I think Atletico had over 70... This competition comes from a long tradition of Europe vs S. America for top team in the world, Europe is very eurocentric I get it, but Bayern fans represented in Marrocco, so did Atletico Fans, and last year Chelsea fans and Corinthians fans represented... year before that, Barca and Santos.. etc etc etc.. But next time they are holding a tournament like that they really need to make sure it's a football stadium.. not an olympic stadium that was ridiculous.
CAM played 70? Wow, respect. But how is that even possible with the winter break and the international break? The Brazilian league has 20 teams and you need to play 14 matches in the Libertadores so what other matches are there?
Atlético-MG in 2013 15 Campeonato Mineiro (state tournament) 14 Copa Libertadores (confederation tournament) 38 Brasileiro Série A (national league) 2 Copa do Brasil (national cup tournament) 2 FIFA Club World Cup (international club tournament) 71 total matches played in 2013
Wow! Honestly while they won't supplant my support for Bayern or Sporting KC, I think I would like to follow Atletico-MG in the coming season. Might be a good way to see how the football system in Brazil works and Atletico looks like an interesting club to follow. Sorry for going off topic though!
After doing a brief search, 70+ games for Brazilian clubs that win the Libertaodres appears to be the norm. Note that from 2001-2012 clubs that competed in the Libertadores did not participate in the Copa do Brasil due to scheduling conflicts. From 2013 onwards Libertadores clubs enter the Copa do Brasil in the Round of 16 stage. 2012 Corinthians Paulista 20 Campeonato Paulista 14 Copa Libertadores 0 Copa do Brasil 38 Brasileiro Série A 2 FIFA Club World Cup 74 total matches played in 2012 2011 Santos FC 23 Campeonato Paulista 14 Copa Libertadores 0 Copa do Brasil 38 Brasileiro Série A 2 FIFA Club World Cup 77 total matches played in 2011 2010 SC Internacional 22 Campeonato Gaúcho 14 Copa Libertadores 0 Copa do Brasil 38 Brasileiro Série A 2 FIFA Club World Cup 76 total matches played in 2010 2006 SC Internacional 18 Campeonato Gaúcho 14 Copa Libertadores 0 Copa do Brasil 38 Brasileiro Série A 2 FIFA Club World Cup 72 total matches played in 2006 2005 São Paulo FC 19 Campeonato Paulista 14 Copa Libertadores 0 Copa do Brasil 42 Brasileiro Série A 2 FIFA Club World Cup 77 total matches played in 2005
Is the state tournament tournament really necessary? I know was was the point in the past and it's traditional tournament with a clear purpose
I believe those state tournaments are quite a tradition. As far as I know these competitions are largely played one after the other, starting withe the state championship in the first quarter followed by a big chunk of the libertadores with the serie A not starting until the summer and running for only five months or so ( if breaks are excluded). I have no idea how such a schedule can be maintained and it's a bit puzzling to me, teams often have matches one or two days after the last, club matches seem to happen during international breaks including the Confed Cup. I somehow doubt that the clubs always play at full strength under these circumstances as the risk for injury would be immense.
Yup and by the end of the season the players are pretty much dead. The quality of play drops off considerably and the team with the best roster and less injuries usually does well in the end of the Brasileirao. It is very common for the team that wins the Libertadores or Copa do Brasil not to do well in the Brasileirao because they start resting their players since they have already qualified for the following year's libertadores. The other thing is that once a team wins the libertadores they hardly keep the team together. Most times they sell off players before the CWC due to their over inflation in the market from just turning into the champions. Combine that with the fact that they don't need to do well to qualify for the next year, and you have the fluctuation on the Brazilian league tables, where a team can win the league one year and avoid relegation through the courts the very next year. Or win the cup and get relegated (palmeiras) But most teams in Brazil play over 50 games every year
If you're going to watch a team from Brazil I would recommend Rio/SP teams, SP has the best state championship and Rio has the second best. The other states their championships are pretty much 2 horse races, not that much fun. Rio has 4 teams fighting for it, while SP you always have a small team qualify for the quarter finals making it fun.
