Is It Difficult For AFC Asian Countries To Qualify For The World Cup?

Discussion in 'AFC: Tournaments' started by Abram Jones, Sep 5, 2017.

  1. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    AFC has 4.5 spots for the 2018 World Cup. Here are the major Asian countries with their economic determinant (a number that estimates countries potential based on gdp per capita and population amount). See this video for more commentary:

    China: 60 million
    Japan: 54.7 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
    India: 16.7 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
    Australia: 11.4 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
    South Korea: 10.9 million

    Indonesia: 7.5 million
    Taiwan: 7.4 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
    Saudi Arabia: 5.1 million
    Iran: 4.7 million

    Thailand: 3.4 million
    United Arab Emirates: 2.9 million
    Malaysia: 2.6 million
    Singapore: 2.4 million
    Hong Kong: 2.3 million
    Philippines: 2 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
    Pakistan: 1.8 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
    Iraq: 1.4 million
    Qatar: 1.2 million
    Bangladesh: 1.1 million (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
    Kuwait: 1.1 million

    Myanmar: 623,000
    Sri Lanka: 582,000 (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
    Oman: 558,000
    Syria: 445,000
    North Korea: 441,000
    Uzbekistan: 393,000
    Lebanon: 380,000
    Yemen: 298,000
    Macau: 281,000
    Bahrain: 255,000
    Jordan: 245,000
    Turkmenistan: 226,000
    Afghanistan: 162,000
    Nepal: 160,000 (football not the number 1 sport in country, number should be greatly reduced)
    Brunei: 126,000
    Cambodia: 112,000

    Conclusion: China, Japan, and South Korea are almost guaranteed World Cup spots unless they ridiculously underachieve (which China is doing). Qualification for Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran is made easy because of under achievement by India and Indonesia. Qualification for any other Asian country is extremely difficult (more difficult than it is for North American countries of their relative size). North Korea has greatly overachieved in this regard.
  2. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    success in football is mainly determined by football culture/how many matches a team has played (all time), plus a mix of other factors such as how much money is invested into football. population is only important at low extremes, ie countries under 2 million. if you have 100 million population or 1 billion, those extra 900k are not going to make much of a difference, especially if they live in villages or ghettos. the performances of china, india, and qatar relative to each other show this, they don't show that china/india are "underachieving." north korea has not "overachieved." they simply are more motivated and forced to play well, and yes, they do have decent infrastructure when it comes to football because the country allocates a lot of their money towards this. good results are useful for propaganda purposes. you might say how come iraq under saddams son didnt perform as good as north korea, well that is because he was retarded and only used punishment. the players, team, and the country's football plan were not good, he simply expected results magically and used punishment when it didnt happen, making the players more nervous and more likely to fail.
    Zandi360 repped this.
  3. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    football culture is very important (as is will to play). this i have stated many times, but besides this wealth and population are the biggest factors, and in many cases even negate football culture and will to play.

    of course, but having a high amount of wealth makes it easier to invest in sports. that is the bulk of the point. if i inherit 10 billion dollars, and you own only a bag of peanuts... i am more likely and able to start a successful multinational corporation... no matter how much will or culture you have regarding business.

    i would say that the figures you gave are baseless numbers, but i understand your point. of course there is a plateau, but it isn't quite so sharp as you suggest. if there is a country with 1 billion people, and a country with 100 million people... and they all have the same amount of wealth and interest in the sport.... the larger country will perform better in the majority of cases. this is not debatable. of course there are instances when a country can over achieve or under achieve, but these situations are not the mathematical norm (even if the phenomenon is somewhat common).

    of course, and that is why it is important to take into consideration wealth. keep in mind that the ghettos here in the states are actually quite wealthy though, but i know what you mean.

    this comment by you is pretty baseless... of course it shows that China and India are under achieving... again, both wealth and population must be taken into account. China is under achieving much more than India... because India is consumed with cricket while China is not consumed by another sport. Also, China has much more wealth than India. and I am not just talking, below I will provide you with the evidence.

