2016 Olympics - Men's Football Tournament [R]

Funny. But for the record, I've never personally trivialized Uruguay's pre-WC achievements. I wouldn't count the 1924 and 1928 Olympic Football Tournaments as totally equivalent to a WC, but they're the closest thing to a world championship that existed at the time. And I'm virtually certain that there weren't age restrictions. So winning them was a significant achievement. And the quality of the Uruguayan team of that era was confirmed by the fact that it then won the inaugural WC two years after it had won Olympic gold.

This was my position before Brasil won the gold medal. I haven't been a change of heart just because my team now holds the title it previously didn't. When people were saying that the final against Germany had no real upside but a huge downside, I said that it did have a big upside--in part because it's a title with an important historical legacy (i.e., the Olympic Football tournament is older than the WC and used to be the de facto world championship). It isn't that now. But so what? We value it. It's a title that we've wanted and have been trying to win for a while. Now we have.

 

Back up a bit, Pipiolo... you're starting to get personal. You and I have butted heads before (and we later cleared things up), so there's no need for trash talk.

You don't need to agree with anybody about the value (or lack thereof) of the Confederations Cup - but if you bring up bad results for Brazil, others will bring up bad results for Argentina.

 

Would either the 2001, 2005, 2009, or 2013 Confederations Cup titles been meaningless in ending the long title drought Argentina has had? Or do you simply insist on this because it's your view... just "because?"

 

That's not an argument. Just like 23 (i.e., the number of years since your equipo principal hasn't won an international title, despite numerous opportunities) isn't an argument. At least not standing alone.

We suffered a complete mental implosion and were thoroughly humiliated by Germany. And? It's not like you have much to brag about from that tournament. Your team lost a winnable WC final on Brasilian soil--the kind of thing that you could have held over our heads for all eternity. Instead, you're reduced to harping on the feats of the very team that ended that dream for you.

Enjoy your two stars.

Who said it would? And who said the CC is worth more than a WC? Of course it would have been better to win the 2014 WC rather than the 2013 CC. But you can't swap trophies or change history. And a willingness to hypothetically do so doesn't mean the trophies aren't important in and of themselves. The 2005 and 2013 CCs mean a lot to us.

In 2005, we beat Germany 3x2 in Germany and then thrashed you lot 4x1 in the final. Not having won damn thing, Argentina only qualified for that edition of the CC by our grace. Recall that because we held the WC and had also beaten you in the 2004 Copa America final, you only got a slot as vice-champions of the 2004 Copa America. It was worth inviting you guys to the party.

In 2013, we had a tough 2x1 victory over Uruguay and an emphatic 3x0 final win over Spain at home. In the group phase, we also had a 4x2 victory over Italy and a 2x0 win over Mexico. That was a memorable and high quality tournament.

 

World Cup >>>> Confederations Cup
Continental >>> Confederations Cup

/end of discussion

And the above reply was not even directed to you, so I'm not sure why you think it's personal.

If you're going to compete in it, might as well go to win it. But its significance is far removed from a World Cup or Continental trophy.

 

Germany vs Argentina 7-1

1-0 1990
1-1 2006
4-0 2010
1-0 2014

Germany vs Brazil 7-1

7-1 2014

Fact is you both cant play football

 

Nobody said otherwise, so this is a straw man.

I am Brazilian.

Again, nobody said otherwise.

You said it's a "garbage" tournament; I cited how yours and Germany's NTs brought players which later went to the World Cup. If Argentina had won it as often as Brazil has, you fans of Argentina would brag about it - it's always great to win, of course. But you'd brag about it as another cup achievement.

 

When we beat Spain, Pipiolo downplayed it, saying it was a "minor" win. This is his only argument: the Confederations Cup isn't the World Cup. Thus, if a team doesn't win the World Cup, winning the Confeds means nothing. With his logic, one could win the Copa America every time and fail to win the following World Cup - and that'd mean it'd be a minor win, a meaningless triumph in a "garbage tournament."

In that post, Pipiolo said Spain controlled most of the match. I cited ZonalMarking to prove Brazil had better passing. Once he read this, he retreated somewhat, saying "perhaps I went overboard by saying Spain controlled the match."

I then wrote that there was no "perhaps" about it. And, interestingly, the only poster who repped Pipiolo's "perhaps I..." post was BocaFan, another Argentine/Argentina fan.

We're all entitled to our biases, but for years Pipiolo has had a clear anti-Brazil bias, and I don't think it's simply the rivalry that exists. He is now as he was then downplaying Brazil's Confeds victory (a third straight). Had Argentina won 3 straight (with a 4-1 victory over Brazil, which is what we achieved in 2005 in the final against Argentina), I strongly suspect Pipiolo would not be this cavalier towards the Confederations Cup.

At the end of the day, Pipiolo fundamentally does not like it when Brazil wins. He earlier wrote that he hoped Honduras would eliminate Brazil from the Olympics. I'm glad his hopes were dashed, although given Honduras sent Argentina packing, I can see why he might've thought Honduras could've fulfilled his hopes. For the good of football, Honduras failed.

