You're being ridiculous. Where on earth am I being stuck up? I do think this Nigeria squad could be special, especially if they get a good draw, and yet, where's the evidence to support this? I've been posting here for a decade and have heard people predicting Nigerian demolition of Euro powers that entire time, and not even predicting the same for Conmebol, Concacaf or UEFA opponents, rather they have tended to just scoff at them. Stuck up, seriously? That's absurd. Nigeria has the capacity to make a run to the semi's. They do. They also have the capacity to fail to even pull out 3 points. There's just no evidence available against the kinds of teams they face, or in history to suggest that this year it will all be different, indeed if you want to stack up the evidence, it suggests this team will find a way to fail like they did at the confed cup and like they did in South Africa. This tournament is in Brasil and it will be far more stacked than the '10 iteration was, leaving little room for error. Nigeria found a way to slip on a banana peel against far lesser sides than their likely to draw this time around. Will they play up to their capacity? Will they fulfill the potential I not only think, but actually KNOW they have? I just don't know, and I find it kind of ridiculous that some are really lambasting other sides, while pointing to a Nigerian side that hasn't proven its any different than the '10, '06, or '02 iterations. I hope they are (unless the US is in their group) as they are immensely enjoyable to watch when they're on their game, but I don't see the reason for such immense confidence, or calling legit criticisms, stuck up, and the opposite of open minded.
In case you missed my editing. Partly also a reply to your question. Never? World Cup 1994. Also group phase of World Cup 1998 (and then a big flop in the 1/8 final). Olympics 1996 (given the opposition it was one of the most impressive Olympic victories, even though like to diss the tournament). They have played as well as some have promised they would. The last decade was a lost decade and given the circumstances this is the first time since 2000 where you can host optimism about this Nigerian squad. How close minded do you have to be to understand this? 2002 and 2010 the optimism was baseless. This time around there is an underlying basis for a certain degree of optimism. A stable dedicated team with no infighting, a star player, good team chemistry, a clear game plan, a fervent capable coach and no backroom issues (save for the typical cash bickering with the Nigerian FA). All eagle is hopelessly trying to explain to you is that Nigeria had various serious issues in the last previous World Cups that were widely known, but Nigeria fans were optimistic simply because they are fans (what did you expect them to do? lament before the games took place?). This time around they have a basis for optimism. Naturally if Mikel again misses the World Cup or Nigeria face the same injury setbacks as in the Confed Cup it'll be all doom and gloom... What the hell is your problem with cautious optimism anyway? Your whole argument is basically 'but they tanked in 2010, so they'll tank in 2014'. Try to be geniune, not just antagonistic. --- If you look at Naija football forums from before the 2010 World Cup you could see a lot of uncertainty, negativity, criticism and defeatism. Right now there is cautious optimism. The mood has changed. But you're just to set in your ways to accept that maybe, just maybe, this Nigerian squad has a better shot at a good showing than they had in 2010, 2002 or maybe even 1998.
Maybe try adjusting the tone of your argument, because your obviously just creating unnecessary fervent with unconsciously flammatory logic constructions. I accept that I misconstrued some of your intentions (as in your perception of this Nigeria squad), but instead of seeking fault outside maybe try and venture why someone may portray your posts the way you did not intend. I can only say this: I frequent Naija forums for something like 5 years. Before the 2010 World Cup all the issues vancity eagle mentioned were touched upon and honestly the only cause for optimism that I found on those forums was the lucky draw. Apart from that it was pretty dark tidings. Fast forward 4 years later and the mood is different. Yes, they are the no-sayers as well as the 'Nigeria will win the World Cup crowd' but the predominant feel is that there is basis for cautious optimism. You will find that all African sides are aiming for the semi-final, but that's just natural given everyone of them wants to be the first such team. But thats not an expectation, just a hope. p.s. I wouldn't exaggerate with the 'far more stacked' comment. It is more stacked, but the difference isn't that enormous. The biggest difference is that there are no evident shrubs this time around and that the FIFA seeding has created a situation where multiple Group of Deaths are possible.
Awww man, you dont want to bring up Uruguay. The butt hurt is still there after 4 years and you're just sticking your finger in it. Dont be cruel. Let him be.