    again, baseless. North Korea is overachieving.... the motives do not matter... if a country has the will to please the giant pink gay elephant football god on planet Neptune, and this makes them train harder and play well... they are still over achieving. do you see my point? and even you admit that they "allocate money" to the sport. which is what i'm saying... you must be able to have wealth in order to fund it... and the more wealth you have the more likely you are to allocate it to sport. China could easily allocate more money to football than North Korea, and they certainly do. and to be clear, i am not just bullshitting. i will provide you with the evidence below.

    i can't take this very seriously, because it sounds like you are talking trash more than anything. here are my wealth and population adjusted rankings for Iraq (in beta). of course, if you look at normal rankings they will be ranked lower, but normal rankings are not as accurate.

    1986: #26/72
    1985: #13/95
    1984: #9/89
    1982: #28/68

    pretty good numbers. i'm not saying they are because or not because of Hussein... but they are good. even in normal rankings they are decent (if you check in the 90s).

    Here is the evidence I promised, it is absolutely irrefutable. In order to refute what these statistics imply you would have to come up with different valid reasons why the numbers are how they are (scroll down to view the studies).:

    if you notice the only time small countries defeat larger countries is in Australian Rules Football... and this is because of something we have talked about, interest in the sport. In the region where that sport is most popular there are many small countries. but if you collect data where there is not lopsided interest in a sport, the larger countries will generally perform better.
  4. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    ^are you retarded, bro? why open up a discussion if you are going to be all butt hurt?

    nothing you stated refuted any of my opinions.

    show some examples in which population and wealth negate total number of matches played (football culture).

    obviously if you have 10 billion you can AFFORD to spend more on football, but the crucial factor is whether you WILL. the bottom line is how much you ACTUALLY invest in football. again, outside of extremes, wealth does not make that much of a difference. if a country is average in terms of wealth, they could easily spend just as much on football as another country who is wealthy.

    obviously, ceterus paribus, the country with 1 billion population would do better than the 100 million country, but it hardly works like that: no 2 countries are exactly the same other in all other factors except population. you are wrong in your assessment. outside of extremes, population is not that relevant in football. there are countless examples. how about you give some examples that back up your claim?

    you tried to simplify a complex argument. you tried to make it a black and white issue. you tried to simplify it by averaging out a number and saying there is a correlation with this index and success in football. that is not how it works. that is as retarded as saying "the higher a country's GDP, the happier the people are." now you got caught making baseless claims, and you lashed out via childish insults. the onus is on your to provide proper examples that would back up your ridiculous claims.

    how are china and india underachieving? it is not a coincidence that BOTH have high population and BOTH suck. this backs up MY argument, not yours. your argument relies on nonsense: these 2 countries dont fit my "number" therefore they are "underachieving" aka are outliers. quite the contrary. how about qatar? bahrain? do they have large populations? how come they are better than india and many other asian countries with much larger populations. these are just examples off the top of my head. why is china doing better than india? because they are INVESTING MORE in football than india, and because they have stronger football culture than india. both of these facts are consistent with my initial points.

    LMAO at your examples. they are NOT objective examples. they use YOUR system to rank. you simply brush "normal" rankings off and give links using YOUR system of wealth and population. and they are not even about football... they are about all sports. then you talk about australian rules football.... lol. your examples mean nothing, and they did not back up your claims.

    give me some specific examples, give enough to show a trend. i already did. now the onus is on you. will you fail to produce, yet again?

    to conclude: you said wealth and population are the 2 most crucial determinants of a country's footballing success. i said it is not that simple, and that wealth and population mostly matter in extreme cases. rather, footballing history (number of total matches played), how much a country invests specifically in football, and other factors (ie corruption in football, politics, etc..) matter more than overall population and wealth.

    look at the top 20 countries in terms of GDP. there is not much of a correlation in terms of football ranking:

