2002 last 8...flukes?

[simonb_nyc]

In 2002, Turkey, the US, South Korea and Japan all made it to the quartfinals. A lot of naysayers on BS said that this was a fluke and that these teams would't do anything in 2006. I disagreed. Well, Turkey didn't even qualify for 2006 and the other three all crashed out of the group stage. Maybe those naysayers were right!

[musicl]

Japan got knocked out in the 2nd round.

[midknight]

In 2002, Turkey, the US, South Korea and Japan all made it to the quartfinals. A lot of naysayers on BS said that this was a fluke and that these teams would't do anything in 2006. I disagreed. Well, Turkey didn't even qualify for 2006 and the other three all crashed out of the group stage. Maybe those naysayers were right!

replace japan by senegal and someone might respond to you...

[Maruti]

In 2002, Turkey, the US, South Korea and Japan all made it to the quartfinals. A lot of naysayers on BS said that this was a fluke and that these teams would't do anything in 2006. I disagreed. Well, Turkey didn't even qualify for 2006 and the other three all crashed out of the group stage. Maybe those naysayers were right!

to be fair to Turkey they are still a very strong side. they were however placed in the European Qualifying group of death...

just to note: European teams or high quality have not made it to the world cup before. This wouldn't be the first.

[goliath74]

to be fair to Turkey they are still a very strong side. they were however placed in the European Qualifying group of death...

In that group alone, Denmark and Greece (Euro 2004 champions) were eliminated. I think both of these teams could qualify from Africa, Asia, or CONCACAF...

[sidis]

teh WC is hosted in europe, its the difference.

in South Africa we will se an asia-africa-concacaf better performance.

[Maruti]

In that group alone, Denmark and Greece (Euro 2004 champions) were eliminated. I think both of these teams could qualify from Africa, Asia, or CONCACAF...

Greece lost the only World Cup game againsy African opposition 2:0 with a team that didn't even qualify for this world cup and lost convincingly to Japan with hard fought draws with South Korea and Saudi Arabia in the last couple of years...

And Turkey not had too much luck with African opposition in the last three-four years. The one win they had was a hard fought 3:2 win over Angola. Apart from that they've drawn Ghana, lost to Cameroon and had their ass whooped by South Africa.

Whilst Denmark in the last few years has beaten Singapoore and Hong Kong (both just barely), South Korea, drawn USA, lost to Iran. That said they have a great record against African opposition.

Denmark, Greece and Turkey would have a tough time qualifying from Africa and Asia.

Of course Greece, Turkey and Denmark could have qualified. But it would have been far from easy. Its probably easier to qualify from Europe. All you need is to draw an easy group.

EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE.

That said I think mixed groups are a good idea.This would allow African and Asian teams to play more competitive matches with world class sides. Truth be told it hard to get your players playing their ass of against Botswana and Guinea Bissau... Because of this the better sides don't evolve and aren't ready for tests of the magnitude the World Cup brings.

[Tigerpunk]

In 2002, Turkey, the US, South Korea and Japan all made it to the quartfinals. A lot of naysayers on BS said that this was a fluke and that these teams would't do anything in 2006. I disagreed. Well, Turkey didn't even qualify for 2006 and the other three all crashed out of the group stage. Maybe those naysayers were right!

The US almost qualified for the second round out of the group of death, despite poor play, poor coaching, and some outrageous calls against them.

South Korea tied France, and was the host team in the WC - and got a few outrageous calls for them in 2002.

Japan was the host squad in 2002 - and only made the 2nd round.

Turkey failed to qualify out of a very good group in Europe - and are rebuilding. They were at the end of a "silver generation" of sorts. But they're still pretty good

[Tigerpunk]

In that group alone, Denmark and Greece (Euro 2004 champions) were eliminated. I think both of these teams could qualify from Africa, Asia, or CONCACAF...

Also, Greece - talk about a fluke. Greece winning the 2004 Euro should put to bed the idea that the top European teams are in a league by themselves.

[Iranian Monitor]

Greece lost the only World Cup game againsy African opposition 2:0 with a team that didn't even qualify for this world cup and lost convincingly to Japan with hard fought draws with South Korea and Saudi Arabia in the last couple of years...

And Turkey not had too much luck with African opposition in the last three-four years. The one win they had was a hard fought 3:2 win over Angola. Apart from that they've drawn Ghana, lost to Cameroon and had their ass whooped by South Africa.

Whilst Denmark in the last few years has beaten Singapoore and Hong Kong (both just barely), South Korea, drawn USA, lost to Iran. That said they have a great record against African opposition.

Denmark, Greece and Turkey would have a tough time qualifying from Africa and Asia.

Of course Greece, Turkey and Denmark could have qualified. But it would have been far from easy. Its probably easier to qualify from Europe. All you need is to draw an easy group.

EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE.

That said I think mixed groups are a good idea.This would allow African and Asian teams to play more competitive matches with world class sides. Truth be told it hard to get your players playing their ass of against Botswana and Guinea Bissau... Because of this the better sides don't evolve and aren't ready for tests of the magnitude the World Cup brings.

Good, informed, post. Repped.

[goliath74]

Good, informed, post. Repped.

Turkey were third at WC2002, that speaks a lot. They did not play against African opposition or did they?

Or do we count friendlies now?

Greece won Euro2004, beating Spain, Portugal (twice), and Czech Republic (losing only to Russia!!!!). Greece had not qualified for the WC since 1994.