Count me as part of that group. Nigeria is turning things around but we still have not produced the talent at the senior level that we had back in the 90s. There are some exiting players at the youth levels who will soon be able to join young players like Moses, but that's for the future. And as for the confidence from the average Naija concerning the Nigerian Mens National Team, I would think that the existence of not one but two articles present on the first page of an easy Google search that plainly states that Nigerians still aren't sold on this team should pretty much clarify things... http://news.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/foo...suggesting-2014-world-cup-victory_178414.html http://www.punchng.com/news/world-cup-nigerians-differ-over-super-eagles-chances-against-antelopes/
That's a great catch and totally wrong. I also totally forgot that they had a decent '98 cup to boot. That's totally fair, but I do hope you understand my point has been about Nigeria since the aughts. The flagship sterling performances of the nineties belonged to Cameroon in '90 (w/me cheering them all along the way as a 15 year old), and Nigeria in '94 and '98. Cameroon never quite put it together again after 1990, and w/Eto'o, perhaps in part because of that bollocksed up PK in late '05 when the wrong guy took the spot kick. Yeah, that's totally true, but again I hope you understand that that was an error of omission not an error of commission. If you read my posts I also made the same mistakes w/'98.
So I see we're on the same page. My key issue was that vancity eagle tried to say why this time around he feels its different. Not to make excuses for past performances, but to give context. African FAs are largely a mess and none as much as the Nigerian and Cameroonian FAs. But at least the Nigerian FA has seemingly turned a corner. I would really highlight that both in 2002 and 2010 the Nigerian FA ditched the local coach Shaibu Amodu that qualified them for the World Cup using 'a poor Nations Cup' performance as the reason (despite the fact that both times Nigeria finished 3rd in the competition). I'm not a fan of Amodu as well, but it was pure madness to ditch your winning coach for 'a foreign technical advisor' just several months prior to a World Cup, which ended up in them playing odd defensive football with no typical Nigerian flair. Nigeria have been recovering for the ill-fated 2002 ditching of Amodu for 10+ years... For the mess that CAF administration is changing the African Cup of Nations to odd years is a true blessing - hail or storm the coach that qualified for the World Cup can peacefully form his World Cup squad instead of suddenly being thrown of course by the African Cup of Nations (which for some reason in Africa, if you don't win seems to be grounds enough for coach dismissal...) This Nigerian side is most likely nowhere as talented as the 1994 and 1998, which was loaded with top class talent. That said a some of the most exiciting players are young and up-and-coming (Onazi, Moses, Omeruo, maybe Musa, but his finishing is abysmal). But Nigeria does have two players, which are arguably world-class: Mikel and Enyeama (despite his shrugging at Buffon comparisons arguably the best GK ATM in the world). Everything naturally depends on the group and I don't expect too much from Nigeria, but vide the Italy game or the Spain game (contrast that to the ultra-negative bunkerball display vs Argentina in both 2002 and 2010) - you know they will at least put up a fight. --- I would also mention the Cameroon display of 1982. They failed to make it out of the group on goals scored, but they had a winning goal that was 10 meters onside scratched off and they went toe to toe with Italy (eventual cup winners) and Poland (third place). Arguably good enough to win the cup.
in 94 Mexico had a draw with Italy -Eventual finalist In 2006 USA had a draw with Italy -Eventual winners But you wont find fans arguing that they where good enough to win , the fact is that they lacked something that didn't make them winners, and all African/Asian/Concacaf countries still lack that something
All those who know football, one thing can be sure, if Uruguay reach the semi-finals may not be a surprise to anyone.
I think it is more stacked by at least 3 or 4 teams and that makes a huge difference. No offense to any supporters of these teams, but last WC, we knew that there were several clear shrub teams as you mention. Teams we knew were just "completing the groups," so to speak. NZ, Slovenia, North Korea, South Africa. Those are four significantly easier groups a result. Obviously, they played much better than we expected - particularly NZ and Slovenia. But this World Cup, we'll have 4 harder groups. I think that's pretty significant.
