How close is Olympics to WC level of play ?

[vancity eagle]

I have been thinking about this, lets discuss. I personally think that it is not that far off.

[man_in_the_middle]

IMO the most teams that are their, are close to as good as their world cup teams would be. So Argentina is close to what their world cup team would be, so is Brazil, Nigeria, USA, ect... But some of thee best teams in the world are missing. Spain, France, England, Croatia, Germany, and Portugal are consistently top 10-15 teams in the world who are not at the Olympics.

[mattteo]

Two worlds apart....WC obviously having the higher quality between the two.

[vancity eagle]

Two worlds apart....WC obviously having the higher quality between the two.

no one is disputing the WC is higher quality, but I dont think they are 2 worlds apart. For example you have a very close to full squad Argentina, only managing 1 goal victories over very inexperienced CIV and Australia squads, yet in WC they thrashed Serbia. My point being there is some very good competition on display here. I think many of these olympic squads would be very competitive in a WC.

[NYfan]

I think the talent level of the Argentina and Brazil teams is probably better than many WC teams and close to their own WC squads, but not quite as good.

I think that most of these teams would be competitive in the WC. What seems to be missing is the seasoning and leadership that teams get with older players.

[BocaFan]

IMO the most teams that are their, are close to as good as their world cup teams would be. So Argentina is close to what their world cup team would be, so is Brazil, Nigeria, USA, ect... But some of thee best teams in the world are missing. Spain, France, England, Croatia, Germany, and Portugal are consistently top 10-15 teams in the world who are not at the Olympics.

Nail on head.

It's the allocation of spots from each confederation that impacts the quality difference in the 2 tournaments more than the difference between the senior and olympic teams of the individual nations involved.

Imagine if 30% of the World Cup teams came from AFC or OFC....

[Auriaprottu]

It's the allocation of spots from each confederation that impacts the quality difference in the 2 tournaments more than the difference between the senior and olympic teams of the individual nations involved.

You're right, but how right you are is a tough call. If you look at Brasil's 2006 team next to this youth + 3 senior players team, you'll see a lot of difference in the lineups. How much of this is due to a big aging-out of the Selecao after 2006 is debatable, and we'll have to wait until close to the 2010 Cup to see how much that team looks like this one.

Imagine if 30% of the World Cup teams came from AFC or OFC....

Yeah, that drops the quality a lot.

[scotch17]

Imagine if nearly 50% of the World Cup teams came from AFC, OFC, and CONCACAF....

fixed

[almango]

IMO the most teams that are their, are close to as good as their world cup teams would be. So Argentina is close to what their world cup team would be, so is Brazil, Nigeria, USA, ect... But some of thee best teams in the world are missing. Spain, France, England, Croatia, Germany, and Portugal are consistently top 10-15 teams in the world who are not at the Olympics.

I disagree. Most of the squads are very inferior to the national teams. Also Europe hasn't exactly been setting the world on fire at previous tournaments, with their last victory being in 1992 (Spain took it serious as host). The timing of the tournament means even if more big UEFA countries were present, they wouldn't be sending strong squads. I have no doubt that if you separated the under 23 tournament from the Olympics, increased it to 24 teams with more proportionate representation from stronger regions and held it at a more sensible time, the standard would be much higher.

[Excape Goat]

Argentina is fielding a team that will look liked their 2010 team. Of course, many potential starters are missing. I am basing my theory on their 1996 and 1998 team. Almost their entire 1996 squad went to the WC Finals two years later. And I find their 2008 team very close to their current full national team. In two years' time, some of the youngsters such as Gago will probably start Argentina in South Africa. The same can be applied to Brazil(but they are missing Kaka and Robinho)

I think the South Americans took the Olympics more serious than the Europeans. They do not have the European Championship to consider. They can bring up the best possible players. Let's say I think Italy and Holland are resting their overaged players while Brazil and argentina can bring up Ronaldinho, Riquelme, etc.

[Jwaksman]

fixed


Besides the fact that your math is wrong, how can you have a problem with CONCACAF getting two teams in a 16 team tournament? What do you want to give them... one?? The real problem is asia + ofc getting 5 spots of the 16. That's a problem as far as talent levels. It's looking like 1 of 2 CONCACAF teams will advance, while 0 of the 5 AFC+OFC teams will advance.

[Auriaprottu]

I think the South Americans took the Olympics more serious than the Europeans.

Brasil certainly does; most European teams cannot complete their trophy cabinet with Olympic gold. Argentina has already done so, but are a few World Cups short of the standard.

They do not have the European Championship to consider. They can bring up the best possible players.

Its a U-23 tournament, so they never had the European championship to consider anyhow. Only three of the best possible players are going to be available to a given team unless that team somehow happens to be so very young that U-23 players comprise a majority of the best they have.

They can bring their youth plus three adult players, so long as the clubs allow it. Whatever restrictions are being imposed are being imposed not by the national teams, but by the european clubs those guys play for.

