Thanks for the thought out response, a lot of stuff in there so I can't go through all your points unfortunately . You are right that I cannot necessarily know which countries may gain even more investment in their domestic leagues and it could very well come anywhere, certainly there are many African countries that have polished off some gems of players greater than have come out of the countries I listed. But I tried to make my best guess based on current league/stadium investment as I know it. While having a few big money investors in a particular African league could make a dent, MLS already has 18-20 BIG money investors that are building nice lasting stadiums and drawing solid attendances. Mexico already has this infrastructure in place as well, and I am not aware of a country in Africa that can match the infrastructure in Korea or Japan either. Now to you claim that the top domestic leagues in Africa are not producing as strong of national teams as one would expect, but I would argue that Egypt can put a pretty solid argument together for being the most successful African national side having won 7 AFCON titles won the next highest having only 4. The other North African countries have modest population sizes and IMO punch above their weight relative to population. Now, why Egypts success despite having not produced any international star players such as Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana etc.? On paper they shouldn't be able to match up. I would attribute this to the relative strength of their national league. Their top players are spread across the top 3 teams and have familiarity playing together, which imo can count for more than talent. Look at the last two World Cup winners Germany and Spain had most of the their players spread across only 2 teams! This is a huge edge. Argentina continually looks better on paper but their players lack familiarity. Even Italy 2006 had most of their players on AC Milan or Juventus. It is hard to build a cohesive style without Club familiarity.
Two things: Egypt's star player was Mohamed Aboutreika who spent his entire career in the local league. I honestly believe if he had played in Europe he would have been a footballing legend. For whatever reason he never had the pull to go to Europe and Europe doesn't traditionally go for Egyptian players. He was really good. As good as any international star player from Africa, if not better. Egypt won two AFCON titles back in 1957 and 1959 when it was literally a two horse race between Egypt and Sudan (with Ethiopia making up the numbers), while the rest of Africa was colonised. No disrespect, but Egypt won 5 real AFCON titles, three of them during their golden generation (which shockingly never made the World Cup in two attempts).
@Unak I do not divide between competing and winning. Africa boycotting the World Cup in 1966 signals to me that they already had a new post colonial view of themselves. Football was shifting from Eurocentrism. To say 1990 was nothing is revisionism, it's a key moment and when talk of an African champion emerged proper. After this we had Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Ghana over and again yet nothing happened. *** It's not about rewinding time but about shifting from Europe or West dominated world. We have witnessed the success of Asia without being involved in the Imperial acts of the West. In the same way I believe Africa should lift itself up. The changes in Western political perspective is not by old people. It's their backlash against globalization. While most of the World is optimistic that their moderate hopes will be met by the future, Westerners are aware that their high expectations of how life should be lived will never be met again. They are attempting to reverse the course of the World- that they set in motion. *** Whether they are commodities or not does not matter. My point is that there is a brain and muscle drain to Europe. This deprives Africa and benefits Europe. This works to keep Europe ahead. If Nigeria should not compete with Bundesliga (Nigeria has 200 million people) why should they build refineries as well? Why should they attempt to establish an automobile industry? Can they not always accept to be at the bottom of the pyramid despite being a giant by virtue of population. If South Korea dreamed to become a giant then Africa should harbour similar ambitions. it's good that in Africa we are moving towards this direction, even if gradually. *** The most qualified is a myth to perpetuate the merry go round of C rate EUROPEAN coaches in Africa. And they earn alot more than their local counterparts. If the national teams and biggest clubs are arenas exclusive to Europeans how then should African coaches develop? They only have Africa where an African coach would be accepted. *** First you must recognize that South Americans are in a much stronger position in terms of football structure and culture compared to Africa. It will take longer to break them down but it is inevitable. Brazil is no longer the envy of World Football neither is Argentina. I already said they will rely on a golden generation to win the World Cup again. Europe on the other hand will always have three teams at least ahead of those two.
I agree. I think in a few decades when people think of a strong footballing nation, the one that will come to mind will be Germany and not Brazil. In Brazil's last 5 games against Western European teams at the FIFA World Cup, their record is 1 draw and 4 losses.
