2016 Olympics - Men's Football Tournament [R]

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by BocaFan, Feb 5, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Century's Best

    Century's Best Member+

    Jul 29, 2003
    USA
    After going 99 or 100 years without any cups.
     
  2. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    In the early days it was played all vs. all (league format), so no place for knock outs or for penalty kick wins.

    A CA title of back then, has exactly the same weight as a CA of nowdays.

    To be the champion back then, you had to be the best among all of those whom participate (same as nowdays, btw). and if some teams didn't participate for whatever reasons, doesn't take away anything for whom at the end wins it. 1925 edition, each team played their opponents 2 times each, as only 3 teams participated (one was Brazil, and well, if Uruguay wasn't around, it had to be Argentina whom had to thrash them, for the title).

    Now, why didn't Brazil take part in some of them ?, ....... who really knows ?,...... to me, it was simply because they were afraid to suffer the embarrasment of being thrashed by Uruguay, as in those days, most of the times they didn't get good results against them, and the only few times they won was when they were playing at home. It really is no surprise since the beginings, but Uruguay has always been a "spine in the butt" for Brazil, specially when playing for important things.

    Btw, there also have been tournaments in the later days, that a team which had qualified to the Confed Cup, when the time comes, quits from participating (example Germany for the 2003 Confed cup, where they were replaced by Turkey, whom were 3rd the WC before). And the Confed Cup that year had exactly the same value as every other one that has been played, since the begining (where the first edition was played by only 4 teams, while the second edition had 6 teams in it, only since the 3rd edition, was started to be played by 8 teams). And there also has been some tournaments of the Confed Cup where for the simple fact of winning one WC, it granted that team 2 Confed Cup spots for 2 diferent tournaments, case of Brazil for the 2003 and 2005 editions (a very big bad joke by FIFA, which gives reasons for most people to believe it is not a serious type of tournament).
     
  3. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    so ?

    what matters is what we are doing now.
    Oh and btw, last time we played against you guys (for WC qualifiers), we were the ones who won.
    :sneaky:
     
  4. celito

    celito Moderator
    Staff Member

    Palmeiras
    Brazil
    Feb 28, 2005
    USA
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Ridiculous assumption full of bias. I see people here love to make assumptions to fit their views and sometimes state them as almost facts. Uruguay didn't play some of those CAs, so I guess they were afraid too. As you said they sent a B team to 1949 CA and Argentina didn't play, I guess they were afraid too. When you mentioned that you chose to highlight Brazil won a watered down CA. At least be consistent.

    What I stated were facts. They played more CAs back then and the format was vastly different. Today's CA is a much more robust competition. Back then it was in it's infancy so it's normal for the format differences and inconsistencies.
     
  5. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    #880 Rickdog, Aug 26, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2016
    All you have to do is google wikipedia and you'll know the real reasons why some teams didn't take part in those tournaments and for the case of Uruguay, it was due to internal problems within their own country. Same as for Chile, as those years were very turbulent all over the world and the financial crisis usually affected the most poor, more (both Uruguay and Chile, the same as for most south american countries, were very poor compared to Brazil and Argentina).

    Oh yes, Chile also didn't go to some of those, because we sucked and really weren't in the mood to become the punching bag for everybody else. At those early days, we were among the worst in the region and the most we could look for, was getting some lucky draw or not being scored on, that much to try to progress a little each time, so some day in the future we can win something. Unlucky we, it took us over 100 years to achieve that goal (oh yeah, it sure feels good).

    For Brazil though, there is no explanation at all to why they didn't go, which leaves room for all sort of assumptions, by whomever thinks about it.

    Now as for Argentina in 1949, they didn't go, because in those days Argentina thought that they were the best team in the world and they weren't up to waste their time, by playing any "weaklings" anywhere (same reasons why they missed not only the 1950 WC, but also for the 1954 WC, 1953 CA, and afterwards did play the 1955 CA, which they thought they would win easily, which they did and won it :eek:), only to wake up to reality for the 1958 WC, when they really thought that they were going to the WC, only to bring back the Jules Rimet trophy back home, but instead got wiped out easily at group phase by their eventual opponents. For some, the process of "learning reality" is easy, while for others it takes a very big fall to actually learn anything. In this case, Argentina had to learn it with a very big defeat as it happened there.