    1 United States 18,569,100
    [​IMG] European Union[n 1][19] 16,408,364
    2 China[n 2] 11,218,281
    3 Japan 4,938,644
    4 Germany 3,466,639
    5 United Kingdom 2,629,188
    6 France 2,463,222
    7 India 2,256,397
    8 Italy 1,850,735
    9 Brazil 1,798,622
    10 Canada 1,529,224
    11 South Korea 1,411,246
    12 Russia[n 3] 1,280,731
    13 Australia 1,258,978
    14 Spain 1,232,597
    15 Mexico 1,046,002
    16 Indonesia 932,448
    17 Turkey 857,429
    18 Netherlands 771,163
    19 Switzerland 659,850
    20 Saudi Arabia 639,617

    USA, china, japan, india, canada, south korea, russia, australia, indonesia, turkey, saudi arabia. these 11 (more than half of this list) are not top 20 in football.

    even the teams that are top 20 in football, their ranking relative to each other is not consistent with their football ranking. there is a weak correlation.

    yet if you consider my points, you can easily see why this is the case.

    the best football teams in the world have: ENOUGH population, ENOUGH wealth (even then, there are exceptions, ie argentina), and are high in football culture: they played more matches/started earlier than other countries. it is no surprise that western europe has many top teams because that is where fotoball originated. a lot of western europeans immigrated to south america and took the football culture there early on. in turn, countries that interacted early on with these countries have strong football culture and are, on average, stronger than countries who didnt adopt this football culture early on. this is why north africa is stronger than southern africa. this is why turkey is strong, it is near europe. this is why iran is strong relative to asian teams. this is why japan/south korea are stronger than other asian teams.

    top 20 countries by population:

    1 China[a] Asia Eastern Asia 1,403,500,365 1,409,517,397 +0.4%
    2 ndia Asia Southern Asia 1,324,171,354 1,339,180,127 +1.1%
    3 United States Americas Northern America 322,179,605 324,459,463 +0.7%
    4 Indonesia Asia South-Eastern Asia 261,115,456 263,991,379 +1.1%
    5 Brazil Americas South America 207,652,865 209,288,278 +0.8%
    6 Pakistan Asia Southern Asia 193,203,476 197,015,955 +2.0%
    7 Nigeria Africa Western Africa 185,989,640 190,886,311 +2.6%
    8 Bangladesh Asia Southern Asia 162,951,560 164,669,751 +1.1%
    9 Russia Europe Eastern Europe 143,964,513 143,989,754 0.0%
    10 Mexico Americas Central America 127,540,423 129,163,276 +1.3%
    11 Japan Asia Eastern Asia 127,748,513 127,484,450 −0.2%
    12 Ethiopia Africa Eastern Africa 102,403,196 104,957,438 +2.5%
    13 Philippines Asia South-Eastern Asia 103,320,222 104,918,090 +1.5%
    14 Egypt Africa Northern Africa 95,688,681 97,553,151 +1.9%
    15 Vietnam Asia South-Eastern Asia 94,569,072 95,540,800 +1.0%
    16 Germany Europe Western Europe 81,914,672 82,114,224 +0.2%
    17 Democratic Republic of the Congo Africa Middle Africa 78,736,153 81,339,988 +3.3%
    18 Iran Asia Southern Asia 80,277,428 81,162,788 +1.1%
    19 Turkey Asia Western Asia 79,512,426 80,745,020 +1.6%
    20 Thailand

    ^even weaker correlation with football success.



    all have high populations and some are also rich, yet they are not up there in football. for some of them, ie ethiopia, bangladesh, congo, they are relatively bad because they lack wealth, again, this proves my point because they are REALLY poor so this is an extreme. countries with similar populations, ie egypt and algeria are good, again, why? they are not rich, but they do not suffer from EXTREME lack of money, and they also have stronger football culture. all of this fits into my points.

    north korea

    their populations are low yet they are still better than MANY countries that have higher population.