Then I'm tempted to assume that you must have never played a sport before at a high level or you don't watch sports. However, I do think that you did and that you do (in each respect). But if you don't make this distinction then you do not understand or agree with my assessment of the importance of the mental aspect of sports as much as you say that you do. Because competing is not the same thing as experiencing a breakthrough. This is the reason that the field of sports psychiatry even exists. Athletes develop mental blocks with regards to particular teams, even though they can play on par with other opponents that they both have in common simply because there is a residual subconscious level of doubt. And this plays out in other sports even for athletes who repeatedly have multiple runs of success without getting through to the championship. Levels of success that go beyond the equivalent of a QF WC run. But once they get through that team, they're able to engage in runs of multiple titles and carry that air of confidence that allows them to defeat teams that appear better on paper. Michael Jordan's Bulls are a perfect representation of this. (You can look up the history of their run from prior to their first title and compare their roster composition throughout to get a clear picture; if you still don't get it, then I'll elaborate later.) This is where you misunderstand Asia's history and the true nature of their economic evolution. There are true aspects in which they turned from Western influence and there are false aspects in which they used Western interests to further their own gain. But what they did not do was do this by ignoring the West entirely. What commonly is held against Africa so far as relying on skills transfer from the West to improve it's own internal infrastructure is in fact true of every single civilization in written history. EVERYONE has borrowed from EVERYONE going all the way back in written history and before that we can only guess what was borrowed by the "first civilization. People often mark African civilizations of being devoid of having developed writing systems for example, however the Igbos (my people) of Nigeria did device an early pictograph system called Nsibiri. Now ethnolinguistics may not categorize this as a true writing system, however it was no less efficient to it's people than early Northern European runic systems were for their own prior to adopting their modern systems from other civs. In fact almost all writing systems popped up in singular localities on nearly every continent; but most modern countries carry writing systems borrowed and adapted from other localities. Take Japan borrowing Chinese Kanji despite often looking down upon the Chinese for much of the 20th century. Taken as a local phenomenon, nearly every civ ever has had to borrow a more efficient writing system from another civ that developed it first. This is the same with the development of modern mathematics and physics. Every stage in it's development has moved between various centers of scholastic gravity, including Africa. Every stage of discovery can only build upon it's previous stage, so while the locality may change, the knowledge remains the same, even often outlasting the civ that happened to contribute to it at a particular time. So it's not a matter of "going it alone" because this never happened in recorded human civilization. No historian can pinpoint the locality of the beginnings of any one concept any more than they can pinpoint any one foundation for modern civ. So the idea that utilizing the current edge that the West has in certain respects to shape our needs in our own way is somehow defeatist is unfortunate, since that's how every single known civilization to date has ever managed to build itself, maybe to prosper, or fall. Going back to Asia, this is most evident with them. Japan's modern evolution stemmed from their yearning to learn modern Western technologies in order to move them past their Middle Age military tech level that they had remained at during their era of isolation. This is in spite of the fact that it was China who had in fact invented the formula for gun powder but did not themselves devise a warfare use for it. They gave the tech to the West who developed it's military use and, in turn, gave that back to them. These types of technological exchanges have happened throughout history, though not at the rate that it is capable of being done today due to inter-connectivity. So Japan, was willing to use the West to modernize their military technology, prior to WWII, then after their defeat and occupation at the hands of the Allied Powers, were quite happy to once-again use the West in order to restore their tech base and then improve upon it. They in turn attacked and occupied much of mainland China during the early 20th century. China was also partially occupied by Western nations beginning in the early 19th century and the two eras are part of what they call their their "Century of Humiliation". Think on the fact that a nation that has remained unified for 3000 years as the same Han-dominated entity, longer than all modern Western nations or even their own neighbors, had to come to grips with the fact that (despite all of their history and knowledge that they had contributed) they had fallen behind. Yet, they too, weren't above using the assistance of the Japanese tech level and even being advised by their most hated enemies, while also leveraging Western business interests in order to restore what they believed was their place in the world's hierarchy. They didn't do this by ignoring the world, despite their history with it, they engaged with it and got from it what they needed. Take nuclear proliferation. Every new nuclear nation since the early 20th century has gotten to that level, not by simply unlocking the key on their own, it's difficult to develop it without the requisite supporting reactor tech which themselves depend on supporting cooling tech, and more detailed means of safely processing nuclear fission. They engaged in skills-transfers under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear energy. The by-product of Uranium degradation is Plutonium, and once you have that, it's fairly easy to develop weapon technology on your own. But you need the initial reactor technology in order to understand how to handle and engage with nuclear material. No country will care about who gave it to them, so long as they have it now. Right now Nigeria has negotiated that particular skills-exchange with Russia, and in doing so move a long way towards true energy independence and a means to improve their manufacturing base and begin to develop the means of engaging in higher technological processes. But you cannot skip steps. Not if you want to develop quickly and the easiest means of developing quickly still involved engaging those with the required