Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'BigSoccer Polls' started by Guigs, Jul 8, 2014.
Who are the "we"?
^Seriously? A big chunk of Germany's WC team had roots in the U-21. Anyways, the last Spain U-21 was stacked as hell.
It wasn't really an unlucky draw. If you finish second in your group you deserve to get a tough opponent in the round of 16.
Uruguay without Suarez would probably have lost against any of the other group winners.
I'm not disagreeing that CONMEBOL has had some impressive showings, but you can't really look at Euro vs. WC within a cycle and draw meaningful comparisons between UEFA and CONMEBOL. There will be a lot more turnover in UEFA because 1) the confederation is bigger/deeper and 2) UEFA teams must qualify for Euro, while everyone gets into Copa. Looking at it a different way: Netherlands finished dead last in their most revent Euro final group and this was sandwiched between a WC final and WC semi. R16 and beyond WC teams like Slovakia, Ukraine, and England have failed to even qualify for Euros within 2 years of reaching WC knockouts etc.
A more level way of looking at this is to compare the elo ratings of teams going into their respective Copa and Euros over the last 2 tournaments and compare #1 vs. #1, #2 vs. #2, down to #8 vs. #8. Keep in mind this still overstates Copa's case for a couple of reasons: 1) UEFA teams still need to qualify for Euro, so it's possible one of their 8 best doesn't even make the tourney final 2) teams with a top 8 elo rating going into a Copa still may send weakened sides. In the last two tournaments, Mexico and USA are good examples, as is Brazil under Dunga when they won Copa.
Team Rank - Euro - Copa - Pt Diff
1 - 2055 vs. 2048 +7 pts
2 - 2008 vs. 1948.5 +59.5 pts
3 - 1987.5 vs. 1884.5 +103 pts
4 - 1934.5 vs. 1860 +74.5 pts
5 - 1897 vs. 1829 + 68 pts
6 - 1868.5 vs. 1782.5 +86 pts
7 - 1842 vs. 1740.5 + 101.5 pts
8 - 1836.5 vs. 1712.5 + 124 pts
At every step, UEFA is rated higher than it's CONMEBOL counterpart despite the disadvantages mentioned. It's tough to draw any definitive conclusions using WC performance even over a 2-3 cycles due to small sample size, although it is obvious that CONMEBOL deserves more seats at the WC final table. A lot of what you perceive as UEFA weakness is a product of the qualifying system though. UEFA's leaves a lot more to chance, which opens the door to weaker teams getting into the WC final. If UEFA had the luxury of conducting qualifying more like CONMEBOL (like a final round with three groups of 8 with the top 4 of each group going through), it wouldn't look as bad.
In 2009 we had a lot of our best players in the u21 team. It's become an exception since then that we have our best players available. Our potential 2013 u21 team included the likes of Kroos, Gundogan, Gotze, Draxler. I'm under the arrogant, but probably correct, assumption that Germany would won that tournament.
Unlikely, given that Spain was playing De Gea, Thiago, Javi Martinez, Koke etc.
2011 Spain squad was made up of players like Isco, Canales, Bartra, Koke, Tello and Rodrigo Moreno. Those are some of the best young spanish players coming up. And brasil was able to beat them without having their best players Neymar and Lucas Moura.
To say these tournaments arent important to diminish the accomplishments of teams that win it yet at the same time hailing Spain when they won euros U-19 and U-21 is hypocrisy. Iniesta, Xavi, Iker Casillas, Farbergas, David Silva, Juan Mata, Pique all have played on the U-20 WC.
I agree with much of your sentiment concerning turnover amoung European qualifiers and the qualifiying process. It is still strange to me that Europe could only advance 6/13 teams in each of the last 2 WCs. Only once did a "second tier" Euro finish above any South American, Swiss over Ecuador. I think this would be a better way to compare, points earned against the same competition; this relates to the next paragraph. In the last two WCs, 11 groups had South American teams. Those SA teams finished above ALL of their Euro competitors in 8 of those 11 groups and split 2 groups (Chile both times).