it should be noted that brazilian teams usually don't have many players on national teams, if any, while top european teams often lose most of their squad during international breaks.
that wasn't the case last year, lots of players in the current NT are very recent transfers from the Brazilian league, and played in our league up until this past tournament. Plus European teams don't play games during Fifa dates, so the teams actually lose a lot of players, while in Brazil if a player is called up he simply gets taken off his team. Also Brazilian league has a lot of NT players from South American teams playing for them. Even my team Vasco that just got relegated had to deal with NT call ups. Plus U-20 call ups.
the most ''artsistic'' players are often not the most usefull. none of those countries that have strong economies have the same football culture and know-how as europe, except of course south america which is on a simillar level to europe and above everyone else. what is this ''un-level'' playing field suppose to be? the distribution of world cup slots? this is irelevant for player development. players are made in their youth, before they turn 20. everything after that is just fine-polishing. they are certainly not made at world cups. easier acces to world cups won't make anyone better. australia was producing great players when it was very difficult to reach the world cup for them, now that they are at every world cup and collapsing in terms of quality. usa have had safe acces to world cups for 20 years and haven't gotten much better, if at all.
i just wanted to point out that players on brazilian teams usually don't play more games than players at top european clubs, as you should add 10 or so national team games to players on european clubs. as you said, even if brazilan clubs have some nt players, they just skip club games when they're called up so those games don't increase their total.
They are not the most interesting to watch, and football is after all merely a spectator sport! In any case, in terms relevant athletic attributes, Africans might have an even greater advantage. But I know Australians are never mistaken for Brazilians when it comes to their artistic mastery of the game and understand where you are coming from. Football is an increasingly popular sport, even if its popularity was slower to catch on in some places than others. But certainly, there is no reason to put ceilings and quotas and pretend that the picture from yesterday will always repeat itself tomorrow. I am against guaranteeing any confederation too many allocations as you have with UEFA being guaranteed more than 40% of the allocations, and denying any confederation the chance to prove it has more merit than just what they get from a disproportionately low ceiling. Which is why I support intercontinental qualifying. Yes, part of the uneven playing field comes from different allocations. A big part comes from the historical advantages that have already been bestowed on UEFA and South America by virtue of having an earlier start to the game. And another big part is just a matter of the economics involved in the game and how much more lucrative UEFA competitions help finance a lot more developed football programs in these countries. All that aside, however, a part of it is just psychological. If you read my post #274 in this thread carefully, you would probably understand better what I am referring to. In the meantime, just take from it: there are huge economic, psychological, and even tactical, advantages to having a lot more teams in the World Cup compared to those who have a lot less. And all that has a bearing on the talent pool that is developed as well. The example of Australia and its boom and bust in talent, however, has little to do with it since Australia (like the US) is a country which faces different issues.
Brazilian state championships have tradition but are not needed anymore at least not by the big teams. Or better at least not by my team! I just wrote a blog this week in which i hope inter loses the state championship. Give it to gremio for all i care. It serves for nothing but to fool fans and accomodate players and front office. A state championship loss for inter lately means a better rest of the year. In 06 and 10 inter lost the state and won the libertadores. In 11 12 and 13 inter won the state and each year did worse in the brasileiro (5th 10th and now 14th). Also state championship is wayyyyy to long at almost 5 months. And you r playing against teams that are almost amateur, its absurd. They should let the small teams duke it out and the big teams come in at the end like in the semis.
Thank you for that answer. I assumed It was a remnant of a bygone era but I didn't know if the Brazilians felt the same. Speaking of ... your beliefs that it should be scrapped are something common or are you against the tide?
and what would you say if intercontinental qualifying resulted in more european (and south american) teams, which is entirely possible, even probable ? i'm not sure what the point about historical advantages is suppose to be. if that makes the playing field uneven, then every playing field is uneven. if someone comes to the exam better prepared, it's an uneven field. if someone is naturally faster than you it's an uneven field. economics doesn't really matter in terms of player development, after a country reaches a certain level of development, basically when it moves away from self-sustaining agriculture to industrial civilization. all you need is a ball, a field and youth coaches who know the game. the examples of england and scotland and numerous poorer countries and leagues which produce better players show that. the psychological thing is completely speculative and unfounded. i would even consider it if asia (or some other region) were producing great players who then freeze at the world cup due to psychological factors. in reality, they pretty much perform in line with their abilities. bottom line, playing at the world cup doesn't create players. you have to make them at home before they're 20. player development in the rest of the world simply isn't good enough to compete with europe and south america.