technology and exchanging skills. Any belief that development can bypass this stage is soley from ignorance of the underlying bases of technology that is required to move to a higher base of tech. You talk of a "brain drain", but there's little means of stopping this for certain professions unless they mean to merely become college professors who will teach nuclear propulsion technology or astrophysics to students who will likewise be unable to use their new knowledge in their own country for want of the base-level infrastructure that would allow for those on their level of expertise to actually do anything. And before you try to say that a physicist can stay and help to develop it, you have to understand that most scientific fields depend on structural scientific fields (Engineering, Architecture, etc) in order to use existing theoretical knowledge to build the infrastructure to build the equipment that they then use to build more theories that enable the engineers to build better, more powerful, and more precise equipment which will enable the physicists to develop more theories... you need the base first. The brain drain exists because there is literally a limit to what they can do and even learn in their home countries. They help their countries best by leaving, gaining skills and building experience as well as establishing links between external interests with know-how and bringing that back to their respective countries. Skills exchange does not work by simply trying to remain isolated and developing it on your own, since you can't bypass tech levels in order to catch up to modern tech unless you "cheat" through skills exchange. There are certain skills that can be utilized on the continent, and those people do tend to either stay, or go back after completing education abroad. Doctors and businessmen/industrialists and engineers have many opportunities on the continent. But even those are limited by the tech level and that can still be aided through skills-exchange. CRISPR-Cas9, for example, is a technology that might soon eradicate, the Tsetse Fly's ability to carry African Sleeping Sickness or the Anopheles Mosquito's ability to carry the Plasmodium protozoa that causes Malaria. This tech might soon also be used to completely eradicate cancer cells, prevent children being born with Down's Syndrome or MS and even extend the human life-span exponentially. The technique's discovery and continuing development, however, required a precise instruments that themselves required previous levels of tech that goes back a century. When the research is completed, there will be an internal debate among many Africans between the need for this technique for the first two of these possible solutions vs the ability to trust tech developed entirely outside of their own environs to act upon their environments. And this is a completely rational fear of using external tech coupled with a completely rational yearning to use the tech to meet a current need. You can split the difference by engaging in skills exchange to maximize your own dependent tech level to the point that you can modify the tech yourselves to meet your own needs. Granted, CRISPR's biggest marketing point is it's relative inexpensive cost and ease of use, as far as gene-editing goes, but it still requires precision to be used properly and African countries would be wise to upgrade their tech levels prior to attempting to create their own modifications. So skills-exchange is essential. This relates to your point in that I'm trying to provide for you an understanding that there are different areas of current need that should be encouraged to prosper domestically whereas others can better be employed abroad in order to maximize the effort and achieve the desired result faster. Going back to China, this does not mean you allow the West to dominate you or even follow their advice or doctrine. This is where African nations have to follow their own path. What China did was to forget pride and learn necessary skills from the West, while also ignoring alot of the bad advice that came from the West on how to properly employ it's assets and under what ideology development should take place. The West is often hypocritical in this respect. Most of the "Asian Tigers" developed under authoritarian regimes since those types of regimes are often able to galvanize their populations more effectively and direct focused development as they see fit. Western nations were also far less democratic and "rosy" while they developed, yet they stress "good governance" on African nations as a precursor to skills exchange and economic engagement (as opposed to free aid) which is putting the cart ahead of the horse and doing the same thing as trying to create a modern economy without building the requisite base technologies. In other words, what I'm saying is that Africa must direct it's own development, but you cannot do so by assuming that it's all about keeping everything in-house. If you believe that that is possible, then you do not understand all of the variables involved, or you have a much lower end-goal than I do. If you try to go about things in this manner, you'll end up losing ground faster than you gain it, because as base tech levels become higher, advancements and innovation comes more quickly (although the technophobes in the Trump crowd might throw a wrench in things here). In this, you are simply wrong. Dead wrong. And you don't live here. You cannot understand the dynamics at play here. I grew up here and I pay attention to daily interactions, anonymous online conversations with people who might be inclined to be more honest under less provocative circumstances. I see the differences between how generations diverge, and I've studied social anthropology and psychology as part of my own background. If you don't understand how generations adjust their views over time (and though you may not notice it, it even occurs where you live along a range of issues). Taking single issues non-related to the current topics as a means of incontrovertible reference, Atheism is on the rise among the younger demographics of the US at a far faster rate than the older ones. Interracial dating and marriage is engaged in at a far higher rate among the younger demographics than the older ones. And the younger demos of all races are more highly educated than the older generations and these shifts are all partly influenced by the manner in the American socioeconomic reality that they grew up in had changed as compared to their parents. Everyone's views and personality are influenced heavily by the environment in which they grow up. This is backed up by the recorded voting patterns btw. Documented fact, so to try to state otherwise makes no sense. The bulk of the backlash is among older voters who still outnumber younger generations. The older you get the more conservative your beliefs are