    these are just off the top of my head. now the onus is on you to provide counter examples.
    Zandi360 repped this.
  5. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    #5 Abram Jones, Sep 7, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2017
    don't look now, but i'm not the retarded one around here. I don't remember getting emotional during my last post... completely your perception.

    actually it did, i think you missed it. there seems to be this trend where wealthier/larger countries qualify for big tournaments much more than small ones... you should look into it (i doubt you even read this and looked at the data, or you wouldn't be saying such ridiculous things:

    This is easy... here we have the United States team:

    Here is an incomplete list of countries with a higher percentage interest in football AND more international matches that the United States has a better or equal head to head record against. The only reason this is possible is because of the large wealth/population advantage the United States has over these countries. However, most of these countries are more efficient in the sport of football than the United States is. An even greater list could be made if I were to compare rankings instead of head to head. I also disagree that number of matches should be a limit, but I will follow it just to show it can be done even with this harsh parameter (even with an old team like the United States).


    yeah... that's what I was saying. but if you have more you are more likely to actually invest in a particular sport.

    agreed, but there are a lot of extremes.

    that's just the problem, I gave you more than examples. I provided you with a link that has several spreadsheets showing how much of an advantage wealth and population provides. and I will post it again, view the spreadsheets this time.

    Incorrect, what I would be saying is that the higher the GDP per capita is the more likely people will be happy. Close, but you didn't get that very important detail. Wealth and population increase the chances greatly of success in sports (or anything else). There is not guarantee, that should be clear.

    Firstly, India and China need to be separated because they are so different. Lets just start with China because they are actually a soccer country. For one thing, China is doing better in rankings than both Qatar (though by one spot) and significantly better than Bahrain. And no, Bahrain and Qatar don't invest nearly as much in soccer than China does (not sure why you think this)... China is simply underachieving. This may not have to do with their lack of skills... it could be something else... like diet, or poor youth programs. But they are obviously underachieving. India is not nearly as wealthy as China... and is also consumed by cricket... so this will take their potential down. They could also have diet or youth program issues, I'm not sure. I do suspect that a mostly vegetable diet in East Asian countries is not good for contact sports because people develop to be smaller.

    You could use normal rankings and see that Iraq also performed above average in a time you were saying they were bad... so my rankings or normal rankings will do the job. So yes, I did show my point. I told you to view Iraq's FIFA rankings in the 90s since they don't seem to be available in the 80s when Iraq was performing even better. Don't laugh before you understand what's going on, you will look foolish :)

    Yes, wealth and population are the 2 most crucial factors (besides interest)... but I did not say it's that simple... that's your assumption, and lack of reading my document that I sent you which clearly states other factors besides wealth and population amount.

    There is a huge correlation... but you're missing it because you are making a serious mistake with the numbers. You can't cut it off at top 20, but must look at the number of wealthier/populated countries in top 50% of rankings compared to bottom 50% of rankings. In my spreadsheets I clearly show this to be the case, that the larger and richer countries tend to end up above average.

    You need to know what you're talking about, Argentina does have significant wealth... not sure why you think they don't.

    a lot of this is mostly true, and i've been saying it myself. but wealth and population, if strong enough... can negate it... and even if not strong enough can still effect it. For instance... large wealth and population allows USA to beat Germany (and other big countries) several times in history. But if USA had 10,000,000 people total with same GDP per capita, this record would not exist in current form. If USA had 1,000,000 people with same GDP per capita, it would be diminished even further.

    Don't ever look at only population, wealth and population together are important.

    this is misleading... you must combine the wealth and population of each country together... when you do that it will bring several of these countries down. you are cherry picking data now.

    Agreed, but it fits into mine as well. I'm not saying someone has to be filthy rich.

