
you've got 4 places and you'll have to live with it..
You know very little about european football if you think that it only about south american players.
You're a joke...

[SoccerScout]

<<You;re kidding yourself...
South america has only got Argentina and brazil .The rest are nothing...>>

Yeah and Brazil alone is bigger than all of Europe in size, add Argentina and you can almost fit two Europes in there. It just happens that Brazil and Arg are only 2 countries and not 25 or whatever they squeeze into Europe.

Based on that fact alone I think Brazil should Get 2 or 3 spots at the World Cup...Team A , B and C.

That would be fun, the final 4 would be

Brazil A
Brazil B
Brazil c
Germany

[AFCA]

Obviously that has everything to do with it. Oh boy.... Print Scrn

[Oscar]

That would be fun, the final 4 would be

Brazil A
Brazil B
Brazil c
Germany

Your B team can't even compete well in the Copa America. edit: at least that was the excuse used by another Brazilian earlier in the thread. At least you're consistant in cramming out nonsense....and realising that South America only has 2 teams that actually matter. Or 1 like this post would suggest.

Listen to your own advice and:

Please do yourself a favor and move on...

Because you making a fool of yourself isn't going to bring back that ½ spot, no really, it won't. :(

[DELBUCEO]

Originally posted by Screech
It is about time Oceania got recognised as a federation. Why should the winner of this group be forced to travel to hellholes such as Iran and Uruguay to qualify.

Players getting attacked as they get off the plane is not exactly good match preparation.

Please don't be that stupid. Australian football sucks and the hellholes or the airports has nothing to do with it.

A month ago Penarol from Uruguay (which has won nothing in the local league nor in any recent Conmebol tournament) humiliated 6-1 to Wollongong Wolves, the actual champion of the national league and the champion of Oceania (I mean the #1). And the match was held in Australia (is that a hellhole too?)

You guys really suck, face it. You've got a free ticket to the WC just because a mixture of mercy and a economical issues. Period.

You have nothing to offer in a WC but laughs.

[Oscar]

Australian football sucks

So how much does Uruguay suck that they actually lost the away game to a team that sucks?

[Oscar]

p.s. From now on every time I see this used: "euro snob". I will show that person this thread, so they know we could be much....much worse. :D

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by sinner_ronald_monk
You;re kidding yourself...
South america has only got Argentina and brazil .The rest are nothing...Even argentina arent that good as they proved in the world cup.
You're living in cloud cuckoo land .LOL
Brazil won the world cup in sweden many years ago but south american teams have failed dismally ever since in Euro hosted world cups..


Come now, sinner. Maybe others here would have let you get away with it, but you saw me in this thread and I know you better than that... you knew I'd call you on this one... ;)

Only Argentina and Brazil? I'd say on any given day, a Uruguay, Paraguay and Colombia can show up to play any of the ten best (i.e. top 20% of UEFA - after all that is what Brazil and Argentina represent out of CONMEBOL) of UEFA.

And failed dismally? tsk tsk. Making Cup final in 98 wasn't so so bad and I remember a few CONMEBOL teams moving into the second round in France as well.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by Oscar
Your B team can't even compete well in the Copa America. edit: at least that was the excuse used by another Brazilian earlier in the thread. At least you're consistant in cramming out nonsense....and realising that South America only has 2 teams that actually matter. Or 1 like this post would suggest.

Listen to your own advice and:



Because you making a fool of yourself isn't going to bring back that ½ spot, no really, it won't. :(

I didn't suggest it was even a B Team. I was suggesting that it was a half-hazard throw together of fringe players. I don't even remember the full roster, but how many were actually on the WC roster's "B" team.

And besides, I hardly consider it a regional tournament. How can it be when, according to others in this thread, only "50% of the teams that matter in CONMEBOL" participated. ;)

[AFCA]

Doesn't change the fact that there's a lot of space between Brazil and Argentina and even quite some space between Argentina and Uruguay and the rest.

[Oscar]

I didn't suggest it was even a B Team. I was suggesting that it was a half-hazard throw together of fringe players

You do realise 'c team' and whatnot was created on this board to somehow excuse the fact your team did bad, and make your National team look better because "oh no, this wasn't our B team that played craptacular, this was our Y team haHA, we don't suck at all!"

B team it is :)

And besides, I hardly consider it a regional tournament. How can it be when, according to others in this thread, only "50% of the teams that matter in CONMEBOL" participated.

Are you crazy, the fact that you guys let teams from Asia and North America play in your regional cup totally makes up for that.

[El_Maestro]

Originally posted by AFCA
4 teams from SA. That's Brazil, Argentina (two topnotch sides, especially Brazil ofcourse), Uruguay and one other. I reckon that's enough. Uruguay is not even THAT good (haven't been THAT good for a long time) but should be represented at a WC. But do you seriously think that the other South American teams would really make an impact? I'll tell you.... they never really have (maybe Colombia a little bit).

Argentina is not any better than Europe's top teams. And most European club teams still have more Europeans than South Americans in them.
And you're right. The likes of Roy Makaay, Ruud van Nistelrooy, Van der Vaart (wait n see) are just secondclass suckers. So were van Basten, Cruyff, Puskas. Euro soccer? Hahaha.

Get real. We all know South American footballers are fancy dribblers and good footballers in general, but you're making an ass out of yourself here.

About a decade ago UEFA wanted to oficially determine who was the best European player of all time (until that date at least). Guess who won? Alfredo D'Stefano, a Southamerican.

FIFA, 2 years ago, sponsored a poll to determine who was the world's best player of all time. Who won? Diego Armando Maradona, a Southamerican.

Of course FIFA and Blatter are not too fond of good old Diego, so "football's family" had to name someone else. Who was that? Some guy known as Pele, yet another Southamerican.

Oh, and of course European club teams have more local guys than Southamericans, they are not allowed by regulations, otherwise who knows what would happen.

But don't get me wrong, I like European football and its clubs, they are the perfect vehicles for Southamerican footballers. Where else could you find these huge entities with so much cash and so little talent in its rosters? SA players get rich, they become stars, and they get back to their national teams to keep kicking eurobutt.

Buh bye

[Oscar]

But don't get me wrong, I like European football and its clubs, they are the perfect vehicles for Southamerican footballers. Where else could you find these huge entities with so much cash and so little talent in its rosters?

I guess it also helps that the leagues in South America are inferior to the European leagues.

Which is pretty weird...because those leagues are full of South Americans...yet they suck. Freaky.

[Alex_1]

Come now - I never said it was a B, C team or made excuses for Brazil's loss or losses. All I stated was, well, to get a real perspective of what happened, look at all the factors involved. Yes, they lost to Honduras. Soundly. Why did that happen? Because Honduras was better than Brazil that day. Why were they better? ;) I guess people can call it whatever they wish. But it's pretty much a fact that hardly, if any of those players were even on the final roster for the WC.

As for Copa America, well, touche. :D