likely to be. Just because you see a couple of young faces in the Alt-Right doesn't mean that this isn't the case. Why do you think they use these front-men? Because they understand this and get the need to try to appeal to the current generations, otherwise they're endeavors are futile. That is a consistent pattern across the globe to differing degrees, but all backed by evidence. Some are much more progressive than others, but the trend is real. See my above. This is a very simplistic way of viewing the problem; yes it is a problem but it addresses an effect, not a cause. Other aspects have to be improved to change this. Not the other way around. The only way of changing this is to encourage intelligent people to only choose fields that have actuation domestically and truly inquisitive minds will see this as restricting and will gravitate towards fields that they're drawn to. The best way of utilizing them is, instead of condemning them for pursuing their interests, encourage them to give back to the continent in ways that they can. I can't say enough about how wrong-headed this argument is. This is false-equivalency. First of all, competing with the Bundesliga is not a means of developing economic infrastructure. A better football league does not develop economic capacity. It is a result of increased economic capacity. To try to compare the two as if they're the same does not make sense. I'm closer to agreeing with Buhari if he chooses not to send the Super Eagles to Russia in order to save money to invest in agriculture or manufacturing than I am to agreeing with you on this point, and I do not agree with the former at all. Neither China, nor Japan, nor Korea sat around saying, "now we must have sports leagues that are the envy of the world", while they were still developing. The only reason why Japan's baseball league comes close to rivaling the US' is because they developed before the turn of the 20th century around which most of the oldest sports leagues first developed. Even the USSF doesn't make that mistake with MLS because, they not only lack pedigree, but also history. They have to pay more to get a player to leave the highest level of competition in their sport. No athlete does this lightly and it runs counter to the mentality of pretty much anyone who strives to be the best in their field. And yes, Naija has close to 200 million, but the per-capita income is still a fraction of Germany's, even the GNP doesn't compare. Bundesliga doesn't run on population, only a part of any population needs to watch or supports football leagues. Nigeria has a middle class that can support a better league than they have, but even their spending power isn't equal to the level of Germany's average citizen. That's putting the cart before the horse. Nigeria's league will improve as quickly as it's spending power does. What we can do is increase the league to a level that better reflects the spending power of Nigeria, which is doable and would probably put us on par with North Africa and South Africa. Anything more ambitious than that isn't a priority that I advocate right now. Having a NPL that competes with the Bundesliga does not help the average Nigerian find a job or pay for food. Even the few jobs that might come from it are a drop in a drop in a drop in the bucket compared to the needs that can be better affected by continuing to improve in other areas. E.g., Nigeria overpays for imported tomato paste while it's farmers regularly produce it; why? Because the country must invest in storage and processing tech in order to make this possible enabling Nigeriams to purchase cheaper food and Nigerian farmers to make bigger profits from their crops, maybe even exporting them to Africa and other parts of the world. How does wasting money competing with the Bundesliga help this? Nigeria is the largest crude oil producer in Africa and has been so for a long time, yet it's profits are undercut through not only having to import refined petroleum, plastics and other petro-chemicals, but also because it has to subsidize those products in order to allow it's own citizens to afford it. How does wasting money competing with the Bundesliga help this? Nigeria has a population of nealy 200 million people of mostly working ages who might soon drive an economic engine capable of competing with any emerging or developed nation in the world. But this potential is limited by the immediate need to find an energy solution that will make it cost effective to produce many value-added goods there. Nigeria currently averages about 5,000MW. By comparison South Africa produces 40,000 for a population of less than half of that. Most Nigerians of middle-class or higher means offset this by purchasing expensive diesel to run their generators. Businesses also have to do this, which begs the question, why waste money trying to compete with the Bundesliga and especially to buy said overpriced, non locally refined diesel to power stadiums in a league that, even with packed stadiums, might still be more of a drain than profitable business venture. Electricity comes first, competing with the Bundesliga comes later. Let me drive this home, how does wasting money competing with the Bundesliga help this? This is about not prioritizing unimportant vanity projects vs true avenues of progress. That's the difference. And you can go back onto the African thread and count how much I harp on developing the NPL over and over and in many threads. Ask @zahzah, how often I've gone on about this. But it is not comparable in importance to the things that I just mentioned. Not even close. And all you have to do is look at how long China developed before starting to really invest money in sports. Nigeria doesn't need to go to their extremes in ignoring sports like they did, however they were not a priority for them, nor should it be for Naija. First, African coaches will develop when Africa develops the infrastructure in which to train them. So you're partially on the right track with the idea that we need to improve our leagues and no one has been a stronger voice on this than me. I'm pretty much posting to myself repeatedly on the Nigerian Premier league page along with one or two other ppl. But there's a limit to what's immediately needed or realistic. Second, you're wrong when you assume that throwing unseasoned coaches into the mix against better prepared opposition is the answer when there is still being very little done to prepare them properly in Nigeria. I've said before that conditions are different in different countries on the continent. South Africa has a better infrastructure at the moment with which to prepare it's coaches. Nigeria would do better to compete with SA's level as a short-term goal, not Germany,... bigger fish to fry. So if we want domestic coaches then we need to build up to that and nurture large groups of coaches, not pick the same three