ELIMINATÓRIAS- General Thread

Convinced of what ?

 

because there was a mathematical chance, for that to happen.

Now, as how things have happened, there is no chance, and that's why your team is only now in the list of qualified teams. The same as before this double match-date, both Bolivia and venezuela still had a very little chance and now after the double match-date, they are both eliminated with no chance at all in making it to the WC.

Look man, I didn't invent maths. They are what they are. Cold, simple and perfect.

 

not really for that reason.

In the other thread, (the general Conmebol thread related to qualifiers), another member posted that mathematically, Brazil had already qualified to the WC and that both Bolivia and Venezuela were out, and all I did was to show a simple example with hipothetical results that can prove him wrong.

And when I answered that post, I said from the begining that the example was very unlikely to happen, and only set out as an example that mathematically, nothing was already a done thing.

And about what I thought was going to happen, about one year ago. Yes, I strongly believed that at some point during the qualifiers, Brazil would be back to same reality as everybody else.
Well till now, I'm still waiting for that to happen.

The one thing that will not change though, is that if your team starts losing now, no one will take away from you guys the ticket to the WC. That one is already yours, while for the rest of the mortals in Conmebol, we are condemned to suffer till the end of this year, to know if we get or not plane seats next to yours.....

 

I bend my back and give a vow to the man (fact is, honestly speaking, I realized he was the real thing, after the treatment you gave our "over the other side of the mountain" neighbors, last year) .
He's been awsome for you guys, till now, as I still believe that "happy days" some day will finish or at least have you guys, to come a little bit lower down from the clouds where you must be now, closer to where many of us are, right now......

 

You need to understand the context and circumstances of CONMEBOL national teams, especially those who have never missed the World Cup.

 

Enjoy what's left of your run, because once it ends, you may not get another one for a very long time. Brazil has its slumps, but we on average win a cup tournament every few years.

Your neighbors over the mountains want us to beat you to help keep you out of Russia 2018. We're not helping them, so your team best do its part until then.

 

Bullshit.

 

Not a chance.

Sampaoli doesn't work for free, for no one. And he is in not cheap (very fond to get his salary raised every 3 to 4 months).

 

FIFA talking about punishing Brasil because stadium yelling "bisha" on every goal kick as they equate it as gay bashing, similar to racism.
So ridiculous.

 

This was coming. @celito mentioned it in the game thread. I think Mexico got a fine for the "P**o" chant.

 

Don't take it as being so simple, coming from FIFA.

Since Copa America 2015, they've been on our ass for everything our fans scream, saying everything has been homophobic, where some of their "acute minded" observers have suggested that even our most traditional "chi-chi-chi-le-le-le", suposedly has has an homophobic connotation, so every couple of months since then, we've been getting fines after fines, and bans to our National Stadium (reasons why we haven't played there lately). Till now, we've paid FIFA over 250.000 swiss francs....., and nothing seems that they will not continue giving them to us.

 

Who says he'll be working for free? Money will be coming in from the new TV deal.

We just had our elections, and Daniel Angellci said they are to evaluate Bauza. Plus, Chiqui Tapia, the new AFA President, isn't exactly fond of Bauza.

With this leadership on board, they will want to make changes. And the anger from the public, let's see if they go after for somebody that most of the public wants.

 

when I took a break from posting we were 6th place under serious risk of missing 2018, skip to 9 months later and we have the most successful WCQ campaign of all time. what a turnaround.

 

By that time, Peru was slapping you out of Copa America Centenario, with a hand-goal, and Dunga was in charge of the team.

Diferent coach, diferent reality......

 

Um chileno e um argentino discutindo.

Tenho certeza absoluta hoje que esses dois povos têm mais rancor um pelo outro que existe entre Brasil e Argentina. Ah, nós brasileiros e os argentinos muitas vezes não nos damos bem mas geralmente fica no futebol. Agora esses vizinhos da cordilheira levam para outro nível e olha lá.

 

Eu também só fiquei sabendo faz pouco tempo.

Por exemplo, com a gente ou com o Uruguai, tem rivalidade sim. Os caras falam, nós falamos, os uruguaios falam, e já houveram brigas entre torcedores. Isso a gente viu até nas Olimpíadas. Mas tirando essa treta esportiva, muitos argentinos vêm ao Brasil e querem voltar. Muitos brasileiros vão pra lá e querem ir de novo.

Agora vejamos a Inglaterra. Os caras têm raiva por causa das ilhas Malvinas/Falklands. O jogo em 1986 estava carregado de rancor. Até em 2002 teve isso. Mas a Inglaterra fica longe, e os caras se enfrentam muito pouco.

O Chile?

Vizinho. Ambos compartem uma fronteira de mais de 5 mil quilômetros, e jogam muito porque estão na CONMEBOL. Mas assim como a Inglaterra, teve uma treta política (Beagle) que quase causou uma guerra. E quando a Argentina entrou em Guerra com a Grã-Bretanha, o Chile ajudou os britânicos. Até hoje os argentinos não se esquecem disso e chamam os chilenos de “traidores.”

Por isso que o “Chile decime que se siente” na Copa América de 2015 teve uma letra mais rancorosa que a versão de 2014.

 

Argentines like to call us traitors because we didn't back them up, against Great Britain. When the sole mentioning of that is simply ridiculous, as in fact during the time, they weren't preciselly our closest buddies in the international concert, while on the other hand, the Brittish kingdom was one of the few nations round the world, we could've consider as being friendly to us.

The one thing they always prefer to not give much importance, is that they were preparing themselves to go to war against us instead, as during the days before that war, many isolated minor confrontments (shots exchanged with no kills, small territory invassions retiring afterwards, things like that....), did happen between both of our forces. Many of their enlisted soldiers, when sent to war at the Falklands, really thought they were going to fight us instead, as it was found out, when interviewed after the conflict finished.