    For the case of Uruguay in 1949, francly I don't know what's the reason they did a very weak tournament there, where even we defeated them there o_O. In those days to lose against us, was almost comparable to losing to Fiji nowdays, (if you know what I mean), as we weren't precisely a top team of the moment (even Bolivia defeated them there, after they had defeated us). But strangely, that team, the next year not only thrashed Bolivia at the WC by 8 to 0, but went all the way to kick the crap of you guys at the final match in front of over 200.000 of your fans at Maracana stadium, winning the WC, proving everybody that they were the best.
    (for the next WC, despite having lots of new faces in the team, still went all the way reaching semi's, which proves they were a very good team and their previous win, the WC before, wasn't just as an act of luck, but quality as well)

    I prefer league format, where everyone plays everyone (reasons why I love Conmebol qualifiers many times even more than the same WC), and where without any doubt whom at the end gets more points is better than those who gets less points. In a knock-out format, many things can happen, which mean that not always the better team goes through.

    I believe the tournaments of back then were harder and lots better than the tournaments of today (I disagree with you).

    And about it being in its infancy (your opinion, not mine), it really doesn't matter, as if it really was in its infancy, for everyone it was still the same. That's why champions in every sport are considered exactly the same thing, no matter at what time or against which opponents they happened to play, when they achieved it.
    The rest is just for sore losers who really don't understand what sports really are.
     
  6. celito

    celito Moderator
    Staff Member

    Palmeiras
    Brazil
    Feb 28, 2005
    USA
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    One year says federation problems. Keep in mind football was not professionalized back then. There can be a myriad of reasons. Saying Brazil were afraid of getting beat is a beat silly since results show they did relatively well when they participated. What's interesting is when Brazil did participate beginning in 1920s (in that era of Uruguay's aura) they placed above Uruguay 6 times to 3 even though Uruguay won titles.

    Since when is winning 2 x 1 with a winning goal 11 minutes from the end kicking the crap out of a team ? I guess you think you kicked the crap out of the Argies twice in a row now...

    That's fine, but you can't compare group format with 3-5 teams to a full blown tournament. The qualifiers are a bit strange because they are played over 2.5 years and a lot of changes to a a team can happen in that time period not to mention the travel players have to endure from Europe and etc to play in those games. I wouldn't say that equates to a CA with group format where the top team was the best.
     
  7. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    That depends how you want to see it, fact is that once Uruguay scored their first goal (the equalizer, as Brazil scored first during that match), from there on to the end, they dominated the whole pitch without giving Brazil a single oportunity to score once more, and it only was a matter of time for them to score the winner, which to Brazil's last hopes came pretty fast after the first goal (only 14 minutes later) and from there on, it always seemed as if Uruguay was more closer to scoring their third, than Brazil scoring again, despite that it was more Brazil whom had the ball. It's not for nothing that at the end of the match only the small Uruguayan delegation were cellebrating and over 200.000 fans were crying, mute, or even making suicide. What Uruguay did in that match was literally break Brazil not only in sportsmanship terms, but also mentally. Even up to nowdays, after what happened that day, whenever brazilians see a light blue shirt on their opponents, they feel an urgent rush to go to the bathroom, right away, which means that even after 65 years since it actually happened, they are still suffering from that defeat.
    And if all the sad and hopeless emotions that get mixed together over a simple defeat, by no matter how many goals, lasting so long without being even close to finish producing its effect on people, only means that it was an absolute slaughtering. And that's exactly what Uruguay did to Brazil in 1950.

    On regards to Argentina against us, we never beat them, the same as Brazil didn't beat us during the 2014 WC. All of these games finished in draws. What happened is that we defeated them over the penalty kick definition that came afterwards of each of those games (the same as what Brazil did to us, during the 2014 WC). Which proves that currently with the actual knock-out format you don't really need to beat your opponent during match play, to actually defeat them. An issue that is written in the rules of the tournament, since its begining and everyone knows it in advance. And what you need to do, is not to beat your opponents to be champions, but to simply defeat them, which is what we happen to do, the 2 times we faced Argentina, on the final matches of the last 2 CA's.

    that also depends on which 3 -5 teams are in that group.
    When all of them are top teams, it sure beats almost everything.

    Anyhow, when you happen to see a team making it all the way to the final match of any given tournament, without actually winning any match at all, during their whole previous matches of the tournament. Passing phase after phase, only on wins after pk definitions, you sure do think a lot that the knock-out format has something wrong in it.

    On a league format, this almost never happens.

    what you see as strange is preciselly what makes it, highly amusing along the way.
    Means that almost at no time at all, during its play, any of the teams has a guaranteed spot till almost the last match dates of the whole competition. And the longer it takes, with more matches for each team, means that during the whole process all teams can pass through a bad streak or a good one (or even both during the process), whithout affecting that much the final standings of the competition. And when that happens at a very high level of the game, by almost all opponents participating, nothing beats it.
     
