Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'BigSoccer Polls' started by Jtsmith1, Mar 21, 2013.
It gets posted in this thread every two or three pages.
neverherless, get beyond the headline and the attitude is rather more cautious.
The claim isn't even that England would win the group easily, but qualify...
"ENGLAND looked dead certs last night to roar into the World Cup knockout stages after landing their easiest ever group."
Yes, it absolutely should.
I gave more weight to top-4 finishes in the last 20-30 years and France is better than Argentina there.
Soccer is a team game so I'm really not enamored with "names" when it comes to the World Cup. As great as Messi is he hasn't even been able to get Argentina into a final-4 finish.
And trying to tell me that Argentina has a better league than France is a total joke.
things have changed now, we no longer believe we have a chance of doing anything, I stopped believing after 2006, most England fans now know that quarter finals would be a great achievement. I wish people would stop raking up the past like as though our fans have that arrogance nowadays
only if the game is played in England... with an orange ball. hahah, kidding
I think it depends on the time period looked at, as you point out. But I would probably say that over the past 30 yeras or so Argentina has an edge in terms of the World Cup - though I don't necessarily agree about the leagues and players (entirely subjective, but don't agree mostly with the league comment).
1986: Argentina won (in Mexico). France were in Third Place
1990: Argentina runner-ups. France DNQ
1994: Argentina out in Rd. of 16. France DNQ
1998: France won (in France). Argentina out in the Quarters.
2002: Argentina out in First Round. France out in First Round.
2006: France finish Runner-Ups. Argentina out in Quarters.
2010: Argentina Out in Quarters. France out in First Round.
I'm not really a Argentina fan, but even though they didn't win, they did at least make it to the party, qualifying groups dn everything consistent. To add in regional championships or confederation's cup may change the picture (out of time today to post it), but with the World Cup since 1986, I'd say Argentina, has an edge to me.
I agree, France has way too many DNQs and 3 and outs to be considered a world power. When they are great, they are great; when they are not, they suck, which is more often the case as illustrated above.
For the poster given extra points for semi appearances, you should also subtract for DNQ and 3 and outs. A world power does not accumulate a grand total of 2 points in 2 out of the last 3 WCs.
rankings are among the dumbest ideas FIFA's tried to implement. utterly meaningless. but, if you insist on their meaning, you are dead wrong.
more recent WCs are worth more somehow? why? even by that criteria Argentina has 2 championships and one second place finish. France has one WC, a second place, and a third place. not exactly comparable.
I agree the name thing is overplayed but France has clearly flopped more in recent times than Argentina. They've blown their WC qualifying several times in recent memory (even at home against historical upstarts like Bulgaria) and even their great teams have under-performed at the Euros.
it's a joke if you ignore the facts.
a) French teams have been historically horrible in the UEFA Champions League with only one title (and let's not mention Bernard Tapie and the scandal surrounding that team...). Argentine teams have more championships than any other in the CONMEBOL equivalent (the Copa Libertadores) and also top the Intercontinental Cup.
b) Since the reopening of the Serie A to foreign players (1981) and even more so since the Bosman ruling (1995), Argentina has regularly exported its top talents abroad. At the moment there is virtually an entire first division (approx 400 players) playing in UEFA alone, not to mention the many others playing in the Brazilian league and in Mexico. In short, while Argentina exports massively, France imports. Even in this era of massive exports, Argentine teams have made decent runs into at the World Club championship. In contrast, even with massive inflows of financial and footballing capital of late French teams are nowhere to be found. Their best team, a petrodollar infused invention that has only been around since 1970, has never made it past the semifinals of the Champions and/or the UEFA cup. Without players from the colonies France's recent "rebirth" would have been impossible (and I say rebirth because its not like France was a powerhouse prior to 1998).
c) Admittedly Argentina's Primera Division is not what it once was (see above regarding exports) but France's Ligue 1 is thin competition. the league is full of provincial clubs and take away Marseille and PSG and there's not much left (even with a massive financial advantage and the ease of EU passports).
If you factor in the glamour of the European competition and mountains of hype paid for by millions of petrodollars French football looks to be a lot more competitive than it has historically but the facts say otherwise at the national level and even more so at the club level. TV matters a great deal in all of this: while the Champions League and the Euro get hyped to no end, few people watch Copa Libertadores or the Copa America.