over and over again and make excuses for them because they're local and take the development of our players down with them, while also killing the culture and mental aspect of future generations of players at the same time. This is why a short-term and long-term goal is needed to work simultaneously. There are nuances to these things that cannot be overlooked or bypassed in order to jump at the all-or-nothing simplistic solutions. They generally don't work and you end up moving from ideology, to ideology while accomplishing nothing. You make the same mistake that Bill Gates did when he dismissed Dambisa Moyo's book merely due to it's counter-intuitive nature, but there's a point. You have to develop expertise and work through the process of building to self-sufficiency. You can't wave a wand at problems and expect them to fix themselves because you really want to. Like Moyo says, aid is nice, but it doesn't fix anything. The reason that the aid was needed persists. And having a Nigerian coach is nice and letting him keep his job even when he fails is also nice, but it doesn't change the reason why he failed. It isn't because we didn't give him the job; we've been doing it going on 13 of the last 15 years and Nigeria has only found one who has clearly improved the team during his tenure. Much of that time has also been dominated by a rotating cadre of about 4 coaches; Amodu, for example, has had 14 years between his first and latest run. You don't fix a process by focusing on the result, you do so by focusing on the process. And there are a number of industries where that type of thinking get us in trouble by bad prioritizing or wasting money on projects that are unnecessary. (and I'm not talking about things like Eko Atlantic which can actually serve as a catalyst for business and growth. You want to compete with Europe, do it that way...) Argentina is the number one ranked team in the world and many would still be wise to put a wager on Argentina finding a way to beat Germany in 2018. Already Germany has shown cracks. Hell, Portugal, who's own league is not one of Europe's best, managed to traverse the Euro this year. Germany and Spain won't win forever. Unlike the Champions league, talent will go back to where they feel best represented. Tactical dynamics and cohesion play a role, but ultimately it's properly used talent that will win in the end. And despite the disadvantage that losing players abroad causes for Brazil and Argentina, they're versed enough in the sport to adapt and use their still-considerable assortment of talent to compete. And let's not forget that Brazil's WC in 2014 might have ended differently had Neymar not been lost so early in the knockout stages. I think that that was a bigger blow to their chances than ppl will ever give credit for for want of pursuing the more interesting theory that Brazil's past it. That type of story sells headlines but it there's not a large sample to prove it. Especially during the Neymar era. Then follow it up by Brazil removing the bulk of their young talent, including Neymar, in the ensuing Copa America in order to focus on the Olympics. Yes, they lost in the Americas for the first time, but it was going to happen sooner or later. At home the odds are in your favor, but they're called odds for a reason rather than predictions. Take notice, as well, that many other big sides have fallen off and come back during recent history, including Germany, Netherlands and Uruguay. It's not unheard-of for the big sides to have off periods. In fact, considering the fact that South America's upper echelon is a group of three, coming from a sample size of only ten, they've pretty much over-played the odds in winning as much as they have. They will win again, but saying that they're on a downward-trend because one of them only made the final is absurd. Has their style been changed/altered, yes. Is that an indication that there's some sort of grand trend that is going to end the competitiveness of South America at the full-international stage? Not enough information to prove this. Look at baseball, for instance. Every single one of the best players in it's version of the WC outside of Japan, Korea and Cuba play in the US (and sans Cuba, Japan's star players mostly played in the US), and the finalists have been Japan, Korea, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and Cuba with the winners being DR and Japan twice. Do you see the US on that list? And this is a sport that this country has controlled for a century. It doesn't hurt the DR that every single man on their team has been trained and bred in the US game. But they know the game as well as us since they and their coaches have all trained here too. By the logic of many purists, Japan, Korea or Cuba should always win since they're the only ones using players and coaches raised domestically in the sport. I'm just telling you that things are much more complicated than that.
I think this has as much to do with Dunga, the fact that they hadn't yet replaced Ronaldinho and then Neymar's injury in the last WC. But we'll get our answers this time around. Besides which, look at who Argentina beat in the same space of time. Look at how CONCACAF performed in that same space. Costa Rica was better than UEFA and CONMEBOL teams in the group stages, besting Uruguay and Italy and drawing with England.Uruguay also got out of their group which also included Italy and England. Why does no one try to draw overarching conclusions based off of that? FIFA cycles are once every 4 years which, unlike most sports is more than enough time to overthink or oversimplify everything. And even over 60 years represents a very fragmented sample size. Who knows what might have occurred over the years if the WC were every 2 or 3 years. Argentina was 4-1 against Europe in the last WC. Of the 13 Europe sent, 7 went home. Guess what? The odds of a one of their teams winning a WC are always in UEFA's since they can have an overall losing record yet still have the bulk of the knockout teams. There is simply no definitive trend here. If anything it, taking only the 2014 numbers, the world is growing more competitive with UEFA overall. And they're still ranked ahead of all other contenders. German will likely not repeat, Spain is further from 2010 now than they were in 2014, Italy is not going to do it... who else? England? Portugal? Belgium,... I mean many on here just went through various diatribes discounting them out of hand basically on principle... but who else really stands out right now? Truth told, the WC is actually pretty unpredictable despite the teams who actually win it being the same. The last two times that I can remember the almost absolute favorite going on to win it was '94 and 2010. Brazil was said to be on their way down when they won it in 2002, much like many are quick to say today... it's like we don't hear the echoes...
