London 2012: Men's Olympic Football Tournament [R for ALL results]

I didn't say that. I said they were held 18 months earlier.

Also, you clearly do not know what "moving the goalposts" means. When has my argument changed from my initial point that "an easier qualifying route means its easier to win the ultimate prize"? I fully agree with your Uruguay example. The other way to look at it, of course, is that if Uruguay gained a virtual bye to the World cup finals every time, maybe they would have gone deep into the final tournament on other occasions.

 

1. Since 93' there have been 5 world cups and 8 Copa America.
2. In Conmebol Qualifying there's no direct elimination like in CA.
3. WCQ involves playing half the games in Mexico, all CA games were in South America.
4. Mexico's record against the South American teams speaks for itself, you don't have the numbers to back up your assumptions.
5. The reason Colombia didn't qualified previous times was because they're an inconsistent NT and they weren't as good before.
6. All CA that were before a WC Mexico finished in the top 3, except 2004 were Mexico still finished 1st in the death group ahead of Argentina and Uruguay, only to lose to Brazil.

 

You're right, I misread your last post.

Apologies in advance.

 

True, although the current format only existed since 1998. Before that they had some dumbass formats, not unlike Copa America.

 

If Mexico would have had to qualify through Conmebol for the 2012 Summer Olympics, it is very likely that Mexico wouldn`t have ended among the top 2 teams in the 2011 U-20 Southamerican tournament held in Peru, which also were the Southamerican qualifier for the Summer Olympics.

6 months before the refered Southamerican U-20 qualifier tournament, an international U-20 Hexagonal took place in Paraguay, where Mexico was invited to participate in. The relevance of this tournament is that the rosters of the teams that took part in it, were basicly the same players that 6 months later played in the Southamerican U-20 tournament.

Mexico was last in its group, reasons that got them eliminated for the final games of the tournament, where Argentina and Uruguay (top 2 in their same group) played the final games against the top 2 teams from the other group. Considering that only 2 Southamerican teams get the tickets for the Summer Olympics, that would at least put Mexico as third, or actually sixth as how they ended....
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torneo_Sub-20_Integracion_Latinoamericana

The curious and funny thing here, is that both teams who ended among the worst of that tournament, finally disputed the Olympic Gold, only that with U-23 players with 3 add-ons.....
(and no, Chile didn`t play here as well)

 

Sure.
But at least it is at the same level, age and within a 6 month period of time, in relation to the tournament that was to decide, who was going to classify from South America.
Lots more relevant than past history, or performance in other age groups, that holds no relationship to what is being argued.

 

It's spastic to even speculate on what would happen in a competition that doesn't even exist. That's what usa fans do, they are the kings of fantasizing. South American Olympic qualifying involving Mexico, does not exist. It has never happened. It's pointless to fantasize on what would happen if we got in a time machine, and went back and forced them to make Mexico qualify through South America, when Mexico is in North America. That's just ridiculous. To say "Mexico could have failed to qualify through South America" is the same as saying if your aunt had balls, then she'd be your uncle. It's just nonsense. You might as well start speculating on what would happen if you were an alien living on Neptune. It would be just as relevant.

The bottom line is that Mexico proved itself superior to both Brasil and Uruguay, the 2 best S.A. qualifiers. If any S.A. country thinks they can take Mexico at this level, then you had your chance, but you failed. Mexico won the gold medal, they went all the way, besting the entire world at the U-23 level. That is reality, that is not speculation on what would happen in a nonexistent situation,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_FIFA_U-20_World_Cup

Mexico finished 3rd in the actual U-20 World Cup in 2011 that was held in Colombia.

 

Great, but in that same WC, Mexico only confronted 3 South American teams, Lost in group phase to Argentina, beated Colombia at quarters and lost to Brazil in semis. Only taking in account direct South American competition, Mexico came behind Argentina and Brazil (2 teams, which hypothethically would be the ones who classify to Olympics), equally leaving Mexico, out.

 

Rickdog, you are making a fool of yourself.

 

All of this doesn't matter but Uruguay finished ahead of Argentina in qualifying and finished bottom of the Group B in 2011 U-20 World Cup.

 

True.
Nobody has denied them as the rightful Champs.

The whole discussion here came out, as product of those who started claiming Mexican superiority over South America in many aspects, not limiting itself to the London 2012 Summer Olympics, which has been proved many times, wrong and highly speculative as in general, these discussions really get, most of the times.

 

That`s the flaw in actual WC.
You get an easy draw, you could end better.
You get a harder one, you could end prematurely eliminated.

The only position within a tournament that has no flaw, is the one who ends as champion, as they had to win it all, to the end (hard and easy games as well).

 

smh.. putoricane is sucha troll.. I don't even know why people take him serious. smh Dude has about as much knowledge of this sport as Jim Rome.

Anywho..why isn't this thread locked? The tourney is over!!

 

Uruguay probably had the easier draw for U-20 World Cup.

Exactly, so it doesn't matter if Mexico wouldn't qualify from South America because Mexico won the Olympics.

 

Which only proves how difficult South American Competition really are. In that tournament, at group phase, Argentina beated Uruguay, and only on goal diferentiate, Uruguay classified to the final round over Peru, as third in the group (guess who ended second, ), while at the final round it was Uruguay whom beated Argentina (and who ended second previously, was beated by everyone in the final round, ) .

 

Chile's 1999 Copa America team has 14 or 15 players from 1998 WC.

 

Considering Uruguay got outplayed by Portugal, Cameroon and New Zealand in the actually U-20 WC it doesn't matter how difficult it is. New Zealand's qualifying is easy and NZ ended up finishing ahead of Uruguay.

 

Yeah.
At group phase they were eliminated by Portugal (who ended second of the tournament) and by Cameroon (whom had Mexico numbered at second round and got eliminated only after a pk definition).

 

Uruguay didn`t get outplayed by Portugal and New Zeland, as they ended in draws. Their only defeat against Cameroon by one goal, is what got them eliminated.

 

Probably, but who actually played the games were mainly the reserve team from 1998, with a few inclussions in it.
Chile since day one in its history, has never been a team with much international figures in it. (In fact from the 1998 roster, only 3 players played outside of Chile), so there are lots of diferences between who are the starting 11, and who are the reserves. Fortunately, nowdays this issue seems to be changing.
For that 1999 CA, in the third place game against Mexico, even Salas was left out of the game.

 

Actually, there were 4 players from abroad in 1998 squad. One each played in Italy, Argentina, Mexico and USA.