It depends on how far you go, 20 years France has the advantage, but 30 years it's definitely Argentina (see quoted post below for a clear breakdown). In regards to the leagues, in historical terms there is no comparison, Argentina's is easily the more important league - no French team can even touch River Plate or Boca Juniors. That holds for the past 20 years, in fact, only for the last six or seven years can the French league be rated above the Argentine league.
For the past 30 years, agree with your WC comparison. Not sure why you disagree with the league comment, over the past 30 years Argentine clubs have won the Libertadores (continental championships) a total of ten times, and the Intercontinental a total of five. Much better than French clubs, who have only one CL during this time span. I would give the advantage to the French league only if we look at the past half dozen years really.
I think it's too difficult to compare this way because I wouldn't say it's really apples to apples. I think you've got a point, but I think it's difficult to compare. IMO the overall levels of the leagues in Europe vs. South America are different, with there being stronger leagues in total in Europe than there are in CONMEBOL. Argentina and Brazil are the top two leagues I'd say for South America, while Europe has Spain, England, Germany, Italy and France - maybe even in that order (subjective of course!), but also with Portugal, Holland etc.
I will say that the French's record in Europe, historically, is embarassing. For example, no-one ever really mentions that a France side has never won the UEFA cup/Europa. Meanwhile, you have to go all the way to 1992 for the only France win in the UCL. But IMO I think if they were in Libertadores, they certainly wouldn't always win but some clubs would probably have stolen a few more there than they have in Europe. lol - though when the number is a resounding '1', i suppose that isn't such a big deal.
this is just silly and totally arbitrary. it's like saying Cryuff is one of the all time greats but his last 5 minutes of his career were crap because he didn't score a goal. 'greatness' should be measured by much more than simple results and even then you can't just lop off 'the last 20 or 30 years'.
let's be clear about this, as much as I and clearly many others in this forum appreciate France's recent rise, it's just that, *recent*. before Platini and especially before the '98-2000 generation which includes the 2002 flop but also the nice run in 2006, France was something else altogether. they've only recently started to develop, their league has only recently started to take shape, and, again, it is worth noting, an important part of that development is due to the contributions of the immigrant / colonial contingent. if those folks were to play elsewhere (not that i am suggesting they should), i don't think it would be a stretch to think that France would have trouble qualifying for the WC.
Boca Jrs. has only recently come onto the international stage and for as many national championships as River Plate has, their international production has been meager. Even considering that, Argentina has multiple international champions: Independiente (7 Copa Libertadores tops everyone in south america), Racing, Argentinos Jrs., Estudiantes, and Velez. In short, Argentina is not just River or Boca, not since the 1960s.
although i think we agree, again, this is totally arbitrary. the last 6 or 7 years the French league has produced exactly what? other than a bunch of petrodollar infused flash, not much. and i'm not just talking results, French teams have not left a mark in terms of playing style, innovation, etc.
same as above. i think we generally agree but i'm not sure why you would want to cede advantage at all. again, while I recognize that play quality has dwindled in the last decade or two, argentina exports so many players that they have what amounts to an entire first division playing in Europe (and if you count mexico and brazil, one and a half divisions). there are certainly important French players but there is no comparison. even with a less than powerful league Argentine clubs have done more than French clubs (which, despite millions and millions in relative advantage, amounts to nothing).
Look it at it in the other direction though - Boca Jrs, River Plate and Independiente would remain all-time great clubs if they played in the EC/CL. And for sure with far more success than French clubs have accomplished (that's not saying much of course).
Thanks for the support . To be honest, the current state of the Argentine league is not very good, and you can see that in the fact that no blue-chip export has come from them since the Aguero-Higuain-DiMaria-Lavezzi generation, and that was five years ago. Hopefully things improve soon but it's not out of order to rate the French league as better the past half dozen years.