It is by no means "inevitable" that Africa will surpass South America in footballing prowess. Also, which three UEFA nations are ahead of Argentina for the past ten years? I would only count Spain, the greatest NT of the time, and Germany. Every other European NT is below Argentina for the recent past.
@Unak You post well but it's a little tough to follow. Lots of topics and subtopics, fair enough though. *** Successfully commercializing sport is part of growing the economic capacity of Nigeria and by extension Africa. And there are inhibitions that deny this. Inhibitions that are law. An instance is your point about tomato paste imports. Look, Western countries subsidize farmers but do not allow this for poorer nations in the name of free trade. So farmers in poor countries cannot compete. Western countries also protect their key sectors of the economy like automobile sector in Europe. It's protected. An African country would end up in tariff wars if it protected it's economy from European dumping. You presume that progress is largely inhibited by the activity of Africans and not the stifling environment that there economies have been set to compete in. That's enough socioeconomic stuff, back to football. And according to polls I read, Europeans, Americans are pessimistic. It's expected when they complain that they can't water their lawns in California anymore. Africans on the other hand are more optimistic, they know they will get the basics of road, cheap healthcare, etc. **** African coaches improve when they get the chance. This is witnessed over and over in Africa. There is little difference in the performance of European and African coaches in Africa. Except, European coaches earn much more, demand much more and are not invested in the team. Of course, their expertise is needed but not at the coaching level but more in developing structure. *** You miss my point. I am not advocating for self-sufficiency. I am advocating for Africa taking a better position in the supply chain. It's what the leaders are trying to accomplish. For Africa to succeed in commercializing Football they need to develop all aspects necessary for this. This another point I'm making. You appear to suggest that I only pick out single aspects to develop while ignoring others. This is not the case. *** Brazil is losing players to Chinese League now. There are no cycles, only concentration of resources in Europe. *** Every industry, success is measured by strength of domestic capacity. Football is no different. You even spoke about Nigeria producing Tomato Paste. Instead of exporting it to Europe to be processed they should do it at home, no? It's the same in football, as long as it may take.
I meant inevitability of South America football being torn apart by European money. *** Where was Argentina in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010? What is the basis of putting Argentina ahead? France had to play Germany in 2014.
In that case I agree, it's actually already happened. The only reason South American football continues to be strong and relevant is its tradition. At WC level, it is Maradona, a South American, who casts a shadow on any pretender to the throne, wherever region they may be. Argentina has quarterfinal, quarterfinal and final for the last ten years at the WC. Only Spain and Germany have exceeded them.
You can be delusional all you want, but in South America, that throne belongs to Pele. Maradona was just another pretender to it, that never came even close to getting it (even among argentinian players, he wasn't whom got closer to his level, that spot belonged to Di Stefano).