Your comparing the Euro to the Copa via ELO makes no sense. First because my point was the quality gap between the WC and the Euro is increasing, Copa did not enter into it. Second it would make sense that the qualifiers for the Euro would have higher rankings because they just finished about 18 months of qualifying matches in which the qualified teams will by definition increase their ELO points total. Having to qualify for the Euro is a ADVANTAGE using your criteria. Every Euro qualifier is guaranteed to have a winning record in competitive matches for the two previous years. Plus the seeding system guarantees that Germany does not have to worry about losing to Italy or Spain. Not playing qualifiers hurts the ELO points of the Copa teams. You are right about weakened squads. South America's superior WC qualifying system can really hurt the quality of the Copa. It is a trade-off. A "weakened"/experimental Copa is the price to pay for getting their best teams to the WC.
Also you want to compare the two most recent Copas and Euros, yet you say that 2-3 WCs is too small a sample size to do any meaningful comparison. Which is it?
And you seriously believe that those players are so much better than Germany's missing U21 players Ter Stegen, Kroos, Gündogan, Götze and Draxler?
I still think Spain should be considered a favorite to win Euro 2016. One bad tournament doesn't undo three victories, even with older players.
Javi Martinez wasn't even eligible, lmao. Spain basically beat Germany's reserves 1-0. Players like Gundogan were already bossing the Champions League.
Our best potential u21 squad would have been unfair to the competition.
Excellent point @Guigs , you completely owned the arrogant German posters on this board.
That offense would've torn the u21 competition apart.
The ownage continues....
ELO rankings favor European teams beating on one another as long as there is balance: Belgium beats Portugal, then Portugal beats Serbia, then Serbia beats Sweden, who in turn later beat Belgium. Rinse and repeat.
Who exactly would have been those great European teams that missed out from this WC due to the qualifying format but had they made it undoubtedly would have played leagues above Colombia or Chile?
Yes, They are at least as good, if not better. (Who would Germany call up to play on RB and LB?) Even if you think the German guys were better, you'd have to be an idiot to say that they were "far" stronger as this chap seems to think.
Spain would have handled Germany's starters 1-0 just as easily. Yes, Martinez was not eligible that year, but Herrera was, Koke was, so was De Gea, Moreno, Alcantara, Inigo Martinez, leading to a stronger squad than anything Germany could field. You're only looking at 2-3 players, but in terms of breadth and depth of talent across all positions, Spain was much stronger, just like Gundogan was bossing the Champions League, Koke would be bossing multiple competitions the year after.
I was just taking issue with the notion that 66% of Euro participant aren't good enough to make the knockout round of the WC. It's a misleading comment that masquerades as analysis. There are 16 Euro teams but only 13 UEFA slots to the WC. There is turnover among teams too, so generally 40% of the Euro teams in a cycle aren't even at the WC. It's a muted version of someone making a statement that over the last 3 WC cycles, only 40% of the 10-team CONMEBOL contingent at Copa qualified for the WC...ignoring the fact that they could only qualify teams for the slots they were allocated.
Even making a statement that UEFA only qualified 12/26 teams to the knockouts of the last two WCs, which is less than the 50% they automatically get through in Euro to imply that there is some weakness is iffy. I don't like to play the what-if game, but two in this WC warrant it. Probably the two biggest ref misses in the group stages in the prior two WCs most likely denied UEFA two more spots to the knockouts: Bosnia's incorrectly ruled offside goal v. Nigeria that would have put them up only needing a draw. Then the Suarez incident that should have put URG a man down with less than 20 to play needing a goal. Something as simple as an official looking in the right direction or a linesman calling what he sees rather than what he thinks he sees would have pushed the ratio to 14/26. That's not to say the advancement rate is as good as CONMEBOL's. It isn't (I'd like to see CONMEBOL get 5.5-6 slots myself). It's only to say there is an element of luck that can shift figures dramatically. If Europe was qualifying > 50% of its teams to knockouts, I'm not even sure this is a thread.