Boca Juniors also found considerable international success in the 70s, and overall, their tradition goes back nearly 100 years as a very important club. It's true that during the Copa Libertadores era (since the 60s) River Plate's success has not been commensurate to a club of their tradition and status, however, River Plate is a team just like Boca with a tradition that goes back to the beginnings of football. Their legendary "La Maquina" sides of the 40s and 50s are arguably the most innovative and dominating side in South American history.
To me, there is clearly a gap between Brazil, Germany and Italy and the rest.
Figures don't lie, the three countries won 12 titles when all the rest of the world combined only won 7. And their second place and semi-finals records are nearly as impressive.
So no, as a Frenchman I wouldn't consider France to be a world power. As told by Oifla, the rise of France remains relatively recent, and largely relied on absolutely fantastic players such as Platini, Zidane or Henry. What makes a "world power" to me is the ability, even during low periods, to stll bring decent showings at major competitions. That's not the case of France.
Immigration has always been significant in the French team. That was already the case in 1958 when France ended 3rd of the world cup, only beaten by Brazil after France was reduced to 10 men because of an injury. Raymond Kopa was of Polish descent, Fontaine from Morocco, and many others. I would consider immigration as being really a root element of the French team identity, that is true. But somehow, it is also a root element of the French working class identity so it's not so surprizing.
While I am fully agreed with your first paragraph, your second was a bit off to your first (unless I misread it)
France were strong in 58, then 80's ... and finally "won big cups " (Euro and WC)... and that did not drive them to be " recently" risen ... if you counted 82 to 2006 = 24years ... in sterngth.
Now if you looked at Italy (wow many would think they did great?) NO they wwere same like France won in 82 and then ( abit lucky) in 2006 again = 24years. Now if one looked back further ... to their 30's that was like 70years span ...
Maybe I did not get what you meant?
unfortunately we dont seem to have the same will to win as other top countries
Yes, of course we are.
I'm not going to go and read 25 pages of guff which I'm guessing is the usual "you've never won f all", "underachievers", "think they're better then they are", "arrogant fans/media".
But the question was "is England a world power?"
Are we the best team presently, or even historically? No. Are we the most successful? Nowhere near. Should we be considered favourites for tournaments we enter? Don't be daft.
However, given history of tournament participation/progress, tradition, influence on
others around the world to say we are somehow not a world power is equally ludicrous. To say that we are some regional also-ran because we've never lifted the Euros and have rarely troubled the last 4 of the World Cup is nonsense. Do we consistently fail to qualify for the tournaments? No. Are we consistently eliminated from said tournaments with 3 loses and some heavy spankings? No. Are we completely incapable of standing toe-to-toe with the best? No.
Our lack of winning form means that we shouldn't sanely be considered for the title of "best footballing nation ever", but that's the extent of it.
Considering their are 200+ teams in FIFA, if you picked and imagined any World Cup at random in the future and said right, 24 teams (or what ever), there will be 12 from Europe, 6 from South America, yadda yadda yadda, no matter how many times the exercise was run or who you asked, any truly impartial observer would normally imagine England being amoung the 24 (alongside the Brazils, Germanys at the likes), and if same impartial observer was asked to imagine the tournament playing out; if you said right, you've got your 24, now eliminate half of them, there's a decent chance of England being imagined into the last 16 at least.
I'm not saying that we are automatically "da bestest", nothing of the sort, and I'm not saying this will hold true for ever, but to try and write England down right now as some peripheral non-entity, some Norway, or New Zealand (I apologise to both) is almost as delusional as those who berate the English fans and media for over-exaggerating our ability.
Premier league is most vivid to me....
Because of non-English players. The league is phenomenal, the national team is far from a "world power." A world power doesn't miss out on Euro of all things, like they did in 2008 where teams like Romania and Poland made it. The only people who view England as a "world power" are casuals and England fans living in lala land.
Agree. The proof of that is world cups earned by England. Just 1, but still i love em!
Approx 34% of players in the EPL are English....nearly any other country would love to have even 10% of their players playing in England in the EPL...(I believe France has the second highest % with 8%)
they have the players to be a top team but dont seem to really fulfill their potentia
No we're not. A "world power" surely has to be considered a country that will realistically challenge for trophies, and we're just not there at the moment. That said, with the changes being made to the coaching set up at every level, I would be disappointed if we weren't one in 10-15 years.