    Yes, cherry picking anomalies is fun. But what are important about my spreadsheets is they do not do that. You must look at the big picture, not just several examples. I only provided you a few examples above because you requested it, but there are plenty more. This document and spreadsheets linked on them is very important for understanding the concepts I am presenting :
  6. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    actually you did get emotional. i politely refuted your argument and you went crazy, accusing me of "trash talk" out of nowhere. it is clear that you came here with the goal of shoving your "theory" (well, i dont know if you made those websites you linked because your arguments are not original, you took them straight from the links) down everybodys throats, and your ego felt threatened when somebody refuted the argument.

    anyways, you accuse me of "cherrypicking" data then you use ONLY HEAD TO HEAD data of ONE country (USA) to make a point. are you even serious? so if USA has a head to head advantage over a team like portugal that means they are better than portugal? lol. you think this is acceptable, but you think using the top 20 countries is too limited? well i dont have all day to rank all 200 fifa associations in terms of gdp and population. 20 is big enough of a sample size, and i demonstrated my point through that example. then you say you cant use only wealth or only population, that is why i combined them and gave more examples, but
    apparently that is cherry picking.

    also, it makes no sense to say argentina is rich. they are not. we are using gdp here. according to gdp they are not.

    the spreadsheet you give with germany on top is reasonable (unlike your USA head to head example), but it doesnt necessarily refute my point. when taking averages of so many countries, it would be logical that as wealth and population go up, on average, there will be some correlation in terms of football success. i said this is too black and white though, and gave several examples. so it would be dangerous to believe "index numbers" and sum everything up through them because when you take so many countries and averages, you run the risk of missing 3rd/4rth variables that are also responsible for that ranking. as they say, correlation does not mean causation.
  7. Matilda Maniac

    Matilda Maniac Big Soccer Memebr

    Sep 21, 2006
    Perth Glory
    Nat'l Team:
    #7 Matilda Maniac, Sep 7, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2017
    shirt colour - you havent factored in shirt colour.

    underachievers have often been wearing red, whereas more successful countries are choosing white or blue. I will develop a spreadsheet that clearly shows it.

    Look at the fighting spirit of Thailand and their results after they switched their colours to Black in honour of King Bhumibol the Great.

    Look at Australia who started improving when they switched to wearing white socks, and who have now stumbled and missed direct qualification since reverting to green socks. I will develop a spreadsheet that clearly shows it.
    persianfootball repped this.
  8. (De La)Redstriker06

    May 3, 2003
    Montreal Impact
    Nat'l Team:
    You can only play 11 players at a time and to account for variance in form, injuries, and tactics a national team manager rarely trots out more than 40-50 players over the course of his tenure 3-4 year tenure.

    There are many paths to success. The four teams that have qualified have strong domestic leagues as does Australia- who are in the playoff.

    Those leagues are all powered (for the most part) by players that were produced by clubs.

    That said, smaller countries can still compete. Their leagues may not be strong but they do participate in continental competition- giving them vital experience. Many then usually send their players abroad or recruit from the diaspora.
  9. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    #9 Abram Jones, Sep 11, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
    This is laughable, I do not take any of this personally in the slightest. I am not sure why you think this (self projection?). And you are taking the "trash talk" comment way out of context. If English is your second language the confusion could be easily understood. But if English is your first language you should make sure you understand before making such a brash accusation. It is very disruptive to the sake of the topic.

    It should also be noted that I am not presenting a theory in this topic. And yes, is my website, as well as the links I've been using.

    No, I am not cherry picking data. I was answering your question for examples, I wasn't using them as evidence for anything, and my spreadsheets are not based on those examples. What you are doing is the opposite... handpicking a few examples and trying to use that as evidence. Cherry picking data is a cardinal sin in mathematics. My spreadsheets consist of vast amounts of data from all countries around the globe. There is nothing handpicked to make it appear one way or another.

    I didn't say rich, I said they have significant wealth. in terms of total GDP they are in the top 30 out about 200 countries. In terms of GDP per capita they range from average to a little bit above average on a global scale. Argentina has significant resources put toward several sports.