But it is vastly improving in places like Japan, South Korea, Mexico, USA, Ghana or Nigeria + they have decent leagues to develop the players. The main issue with countries such as Ghana and Nigeria is that it lacks the local league to develop players, despite being abundant in youth talent (as proven by Nigeria's domination at this years U17 World Cup). Brasil or Germany offers local players opportunities to fulfill their full potential, while, for example, Nigeria is almost entirely reliant on development in foreign leagues, which makes the players sign contracts too early or accept questionable contracts.
I would say: great. The better teams advanced, as is always what we should want, while the weaker teams got experience and the chance to make amends next time! I just don't like quotas and ceilings. And I don't like seeing teams segregated like this. Otherwise, if Iran was playing a group with say Croatia, Venezuela, Zambia and Jamaica to qualify, it wouldn't be so much worse in my eyes even if we didn't qualify (not a foregone conclusion by any means) than actually qualifying and going out after 3 games! But I know (I accept you don't) that when that cycles repeats itself, Iran will certainly qualify at some point and do much better qualifying than now. In the meantime, we would get a lot more exposure, a lot more money into our football, and a lot of other benefits that would change the face of our football for good. I am sorry, but I don't think Europe is at all a place I would envy when it comes to youth players! Youth football is dominated by Nigeria, Brazil, etc and any European side that does well is often an exception, not the rule. Anyway, the differences between Europe and Asia and Africa and Concacaf (even when they might exist randomly) are never as noticeable in youth football as they are at the senior level.
Youth football is more than the 6 or 7 games they play for the final tournaments. Youth development is done at club level. And let's not talk about Nigeria's "youth" players
If the development that matters is by the time they reach 20, as aliosius was saying, then the pinnacle of that development in Europe often doesn't appear impressive at all. Never mind whatever is behind the pinnacle that shows itself at youth World Cups. It is not just about Nigeria, anyway, although right now with MRI tests and the like, I don't think cheating is at all as prevalent. We just saw, for instance, the U17 World Cup. Even though Sweden did alright, the rest of the Euro teams were nothing to write home about. The best team of the tournament by far was clearly Nigeria. In that tournament, a team like Iran would like its chances against practically any team from UEFA, the same way we had defeated then European champions 2:0 in the 2009 U17 World Cup and beat one of UEFA's representatives, Austria, in the recently concluded u17 World Cup as well. On the other hand, if what matters is actually how well you groom and develop the 20 years old that come from the ranks of various youth teams, which is probably the case, then everything I had mentioned about the uneven playing field that exists applies even more.
results in youth football are very close to irrelevant. european clubs develop players to play for the first team of their club, not to win youth championships.
No. Lets. This current crop of U17 World Champions from Nigeria are undeniably verifiably U17 youth players. And they just cleaned house at the World Cup without hardly breaking a sweat.
True, but that just highlights why European or Brasialian youth succeeds: Because the development programme is ongoing. Unlike i.e. Nigeria, where career get quickly derailed, when there is no gradual progress from youth football to professional football. Kelechi Iheanacho, Success Isaac, Chidera Nwakali, Musa Mohammed, Musa Yahaya are all probably amongst the top 10 most talented U17 players in the world, but they can't develop any further in Nigeria, thus being forced to look for progress in Europe.
Yes, but what does that have to do with the disparity or parity, as the case might be, between European and African or Asian teams? You suggested the source of that disparity was in youth development; to grooming young players and getting them to be good by the time they are 20 since what happens afterwards is almost irrelevant to the disparity that exists. For me, the empirical evidence from youth World Cup is exactly in opposite. There is something like parity (leaving aside Nigeria's domination of the last U17 tournament) between the various confederations in either grooming, or having others groom, players up to when they reach 20 or even older. The differences begin to show more when we are talking about older players.