What it indicates is the much higher competitiveness in Europe. While some here find 14 European spots too many (actually, it is 13 + host spot), they do not realize, that all the top20 European teams can compete well with each other. SOuth America does not even have 20 teams. Asia's, Africa's, and CONCACAF's 20th team would be at the level of a UEFA minnow, like Cyprus, or Faroe Islands.

[sidis]

but the 6th african team is more stronger than 14th or 15th qualified from europe.

[Pakalolo]

The US almost qualified for the second round out of the group of death, despite poor play, poor coaching, and some outrageous calls against them.

:confused:
0-1-2 with 4 shots on goal in the whole (!) tournament, but they almost qualified? And yes, I saw the games, and can assure you that they were the worst team in their group.

[benztown]

but the 6th african team is more stronger than 14th or 15th qualified from europe.

I remember Switzerland beating Togo...

[leg_breaker]

to be fair to Turkey they are still a very strong side. they were however placed in the European Qualifying group of death...

Were they in the group of death in the 2004 qualifiers, when they had to playoff against those superpowers, Latvia?

just to note: European teams or high quality have not made it to the world cup before. This wouldn't be the first.


Turkey are not a high quality team.

[Gold is the Colour]

The US almost qualified for the second round out of the group of death, despite poor play, poor coaching, and some outrageous calls against them.

This is why I DON'T think group E was the group of death. Group C had one team that didn't perform and 3 that very close, IMO CIV was unlucky not to get something out of either of the first 2 games, and all three of those (ARG, NED and CIV) would have qualified from group E. In group E only Italy performed well for 2 games, and Ghana and the Czechs for one game each,. Group E was more competitive in the final round but only because the teams played to same same, lower, level compared to C.


South Korea tied France, and was the host team in the WC - and got a few outrageous calls for them in 2002.

Japan was the host squad in 2002 - and only made the 2nd round.

Turkey failed to qualify out of a very good group in Europe - and are rebuilding. They were at the end of a "silver generation" of sorts. But they're still pretty good

I think the point is to compare 2006 with 1998 - the last WC in Europe, and IMO this one has been a lot more competitive. In 2002, being in Japan/ Korea, gave home ground advantage to those 2 contries. All the talk was that with 06 the WC would go back to Euros + BRA and ARG, and while the quartes have turned out that way, the games have been a lot closer. The only true whipping boys of the cup were S&M - albiet they had the toughest opposition, and internal problems. Japan, USA, Iran and Tunisia for instance, all finished on one point, but they were all competitive and unlucky not to get more.

In short, whilst it was not quite a fluke to get 7 powers out of 8 spots in the quarters (as long as you count Portugal) because they are still better, they weren't as far ahead as in the past. Bring on 2010.

[Maruti]

I remember Switzerland beating Togo...

Togo is probably the 20-25 team in Africa. It like Latvia qualifying from Europe.

Off the top of my head I can name better teams like: Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon, Mali, Senegal, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, South Africa, DR Congo, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Zimbabwe...

btw. Switzerland did beat Togo thanks to the ref.

[Maruti]

Turkey were third at WC2002, that speaks a lot. They did not play against African opposition or did they?

They beat Senegal after extra time.

[Tuco]

btw. Switzerland did beat Togo thanks to the ref.
Yes, and Uruguay would've kicked Senegal out of the group stage had the ref seen that terrible dive by El Hadji Diouf (that gave Senegal a penalty kick).

While I don't want to take anything away from the surprise sides of 2002, one can't deny that more significant, game-deciding calls went in their favour. The same can be argued of Euro sides this tournament.

[Maruti]

Yes, and Uruguay would've kicked Senegal out of the group stage had the ref seen that terrible dive by El Hadji Diouf (that gave Senegal a penalty kick).

The above statement is plain wrong.

If I remember correctly Senegal was already leading 1:0 before the dive. I must remind you that they were leading 3:0 before they suddenly broke down. Who knows what would have happened if they weren't leading 3:0? Maybe they would have won because they wouldn't start taking the opposition for granted with a 2:0 lead (very probable)?

Suggesting that Senegal had anything to thank to the ref is simply not true (besides one of the Uruguay goals was offside). Even the dive was a world class dive and most refs would have fallen for it. I'm not excusing it but the ref was not to thank for it. Diouf pulled a top class stunt that won the penalty.

BTW: That was not a terrible dive. It was one of the best dives ever (oscar winning stuff) which would make any Italian team proud (even Roberto Baggio).

As far as the Togo match is concerned: there should have been a penalty for Togo when Switzerland was leading. HEnce it would have been 1:1 (most likely). And Switzerland probably would have won anyway, but nonetheless the win was marred by a terrible call.

While I don't want to take anything away from the surprise sides of 2002, one can't deny that more significant, game-deciding calls went in their favour.

One can also argue that Senegal had a perfectly good goal disallowed in the Turkey - Senegal game (first half) and that it should have been Senegal in the 1/2 final not Turkey...

In the end all this is pointless. Suggesting however that Senegal had to thank the ref for getting the 1/4 final is EXTREMELY laughable.

Must I remind you the calls Germany or Brazil had in their favour? The balance of bad calls was evenly spread amongst the strong teams and the weak teams. Some very important calls favoured the big teams in 2002. Don't forget that. It was just refreshing to see that the calls were finally not just going one way - they went both ways.