Given that background, of course we weren't going to back them up, when they invaded brittish territory. And of course we didn't help them giving them any armament or equipment, neither, as some other south american nations did. And during the war, we kept a complete neutral position, giving assistance to both parts when in humanitarian need. Argentines have very bad memory, but when the brittish forces sank the argentine cruiser "Belgrano", our navy gave them quick and unconditional response with a ship of our navy, the Piloto Pardo, which was close to the area of the conflict, and participated actively in the search of survivors, under the command of the argentine authorities, for that assistance, despite the brittish warning that if any vessels were found in the area, could be considered not friendly, and could be sunk. The same way, as we gave Argentina some assistance, we gave it to the brittish forces as well.

So....., did we help the brittish ?
Yes, we did, the same as we gave help, to Argentina.

What we did not do, is help only them.

 

You may wish to study the history involving your country's then-air force chief, General Fernando Matthei (who is still alive), who secretly welcomed Sidney Edwards, a high-ranking officer in the Royal Air Force, for a meeting in Chile. Your country's government agreed to assist Great Britain on the condition that no British attacks against Argentina would be launched from Chilean soil.

Subsequently, the British utilized Chilean airfields with British aircraft with Chilean colors painted on the outside. And, your country authorized the shipment of disassembled aircraft to be dispatched to the British for British use. And most importantly, Chile provided Britain with early warnings of Argentine air force strikes through radar. Your country used its radar equipment/facilities to give the British updated information on the movements of the Argentine air force, thus enabling the British to scramble its own Royal Air Force to engage the Argentines.

On the one day your country couldn't use its long-range radar (because overdue maintenance was required and the equipment was temporarily deactivated), Argentine aircraft movements went unmet by the RAF, who could not receive warnings from the Chilean side. This was on 6/8/1982 - and two British ships, the RFA Sir Galahad and the RFA Tristam were attacked by air. The former sank; the latter was evacuated but later rebuild.

I'm not saying the leadership of your country was wrong to refuse to assist Argentina; after all, you and they had a lot of tensions then, and it would have been odd to help an enemy. But I speculate the Argentines call you traitors because you guys professed, in public, to be neutral - when in practice, you weren't. (Again, I'm not saying it was foolish to help the British; Argentina was indeed an enemy nation in Chile's eyes then - but I would feel betrayed if someone told me they were neutral in a personal dispute I had with another person and was in fact helping that person to harm me).

 

Much of that info, is not entirely true (main part of it, though, was).
A few points over it :

No brittish aircraft used chilean markings, as their aircraft models were completely diferent to anyone, we had (H.S.Nimrod ELINT and Vickers VC-10 tanker, used basicly to assist the first in its very long voyages to the southern Pacific) They were provided with the use of only one airfield in chilean territory, with the condition that they shouldn't use it, to attack in any way Argentina. The airfield we provided them with, which basicly is an emergency airstrip with no other facilities in place, was located on a small island (San Felix), located to the North of Easter Island, but much closer to the mainland, about 2000 lineal kilometers (passing over argentinian territory) to the zone of conflict. So basicly the few missions launched from there (which were not many), were basicly for electronic surveillence, flying basicly over international waters in the Pacific Ocean (that type of plane really has no need to fly over the conflict zone, to gather the info it needs to get).
Our long range radar in the zone, from the days being, besides from needing spare parts that made it impossible to have it working all the time, was very primitive, but effective, as it allowed raiding some of the take offs and landings in southern Argentina, on locations relatively close to our most extreme southern border, but completely ineffective to monitor their air traffic, so the info you get from it, only gives a certain clue of what is happening there (for the brittish forces, though, they use that scarce info, combining it with findings from other sources such as the use of specialized spy satellites (which we didn't have any those days), and they were capable of making a more accurate picture of it all).
.
.
To the background, which I didn't want to extend too much in my previous post, because it may be very long, I must say that at the time of the conflict, due to the military coup and Pinochet, we were being subject to a very strict embargo or trade ban, led by the USA, which disallowed us from buying any kind of weapons and spare parts for them, from the USA and/or their allies, an issue that Great Britain, despite being their closest ally, simply did not take in account, as our bonds of friendship with them, extend themselves almost since our independence from Spain, and also only thanks to them we were in conditions, to maintain most of our forces somehow working those days with lots of restrictions. If it not were for the UK's assistance (military, naval and Airforce), in those days, we would have been at the whole mercy of anyone whom would have wanted to invade our country, as almost 90 % of all our weaponry was from US and UK origin (that embargo is the reason why at present time, we hardly buy much for self defence, from the USA, and now at present times, they aren't our main source of armament).

So, to make the story short, at the time being of the conflict, we couldn't give a complete refusal to our friends, when they asked for help, so we gave it to them in a form to have the less impact possible over their war, so we could maintain our neutrality in their conflict, against whom at the time being, was also our potential enemy. Many argentine officials have recognized some time after that war, that the Falklands invassion, was only a preparation act, where they did not expect the brittish reaction that came after, to what they considered their main objective and target, which was to invade Chile after (an issue that our military intelligence was absolutely aware about that).
.
.
.
Now if we were to talk about treason between Chile and Argentina, in both of our countries past History and frontier limits, you should learn about how they got possession of all the Patagonia, or in other words, all of the southern part of Argentina, as all that land, which represents almost the third part of their current country, originally were part of Chile. Basicly they took posession of it all, when we were at war against both Peru and Bolivia, during the late 19th century, where they menaced that if we didn't give it to them unconditionally, they would join forces with Peru and Bolivia, adding a new extensive front, to that war we already were in (in other words, they went for what wasn't theirs, in a moment , when we were in no conditions to protect).