As it is.

 

LOL, let's put Brazil as the best international team of this era over Spain and Germany everybody. I mean they won two Confederation Cups, how else could it not be!

 

Your passion for your team is commendable. Your reasoning abilities, however, are not.

 

Where are you getting this stuff?

No one in this thread is making grand pronouncements about the best international team of this era, which we can arbitrarily define as starting in 2006 (10 years ago).

If I were to try to do that, I'd go about it systematically. Here are some of the criteria I'd look at, in descending order of importance:

1. World Cup titles and match records (including qualifying campaigns, if applicable).
2. Continental titles and match records (including qualifying campaigns, if applicable).
3. Other international titles and competitive match records (I'd put the Confederations Cup in this category).
4. Friendly match records.
5. Quantitative factors (historical ELO ratings, statistical analyses).
6. Subjective factors, including overall impact on how the game is played internationally and my impressions from watching matches or reading experts' opinions.
7. Players' participation and performance in national league and inter-league competitions around the world, but especially at top European clubs.

Direct confrontations between teams would weigh especially heavily when resolving close questions of whether one team should be ranked above another.

I think that going by the above criteria, you'd be hard pressed not to pick Spain as the dominant international team of the last 10 years. I'd have to think more about how I'd rank teams after that. But tiki-taka, the 2010 WC, 2 Euros, and the unprecedented unbeaten streak, probably warrant that distinction. Note here that I'm not making comparisons between how particular teams from different times within this era would fare against each other; nor am I comparing the absolute levels quality that each team achieved at its highest point. Rather, I'm defining dominance by the teams' performance relative to the teams they faced or could have faced at the time each team existed, and factoring the duration of the periods of relative dominance.

 

I won't post on this thread beyond this final post.

Since 1993, the last time Brazil played a major tournament and failed to win before it won the World Cup the following year (which is the last time, incidentally, Argentina won a major title), Brazil has had the following record:

1994 World Cup
1997 Copa América
1997 Confederations Cup
1999 Copa América
2002 World Cup
2004 Copa América
2005 Confederations Cup
2007 Copa América
2009 Confederations Cup
2013 Confederations Cup
2016 Olympic Championship*

*The Olympic tournament is, of course, not a senior-level NT competition, but rather, a youth tournament which allows for up to 3 over-23 players. Some here, on this thread and in others, have mocked Brazil for our horrible defeat against Germany 2 years ago. And yes that was a pretty bad defeat. But as bad as it was, as long as it's remembered, it was a lapse in an otherwise pretty damn good run over the past 20-25 years - one which I strongly believe no CONMEBOL team will ever match.

And, of course, some of these titles had great matches & wins for Brazil, with come-from-behind wins, last-minute ties leading to victories on PKs, 3-goal differential in cup finals - with rivals who were themselves former continental and World Cup champions (and this was not only including the World Cup and the Copa América).

We've now gone 3 years without a senior-level title, and if we don't win it all in Russia 2018, it'll be at least 6 years, as the 2019 Copa América will be in Brazil. It'd be nice to win both, though.

 

Actually, the best ever from Conmebol, for a similar period of time (although for an even longer period of time with a World war in between, where there wasn't much international competitions, except those played in South America), was achieved by Uruguay over 70 years before, at a time when there wasn't any "Confederation Cup" in existence (only limited to Copa america, Olympics and World cups). Very likely that if there were some of these in those days, that they would've won many of those too :

1923 Copa America
1924 Copa America
1924 Olympic Championship
1926 Copa America
1928 Olympic Championship
1930 World Cup
1935 Copa America
1942 Copa America
1950 World Cup

For that time period, they won 2 Olympic championships (Brazil only once)
2 World Cups (same as Brazil)
And 5 Copa America's (only 4 for Brazil)

The only similarity shared between that Uruguay, to this later Brazil, is that their toughest opponent during both of their succesful streaks, within Conmebol, was that for both, it was Argentina

Compared one to the other, the Uruguay from those days makes this Brazil of nowdays, to look just like a minnow....

On current times, your team is struggling in Conmebol WC qualifiers, where to your disappointment, Brazil is only 6th, which means that if they finished right now, you would have to watch the WC from home, as Brazil isn't even getting the spot for the intercontinental playoff....

So before talking about winning it all in 2018, If I were you, I'd focus in making it to the WC, first.

 

this about to get gud.

 

The 1924 and 1928 Olympics had the best teams in the world in the soccer tournament.

That was not true of the first three World Cups, where many countries with good teams didn't participate: 1930 was a year of financial crisis around the world, some European countries were unhappy about the first tournament happening in S. America, and by 1934 and 1938 the political situation of the world had deteriorated, to the point that some countries refused to make the trip to Rome or Paris.

WCs: 30 = 13 teams; 34 = 16; 38 = 15.

In 1930, England, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland and Sweden were big teams that refused to make the trip.

In 1934, England, Scotland, in fact all the UK refused to participate because the FA and FIFA hated each other. Uruguay refused to go because Italy had not gone to Uruguay (only time the champions didn't take part). With racial tensions mounting in Europe, several countries were made clear that they wouldn't be welcome, so they just withdrew --and that included most S. Americans.