  8. Boavista1976

    Boavista1976 BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 10, 2016
    Uruguay (NT) kinda remind me of those old English clubs (Preston North End, Sheffield United...) who are still around, but last won the championship in the 1800s.
     
  9. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    #884 Rickdog, Aug 27, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
    Well, not too long ago, they won a Copa America (2011), which also was their 15th CA title (compared to Brazil's 8, almost doubles their amount of wins, there), besides of reaching semi's in the WC, the year before (2010), which was the best result from all of Conmebol in that tournament.
    During these last 50 years they've won exactly the same amount of CA's, as Brazil has (5 wins each), for the same period of time. Just for facts, in Conmebol, among the 3 best teams in history, the longest drought between 2 CA titles, belongs to Brazil (40 years between 1949 to 1989). For Uruguay, they've never spent more than 16 years without cellebrating a new CA title.


    Do those english clubs, you mentioned, also do something similar to that, as well ? :rolleyes:
     
    Pipiolo repped this.
  10. celito

    celito Moderator
    Staff Member

    Palmeiras
    Brazil
    Feb 28, 2005
    USA
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    You have a great knack for the dramatic.

    Yes, we tremble every time we face Uruguay. Just like in the 1970 WC SF which was the biggest official match between them since 1950 and we beat them 3 x 1 after going a goal down. We trembled in 1993 when both teams were fighting for the same spot in WC 94 in the same Maracanã with Brazil only needing a tie (pretty much same scenario as 1950) and we beat them convincingly 2 x 0.

    1950 woke the giant up. 5 world cups since then and 3 were shortly after. The effects of 1950 is folklore.
     
  11. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    You forgot to mention the match from last March, this same year, valid for the WC qualifiers for 2018, where they almost beat you guys again, at your home stadium, this time at Recife.
    At the end, they still took points away from your team as it finished in a 2 goal draw, That's another one of the reasons why they are at the top of the standings, while Brazil is still currently out of the zone for the teams whom will get the tickets to the next WC, or even for the spot for the team that will play the intercontinental playoff, as well.

    And, to somehow get back to topic, if Brazil wouldn't have been the host of these past Olympics, they would still be waiting to ever win its first Olympic Gold medal in football, as when the 2015 Southamerican under-20 football championship took place, which also happened to be the qualifiers of Conmebol for the recent past Olympics, Brazil only finished 4th behind Uruguay whom were 3rd, and therefore would have followed their same fate, which was to look at the Olympics from home (Conmebol only gets at most 2 spots for Olympics and those were for Argentina and Colombia).

    Lucky you, that the host of the event, gets an automatic spot.:thumbsup:
     
  12. Century's Best

    Century's Best Member+

    Jul 29, 2003
    USA
    And how are you doing now? :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::rolleyes:
     
  13. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    like shit.

    But,
    It isn't over till the fat lady sings, and when that happens, we'll see whom is laughing, and whom is crying.
     
  14. Century's Best

    Century's Best Member+

    Jul 29, 2003
    USA
    Agreed. :thumbsup:

    Who or whom? :geek:

    Your team better step up in the next 9 matches - otherwise, you can start preparing for 2022.
     
  15. dsichiva

    dsichiva Member

    Nov 15, 2013
    Club:
    Norwich City FC
    FIFA (aka "Fat Lady") could give a preliminary aria regarding the Nelson Cabrera affair. And for that matter Venezuela could get into the coral piece if they also protest the elegibility of Damian Lizio in the qualifier they lost against Bolivia in November 2015. :geek:;)
     
  16. celito

    celito Moderator
    Staff Member

    Palmeiras
    Brazil
    Feb 28, 2005
    USA
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    We keep scoring early goals therefore we don't know how good we really are :D

    You think Chile is getting a little long on the tooth ?
     
    Century's Best repped this.
  17. Century's Best

    Century's Best Member+

    Jul 29, 2003
    USA
    Yesterday, Ecuador took the frustration of losing to us on their ground out on Chile. Didn't Ecuador also score a relatively early goal in the first half?

    It can't be. They won a continental title less than 4 months ago... (sarcasm)
     
  18. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Close.
    some of our players are getting long on the tongue (they talk too much, and forget that this shit is about playing with their feet)
     
    thedragonrik58 repped this.
  19. Nico Limmat

    Nico Limmat Member+

    Oct 24, 1999
    Dubai, UAE
    Club:
    Grasshopper Club Zürich
    Nat'l Team:
    Switzerland
    Ok folks. This has nothing to do with the Olympics.
     
    HomietheClown repped this.

Share This Page