[scotch17]

Besides the fact that your math is wrong,

Australia
China
Honduras
Japan
South Korea
New Zealand
USA
_______
7 of total 16 .... 7/16 = 43.75%

If 43.75% is "nearly 50%" enough for you, my apologies. I'll be sure to be even more pedantic just for you next time. :rolleyes:

how can you have a problem with CONCACAF getting two teams in a 16 team tournament? What do you want to give them... one?? The real problem is asia + ofc getting 5 spots of the 16. That's a problem as far as talent levels. It's looking like 1 of 2 CONCACAF teams will advance, while 0 of the 5 AFC+OFC teams will advance.

Who said I had a problem with 2 teams? AFC only had 4 involved because China is hosting. It's not our fault NZ is in it's own worthless confederation at this point either. Cry me a river about it.

[Leopejo]

I think Belgium is a good case against the original poster, but someone more knowledgeable correct me if I'm wrong:

Belgium had a very young senior team in the qualifications for last European Championship. They fared poorly and were fifth in their group, IIRC, behind Poland, Portugal, Serbia and Finland.

In the spring they had some friendlies with again a very young team. Sure, a friendly means nothing, but the Belgium Italy faced was a really weak team. They literally were two worlds apart.

I haven't had a look at rosters, but I think there is quite some overlap between that senior NT and the Olympic team, which in China is playing very strong. It provided real opposition to Brazil for example.

For me this shows that there is a gulf between a Youth team and a National team, regardless of competition, motivation, players.

[FC RASTA]

I think the level of play is one notch below the WC. However, I think that the stratagy that is used by the teams is the same as the WC which limits their play. Every coach is playing conservative to avoid making the mistake. That is how many of the WC teams play unless they are playing a really weak nation.

It is obvious that some of the best players in the world are not at the olympics. I can say this much, I am enjoying seeing the young players,,,espcially the US team...even thou Rodgers and Holden are garbage at this stage. With some experience maybe they will improve.

[revelationx]

There is a huge difference in standard of play between the two. Most of the teams exclude most of their best players due to the U-23 rule. So all of the teams are therefore immediately missing most of their best players. Then some of the best teams in the world are not even there, there is no England, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany all of whom are very strong teams at World Cups.

Young teams make more mistakes and make wrong choices more often. The chances of upsets are therefore greater than in World Cups. This might make results more unpredicatable but does not indicate a high level of play compared to World Cups.

The Olympics is a great football tournament to watch but should not be considered anywhere close to a World Cup in terms of standard of play or prestige.

[Jwaksman]

Australia
China
Honduras
Japan
South Korea
New Zealand
USA
_______
7 of total 16 .... 7/16 = 43.75%

If 43.75% is "nearly 50%" enough for you, my apologies. I'll be sure to be even more pedantic just for you next time. :rolleyes:




Who said I had a problem with 2 teams? AFC only had 4 involved because China is hosting. It's not our fault NZ is in it's own worthless confederation at this point either. Cry me a river about it.



A) If it's 43.75% then you can say "nearly 50%" - but saying "50%" is factually incorrect. I'm sorry, but if you say something incorrect I'm going to point it out - don't bitch at me for correcting your own mistake.

B) Your statement was simply invalid regardless. I know that it is a de facto rule on BigSoccer that nobody is allowed to say something that confederations without somebody making a crack about how much everybody from CONCACAF sucks, but you can't possibly be trying to insist that CONCACAF should only be allowed one team in the olympics. Two is fine. The problem with quality comes from the fact that AFC and OFC get FIVE, despite having fewer top teams.

[Auriaprottu]

CONCACAF sucks. Two teams isn't ridiculous, tho.

[Lusankya]

it should be
Concacaf: 2
AFC: 2
Comnebol: 2
CAF: 3
UEFA: 7 (only if they change their qualification mode)

But would be better if they expand it to 24 or 32 teams.

[Gorando]

I think Belgium is a good case against the original poster, but someone more knowledgeable correct me if I'm wrong:

Belgium had a very young senior team in the qualifications for last European Championship. They fared poorly and were fifth in their group, IIRC, behind Poland, Portugal, Serbia and Finland.

In the spring they had some friendlies with again a very young team. Sure, a friendly means nothing, but the Belgium Italy faced was a really weak team. They literally were two worlds apart.

I haven't had a look at rosters, but I think there is quite some overlap between that senior NT and the Olympic team, which in China is playing very strong. It provided real opposition to Brazil for example.

For me this shows that there is a gulf between a Youth team and a National team, regardless of competition, motivation, players.

Indeed there is a huge difference between youth teams and senior teams. Like Belgium they are one of the best youth teams in Europe but the same players look like crap against seniors as we've seen in last Euro 08 qualification. (altho the Belgium senior coach is the worst coach in the world :cool: )