    I'm not sure I was trying to refute a point. It simply shows how obvious the impact of wealth and population is. In addition, I didn't only provide 1 spreadsheet. I sent you a link that had several of these spreadsheets for several sports, and more importantly, many sports combined.

    Maybe you are misunderstanding something. These spreadsheets are not meant to sum up everything. They are meant to show how obvious the impact of wealth and population is, that is all, and they do that even more than I expected before I compiled them. As discussed, and as I have mentioned previously, and on my website... of course there are other smaller factors that have a varying degree of impact on results depending on the situation. The problem with your criticism of this is that you are trying to judge it for a function it is not supposed to perform. And it appears you do not totally understand what the numbers are telling us.
  10. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    I would love to see a complete spreadsheet on this... because if you did a complete study of all countries and jerseys with results the numbers would all end up looking randomized. There would be no consistency other than a small coincidences here and there. Unlike the spreadsheets I have provided which are very consistent. So consistent, in fact, it is somewhat surprising that the impact of wealth and population is so high.
  11. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    Of course. Certainly wealth and population matter less than in something like a war, because there is no limit to people you can "put on the field" in a war besides what you have. But you have to keep in mind that behind sports are complex infrastructures. This is why wealth and population has such an effect. It's not just 40 or 50 random guys trouncing out onto the field, there are big socioeconomic networks behind them.

    Of course they can still compete, I didn't say they couldn't. I said it is harder for smaller and poorer countries to compete... and it is easier for bigger richer countries... that is all.
  12. Matilda Maniac

    Matilda Maniac Big Soccer Memebr

    Sep 21, 2006
    Perth Glory
    Nat'l Team:
    If a study was done, then the results would be what they would be; until they are done, you cannot predict the outcome.

    to answer the original question . . . Is It Difficult For AFC Asian Countries To Qualify For The World Cup? Yes, it is difficult. FIFA gives us 4.5 slots out of 32 ; this will be relaxed in 2026 to either 8.25 or 8.5 slots out of 48. It will be relatively easy when Infante's successor's sucessor's successor increases the number of nations in the finals to 128.

    You've obviously come to this forum with an agenda to refute any comment that doesnt suit your theories, so you are no more than a civilised troll, that perhaps doesnt deserve to be fed.

    You also might like to look up the word sarcasm.

    Zandi360 and persianfootball repped this.
  13. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    the very fact that you typed the above paragraph runs counter to your claim. just look at your choice of words; you are clearly agitated over the matter. you even went on to insult me by trying to downgrade my arguments by saying that english is my second language. let me tell you something, when i came to an english speaking country, during my first year as an ESL student, i would outperform the native english speakers in english class. i know that you know that your arguments have no substance, which is why you are trying to divert the topic by insulting other members' english skills. furthermore, ironically, you are accusing me of doing the same (trying to divert the topic), and even using the word projection, which describes your behaviour here.

    nice strawman. you are running in circles here. you are not saying anything new. i already refuted your arguments. you are now simply claiming that i did not understand your argument, but read my responses again: once you understand my responses, you will realize that i understood your responses, and refuted your points.

    you are implying that i said that wealth and population have no effect on footballing success. this is incorrect. i said they do, but not as much as you think. i know that you are not claiming that they are 100% responsible, but you made a website and are proud of your numbers, and so you got upset when i refuted your theory: that wealth and population have such a high degree of influence on footballing success. i know what the numbers are saying, and i am simply telling you that you are overestimating them, and to keep in mind that correlation does not mean causation. i know you are upset because you created a website and a theory, and now others have exposed their poor validity, but you need to stop being biased and attacking others for doing this. that is not how debates and arguments work: we do not simply create something then try to defend our ego by attacking anything and anyone who refutes it. considering this a learning experience. maybe you can add what i said to your site.
  14. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    I would isolate the following as the 3 most important factors in determining success or failure various countries in football and how they rate:

    1- Football Culture and Tradition
    The earlier you started the game, the more success you enjoyed in the past, the more likely it is that you will be among the top football sides. This remains the most significant factor in distinguishing the "haves and have nots" in football. Overtime, however, as the game spreads and more states and lesser confederations begin to enjoy greater success, the importance of this factor will diminish.