Thank you and you do as well. In all honesty it's difficult to find honest conversation with people who don't try to constantly redirect the the focus without addressing the content or just post a snarky remark that adds nothing. After awhile on the internet I just started posting just to hear myself think and didn't really care if anyone read it. But I'll try to keep my thoughts brief this time. This is a reality, and this isn't a concern that I've ignored either. With that said, it's also a reality that we have to deal with because every other nation is going to act in their interests first. With that said, even dumped foreign imports would find it hard to compete with a fully developed local supply chain. The ground-up infrastructure puts you in better control of your local supply. The country was recently forced to allow it's currency to be devalued which made this worse and this was largely because of our dependence on imports. People buy local produce in the markets, but finished goods that aren't made in Nigeria cannot be. Even without tariffs, Nigerians would prefer not to have to pay for goods not pegged to the dollar's value. I'll try to stay away from socio-economic allegories but it's harder when trying to talk about player movement . No. I assume that those inhibitions are not going away and that it's on Africans to find a way to overcome them by being as ruthless as they can get away with being. Don't enter into trade relationships assuming that your partners are being magnanimous. Not even China. They may toss around the phrase "win-win" but, to them, it will always mean that they win a little more. What we lack is leverage and noone is going to give it to us because they wronged us in the past. You chip away at it where ever possible. Now I can't speak for other parts of Africa when I come across as negative bc I can say that countries like Ethiopia, Ghana and Kenya have done a good job of this. Nigeria has squandered their advantages since the end of military rule. They double down on the constraints that the West puts on us. And that I won't back down from that. No matter what is done externally, Nigeria has the tools to bypass it but we first have to get over our internal rivalries because, to Nigerians living in Nigeria, they're more important than anything to do with the West. It's only once Nigerians league that they gain perspective on external factors. As for the rest, with Nigerians at least, it depends on which group of Nigerians that you talk to and whether or not their people are in power. Nigerians are optimistic about themselves and their own ingenuity and entrepreneurship, but not their government. And for the bolded above, you need to read deeper into the polling because there is a deep generational divide with both Brexit and the US election. Yes they're pessimistic, but that's because the youth has lost faith in the government's will to be as progressive as they'd like it to be. Not the reason that Trump backers had. In the end, the youth and many minorities just stayed at home and even then Trump "won" with fewer votes. African coaches should get chances when they're properly prepared. We don't prioritize the preparation of our coaches domestically which is why we currently have a coaching pool of about 4 coaches. Our league had not been properly run and was overrun with match-fixing until a year ago. So I have no qualms about blooding coaches, but they're still mostly unknown commodities until the league matures as a better means of evaluating them. And Siasia made player personnel decisions that desqualify him as coach for life, and I don't care if the man sleeps in green and white pajamas. Siasia has had chances, more than enough, but even then he had two chances to play Iwobi and Iheanacho against Egypt to save our AfCoN and our FIFA ranking and he chose neither, so either he was too stupid or too stubborn. I don't know and I don't care, he can pick either, but he can also pick a new line of work bc I hope he never roams the sidelines again for the Super Eagles... although I know he will... So I'm not for risking a WC berth to test another unproven coach. We're still recovering from 2006. Keshi was the benchmark, but even he proved over-reluctant to try youth. He's no longer with us, sadly. Domestic coaches are nice to have, but players are still more important. It's not a prerequisite any more than it is in any other sport where this has been proven not to be the case. It's simply happened that way because the countries that have won have all been participating in the tournament and the sport for so long that their coaching pools are much deeper. I prefer to be optimistically pragmatic. Give opportunities when able and only to a new coach with new ideas. The bolded states my case. I have the same wish for self sufficiency. I only advocate an approach that emphasizes proper planning and foresight. This isn't a race, it's a process. And each piece in the process should be emphasized at the right time and place. If we develop a coach who looks like he can bring new ideas to the team, then fine. But many Nigerian coaches have demonstrated a lot of biases in their management, be it ethnic, professional or a predilection against involving young talent who are more than proven. If we can't get a Nigerian who can put all of that aside to manage the team properly, then we have to go to a neutral outsider who will at least manage the team without preferences for anything but talent or form. I had high hopes for Oliseh though, he was young and well-traveled, but many Nigerians in the hierarchy were still mad about his appointment since he didn't wait his turn. Look, if Nigeria had a domestic coaching hierarchy that was entirely talent-based, this wouldn't be an issue, but there's also nepotism involved, which is another part of why our pool of coaches is so small. So let them fix the coaching situation outside of WC qualifying. That isn't a place for further trial and error. ... only players who either never have, or will never again wear a Selecaio jersey. China throws money around like the nuveau riche do at auctions for tacky, overpriced paintings that only look good because of their price tag, but will likely never appreciate in value. In other words, they get who they overpay market value for. And understand this; China only does this to get their players up to speed, not through some mis-guided effort to overtake Europe. They have a more fully developed economy and are now using that money to get their sporting culture, at least up to the level of their rivals in Korea and Japan. It doesn't bother them so much that they aren't quantifying for WC's, it bothers them that Korea and Japan do. Their players cannot get seasoning anywhere because almost none of their players are currently good enough to play anywhere else, including parts of Southeast Asia. Football is different. Service vs commodity and let me be more specific this time as to why. Countries and businesses export commodities. Players export themselves when it's all said and done. For as much as his academy sold Kelechi Iheanacho's rights to Man City, that move only went through because he and his family approved it, which FIFA is doing more to enforce when dealing with African footballers. Plus, Iheanacho is way too high profile to get away with it than some of the kids of the past who have been bundled off in groups. My point is, the decision was his because, he is a person with a service, not a good with a bar code. And every athlete in every sport will choose to test themselves at the highest level when given the opportunity. But, I may have to pull back a bit to request that you clarify a bit, because maybe I'm misreading your argument. I do think that it is essential to make the Nigerian league the basis for early player development so that players can develop more to our own needs. But, beyond that, the seasoning is in Europe. Not going there makes no sense. Team sports all over the world that are evenly participated in have dealt with similar challenges and remained competitive. Look at hockey and baseball. Football is the same. Europe is not going to win all the WCs from now on. And even the tendency Boupa Diop template has gone away in recent years once attention was called to it. Isaac Success and Iheanacho are just two examples. And it was the Nigerian Academies that acted by putting more diverse players in the shop window, not Europe. We were as complicit in allowing that to happen as Europe was in pushing for it. When they indicated that that's what they wanted, we stopped even trying to produce anything else. Even now, Nigeria is not completely helpless in guiding it's own player development. Constraints are inevitable in a world with competing interests. That doesn't mean that you can't win, it just means that your fight is harder and you must work smarter. Okay, that last couple of paragraphs got away from me, so apologies...