By 1938, things had got even worse, and only three non-European countries were allowed. Which means only Brazil was there, from the strong teams outside Europe (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, USA, were all left out). Austria also was missing, due to being annexed by Germany (who hand picked players to join their team, but most refused anyway). Spain was busy with their Civil War, and as expected the English and their isles said no, thanks but no.


The Olympic tournaments in 1924 and 1928 had the full array, and realistically were not matched in having the best teams in the world participate until 1954 (up until 1950, there was a lot of backroom politics to keep the Asians and Africans out).

So, IMO, the Gold Medals in those two are possibly even _more_ valuable than any pre-1954 World Cup.

 

The Confederation Cup is what it is. No more, no less. Better to win one than not win one.
Ditto the Olympic Games.


The Bottom Line (50, 25, 15 year comparisons)


Last 50 Years


Brazil
3 WC
5 Copa America
4 Conf. Cup
1 Olympic

Germany
3 WC
3 Euros
0 Conf. Cup
0 Olympics

Italy
2 WC
0 Euros
0 Conf. Cup
0 Olympics

Argentina
2 WC
2 Copa America
1 Conf. Cup
2 Olympics

France
1 WC
2 Euros
2 Conf. Cup
1 Olympics

Spain
1 WC
2 Euros
0 Conf. Cup
1 Olympics


Last 25 years


Brazil
2 WC
4 Copa America
4 Conf. Cup
1 Olympics

Germany
1 WC
1 Euro
0 Conf. Cup
0 Olympics

Italy
1 WC
0 Euros
0 Conf. Cup
0 Olympics

Argentina
0 WC
0 Copa America
0 Conf. Cup
2 Olympics

France
1 WC
1 Euro
2 Conf. Cup
0 Olympics

Spain
1 WC
2 Euros
0 Conf. Cup
0 Olympics



Last 15 years


Brazil
1 WC
2 Copa America
3 Conf. Cup
1 Olympics

Germany
1 WC
0 Euros
0 Conf. Cup
0 Olympics

Italy
1 WC
0 Euros
0 Conf. Cup
0 Olympics

Argentina
0 WC
0 Copa America
0 Conf. Cup
2 Olympics

France
0 WC
0 Euros
0 Conf. Cup
0 Olympics

Spain
1 WC
2 Euros
0 Conf. Cup
0 Olympics



Same rules / criteria apply to all.

 

1976 (40 years ago) football at Olympic games, was won by East Germany, so for the last 50 years, Germany also counts 1 Olympic title on their behalf.
1992 (24 years ago), the Confederation cup (the very first championship of this kind recognized by FIFA), was won by Argentina, so counts for both, last 25 years and last 50 years.
1992 (24 years ago), The Olympic gold was won by Spain. Same as above, counts for last 25 and last 50 years.
The Confed cups of both, 2001 and 2003, were won by France (counts twice for last 15 years, last 25 years and last 50 years)


and greatest defeat, which by itself is a title that no one gets even close to it, by any of the mentioned teams in the last posts was 1-7, (in all the time periods, that is in the last 15, last 25 and last 50 years), by you know who ......

 

I also missed the fact that both Copa America's of 1991 (25 years ago) and 1993 (23 years ago), were won by Argentina. which means that for the time frame of last 25 years they should also get counted.

 

I wrote "will ever match." I was speaking of the future. And for Uruguay's past: a very successful one, yes. And while those titles will stay forever in their history, those were tournaments with fewer participants at a time football had fewer difficult opponents.

As for the World Cup - OBVIOUSLY we have to qualify. I said "it'd be nice to win both," and one cannot win a tournament one doesn't enter.

You as a Chilean should not talk about "minnows."

 

So what ?. Titles still count, and what is more important is that through its extenssion in time, it proves that at those days they were the best team around this part of the world (Conmebol), which also inludes Brazil.

Sure, and it is also through a longer period of time.
You must also keep in mind that there weren't any Confed Cup in place, in those days which also means they didn't have other "Glorified friendly tournaments", where to show off..

For the facts, a Copa America win is lots more valuable than any Confed cup win, at any time during the whole history of football within Conmebol.

Yup, they were so easy opponents, that they also happened to beat "a minnow", right in front of over 200 thousand home fans, during the WC of 1950, where the "minnows", also happened to be the hosts of it, to win their last WC.


Besides if opponents were so "few" and "easy" at the time, the big question is :

"why did Brazil only win only 1 tournament (the one played at home in 1949) during that whole lapse time ?".
Maybe because Argentina, happened to not take part in it, while Uruguay decided to mostly send their reserves to it.

On the contrary, being from a country that most of the times has been considered one, gives me the best perspective possible, specially when we are talking about them.


And as another fact, we have won as many Copa America's as Brazil has won, during the last 15 years.

 

And you've won how many World Cups in the same period?

 

our 15 year time lapse period only started last year, so you will have to wait for another 13 years, before being able to answer that question.....