    2- Population and Wealth (GDP)
    The two most populous countries in the world, namely China and India, basically suck in football while there are a host of smaller nations (including notably Uruguay) who have quite notable achievements. Still, there are logical reason why population is relevant, and there is certainly also a relationship between wealth (both per capita as well as the resources available to a nation more generally) that will, in turn, create a correlation (albeit not a perfect or particularly strong one) between GDP and success in football.

    3- Race and Ethnicity
    Not necessarily the kind of factor people feel comfortable discussing. But there is (or appears to me to be) some correlation between athleticism, race and ethnicity and that correlation does seem to influence the equation in football as well. Generally speaking, it seems to me that the best athletes in terms of qualities relevant to football are drawn from, first, those of African, and second those from Caucasian, ethnic and racial backgrounds. The worst athleticism generally comes from those of what appears to be people of "Dravidian" stock (e.g., many of the people in the Indian subcontinent, i.e. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) as well as those of southeast Asian stock (e.g., Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam etc). But even if race and ethnicity are somewhat relevant, this would still rate way below the other factors I mentioned. The success of what I might dub predominately "Mestizo" sides, in fact, underlines the limits of this factor. Sides like Mexico and (to a smaller extent) Argentina and some others in Latin America do not draw from a particularly athletic player pool yet their footballing record speaks for itself. Conversely, while individual players of African ancestry are increasingly dominating many of the top national sides, we still haven't found an African side advance to the last 4 of the World Cup or be ranked among the top 5 in the world.
  15. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    i agree with most of your points except the bold. for football, the mestizo body is actually advantageous. look at players like aguero and players on the brazilian (although admittedly many brazilian players have some black genes mixed in) and chilean teams. they tend to be shorter, faster, and have a lower centre of gravity, making them go down less (well, unintentionally), and able to commit quick turns and agile plays. what they lack for height they more than make up in other ways. look at the barcelona and spanish side that was dominating world football for years, messi, xavi, iniesta, pedro, ect... they were short and tiny players.

    as for african ancestry, while they tend to be good athletes overall, considering the above paragraph, overall, they are not necessarily advantageous in football. perhaps in certain positions, such as goalkeeper and winger, but not all. that is one of the reasons african teams do not do as well. athleticism in football is not limited to being tall, fast, and strong.
  16. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    #16 Abram Jones, Oct 10, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2017
    Your perception, or what you say your perception of me is, is completely incorrect. I was not insulting your English. You had misinterpreted something I said in a way that made me suspect English may not be your first language (which I happened to be correct about). You are blowing it up to be something it is not.


    Okay, so we agree that wealth and population have an impact. I don't remember saying you completely denied it... but whatever. I'm not really sure how much wealth and population impact it, I have not made an exact claim on this besides that it is "obvious"

    Again, you're accusing me of behavior that isn't realistic. I am not "proud" of this website. It is simply something I enjoy and that needs to be there for more accurate ranking purposes. So I am making it in hopes of recruiting more expertise on the subject matter. And you haven't refuted anything at all, though you seem to love the word refute.

    Yes, I know that correlation does not mean causation, and I don't think I have given any indication that I do not... but that is not how you came about it at all. You accused me of hostile and emotionally unstable behavior, which is 100% false.

    I could be overestimating it, but I haven't claimed to make an exact definition of how much wealth and population impact things. What I have claimed is that wealth and population have an obvious impact, and I made a very simple equation that roughly estimates it... and I am seeking mathematicians and economists to replace my equation so I can get more accurate results.

    1. I'm not upset, was never upset (another false claim on your part)
    2. no one has exposed anything (not sure what there even is to expose)
    3. I have not attacked anyone

    You have to be joking.
  17. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
  18. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)

Share This Page