The recognition for greatest WC performance ever belongs by and large to Diego Maradona's in Mexico, it doesn't mater what you say.
Argentina has still been more consistently good than France over the past decade. France doesn't even bother showing up for every major int'l tournament.
Yeah, greatest WC cheater was 1986, when he scored with his hand. Tried to cheat again in 1994, only that this time he was caught, and well you know what happened to him, next..... If cheating at a WC, trying to get away with it, is the recognition for having the best performance ever, then yes, Maradona with no doubt was the best ever....
Unfortunately for you, that is not the final assessment that Maradona's performance enjoys in worldwide recognition. You are entitled to your opinion as long as you have the self-awareness that it is a drop in the lake.
To your misfortune, the world is lots bigger than whatever you believe it to be. Where you tend to see only drops, as you're blinded by what you want to believe, you can't see the oceans from where those drops came from....
Unfortunately this underscores the problem of putting too much weight on WC performances to rate a player's career or their legendary status.
Also remember that Maradona was banned for doping in 1994. If he was doing that in 1994, I think there's a chance he was doing it in 1986 also.
The WC is still the biggest stage in the game, any great player who cannot shine at this stage will bear the burden of incompleteness.
That's what I was refering to, when I said he got "caught" in 1994. For the 1986 WC, with no doubt he already was a regular cocaine consumer, an issue he had been dealing with, almost since his transfer to Barcelona in 1982. He avoided testing positive, taking cautious measures, like staying clean for a few days before, and during the tournament. For the 1994 WC, though, he was banned over usage of ephedrine (not cocaine).
Valid point, but facts remain the same, Maradona, besides being a great player, he was also a great cheater.
Incomplete... sure. I just find that people often use WC performances for more than just trying to show that a player's career wasn't 100% complete.
@unak Then we have no contention on the big picture of how Nigeria should grow its economy. Build the local capacity -value chain. *** On China, they have done much more than the West did. They are financing infrastructure as part of their maritime and Eurasian silk road. You will appreciate this difference. What the West used to do is fund NGOs or give Aid (the money being used to buy maize from the "American people" of course). But we know we have to shape this partnership, no problem Africa can achieve leverage through regional integration as we see with the East African Community and pushing for connecting African countries with infrastructure. *** I don't think the specific criticism you bring up against Siasia is justification for sidelining African coaches. Every coach in the world is criticised by fans. More so national team coaches who always "leave a good player out" according to us fans. The local coaches have ideas and are willing to adapt to the situation of Africa. In my opinion, let's bring Europeans and other foreigners to show us how to build youth systems cheaply, for example, but not to coach. Why? The European coaches are simply not overachievers for the money they earn here. *** All over Africa, people complain the coaches are biased. Maybe we are biased against African coaches and think we should bring a foreigner who must first learn about the local game, then ends up selecting only foreign based players for his CV when he is recycled by another African national team. No development of youth or a chance for local and other African League players. Only a local African coach would see the relevance for this. If he was sacked he would still support that national team. *** Paulinho is a key feature of Tite's team. China is simply building a sports industry for its 1 billion population. It makes economic sense. Do not forget they are also investing in the grassroots whatever qualm you may have with their spending. I admire what they are doing. America did it eons ago. They want that type of sports industry, it makes sense. *** Athletes will chose money as their career is brief. It is known that most sportsperson squander their money before retirement. This puts even more pressure to go for the money. Unfortunately, Africa is not in a position to compete financially with where resources are concentrated. I want to see Isaac Success play for an elite club and Iheanacho not be a squad player. This is our difference with South America. So, I do not see a win there. The biggest African prospects of Europe are the same in football style. When Nigeria will need creativity will the European coach call Kingsley Sokari from Sfaxien or a different flavour will he call Junior Ajayi from Al Ahly, Chikatara from Wydad Casablanca, Mfon Udoh? Of course not. This is not how European coaches work in Africa but in Europe they have to play Kimmich, Dele Ali, etc