Then there's the question of home continent advantage, which carries greater weight in S. America than it would in Europe. Most of the top SA WC players live and play in Europe. You can't say the same about Europeans playing in SA. Has CONMEBOL had a couple of impressive tournaments? Absolutely. How much of this is random chance (and to some extent home continent advantage)? Some of it. Maybe a lot of it. None of us know. But I wouldn't say that the second tier UEFA teams are necessarily bad....yet.
I didn't understand your point the first time around, but yes, there is a widening gap between Euro and WC and it's driven by the fact that quality in the rest of the world has improved. This makes sense. Improvements have diminishing returns, ie, the better you are, the smaller your improvements, so teams below you should close the gap.
By definition, this is incorrect. You get points for beating teams or drawing vs. teams better than you. You can accrue minimal points vs. teams you are supposed to handily beat and then blow them all on a single loss/bad draw if the team was far enough below you and still qualify. Happens all the time. Examples in Euro 2012Q: Netherlands, Portugal, and Croatia wound up losing points from quals despite qualifying. On average you get some points (in that campaign qualifiers averaged a 24 pt bump). Is it enough to explain even half the difference I identified? Nope.
Another pretty misleading statement. CONMEBOL has had a very good run of success, but stating that they've smashed their European competition in 8 of their 11 groups overstates the case. The honest case is this: CONMEBOL has had some very good runs/teams as has Europe. All 7 CONMEBOL quarterfinalists topped their group and by extension their UEFA counterparts 7/7 times (7 out of 8 of their group triumphs over UEFA). 7 UEFA teams made the quarterfinals also, and they also always topped their group...but CONMEBOL teams were only in those groups 3 times. All but one match in your claim is dependent upon the best teams of both avoiding one another...until the quarters at least...where UEFA went 7-1-1 vs. their CONMEBOL counterparts. Replay it again and I doubt UEFA dominates quite to that extent in knockouts, but URG might end up in a 2010 draw v. Germany or Netherlands instead of against S. Africa and a mutiny-riddled France. Or maybe someone gets paired up with Belgium this time. Or Suarez gets caught chomping and the claim can't be made that URG beat both ITA and ENG...and so on.
I stuck to two tourneys because you fixated on two WCs, so I was simply trying to create a more direct comparison, but yeah, I do think two tourneys is light. I have a hunch things are trending one way based upon demographics, size, etc getting leveraged a bit more in S. America today, but it's premature to make declarations at this point and state the bottom half of X is weak, etc. Especially when one of the tournaments of evidence is hosted in a home region where there is still some home continent advantage (not at pre-90s levels mind you, but it still somewhat exists at least).
What's your basis for this? Their club careers?
Kroos was a starter for Bayern and had just won the CL. Now he has won the WC as a starter. Götze and Gündogan were starters for Dortmund and had already won 2 BL championships. Gündogan had also just played a brilliant CL final, even though his team lost. Götze was injured for that final but he's now a WC winner who scored the only goal in the final. Draxler was a regular starter for Schalke since he was 17 and had a lot CL experience. He's still only 20 now. What have the Spanish midfielders done to prove they are better? Ter Stegen was Gladbach's starting keeper since he was 19 years old. He just got the no. 1 shirt at Barcelona. Why is he inferior to de Gea?
Why would these players be defeated easily by Spain's starters?
Gündoğan was bossing every competition he was in. Saying otherwise is either ignorant or lying.
You can say pretty much the same thing for all these Spanish players who have excelled at the club level. They have not made an impact at the NT level because VDB has stuck with the same team. None of these German players you mention would have started for Spain, Goetze wouldn't be on the squad, neither would ter Stegen, Kroos plays in Spain's deepest position he'll even Mata, silva! and Cesc are afterthoughts for Spain..
Did I deny it? Can you read?
Regarding ter Stegen, de get also was a starter at club level and is one of the best right now, why would ter Stegen be better? The original assertion was that Germany's u21 would beat Spain's, the burden of proof is on you, not vice versa.
Typing from my iPhone...