Also Slovakia, maybe Algeria. I would also say that South Africa played much better than expected - and definitely better than New Zealand. They weren't that far away from actually making out of the group (hitting the inside of the post vs Mexico near the end of the game or looking likely to thrash France to get through on goal difference) and they actually had their own veritable group of death (they arguably drew the worst possible team from each of the pots).
Yeah, Cameroon lacked unbiased non-pro-UEFA referees back in 1982. It's interesting to note that since in the 80s empiric studies showed referee bias against black players (up to 50%). According to newer studies this tendency has dropped (a recent EPL study showed that black players were 'only' 15% more likely to receive a yellow / red card or have an infraction called against them than white players). Similar metadata was compiled in the NBA and it showed similar bias.
Now that is pretty fascinating and completely believable. If its as bad as it can be in America, still, despite protestations to the contrary, and it is, i can only imagine in the land of monkey chants (Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia etc), its even worse. Over here, despite the race issues, behavior of that sort would result in far more severe instant action and is basically unheard of. So I imagine the bias is probably horrible and it's fascinating because I never thought of that. Reminds me of Surya Boneley (i just massacred her name), the African-French Ice Skater of the late nineties, who always seemed to get sketchy marks from the judges at skating competitions and the olympics. Now she wasn't as graceful and streamlined as some, but she was incredible in technical aspects, and yet the scores were always seemingly a bit deflated by the judges (why i tend to hate sports where winning is determined by "judges"). Anyway fascinating. Of course how do you explain horrible ref work from Latin America and Africa? Italy is still kvetching about the part time coke head/part time coke dealer/part time world cup ref that tossed Totti in the Round of 16 in '02, only to be caught with enough coke to drown a hippo while trying to get through JFK eight years later. Or the talentless hack that completely butchered the US goal that gave us a victory over Slovenia in '10? You know, the guy who inexplicably saw a US foul on our 3rd goal when it was actually Slovenia that was screen captured committing 6 separate fouls in the box on the free kick? What does that mean? The UEFA guys seem to get it done better than the refs coming from less prestigious grounds. I will own, however, I've never heard of a ref from Africa, or Latin America giving a player three yellow cards in one game, something a Brit (or was it Scottish?) ref did in the '06 cup. The less said about the recent ref incident in Brazil the better. Anyway, your point is very intriguing and I'm deeply curious about it.
Don't really have time to get into it now. Maybe later. I have no issue with World Cup refereeing post-2000 as far as UEFA refs are concerned. And in general UEFA and AFC refs are now the best, while the refs from other feds are messing up calls at World Cup matches (CAF, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL). But if you follow World Cup football in the 80s and 90s there is a remarkable number of calls going against non-top teams, especially with regards to African sides.
Sorry! No! Forgot the anti-African biased refereeing of 2006 (watch Switzerland - Togo, Cote d'Ivoire - Argentina or Holland, Tunisia vs Ukraine, to a lesser extent Ghana - Italy). It was like the 90s all over with the 'preferred' teams being preferred, while the minnows were beat down (just to note that poor 2006 refereeing was more of a incessant preference of big teams over small teams, not rascist in general, vide USA and Australia also getting the short end of the stick).
Ignoring Uruguayan trolls. Like I said I don't think its necessarily a race issue, although empirical data suggests that white referees do subconsciously treat black players much harsher. Given that football is dominated by white referees that is a significant issue. I do however feel it's more of a bias towards the 'usual suspects'. I really suggest to you, Grandinquisitor, to rewatch the Cameroon - England game of 1990. I won't discuss whether or not one of the two English penalties was questionable, but its the small calls surrounding the whole situation that were intriguing to observe: the sudden emergence of imaginary offsides and play being halted for the most delicate of nudges. Almost as if a higher power spoke to Suarez the referee and said: England is supposed to win this! That's all I have to say on the issue before Uruguayan trolls flock to the topic.
Too little back then and not enough stuff available online that i could find. First World Cups I remember were '82 in Italy and I saw none of it, and Mexico '86 which I have very fuzzy memories of (I was 11). There was no soccer coverage whatsoever in the United States until the nineties, and no serious coverage until around 2002 when ESPN bought rights to a ton of stuff and started promoting it hard. It's taken off in the past decade but when I grew up it was a rec game for kids (AYSO and CYSA were the only leagues around for kids to come up with). Happy to say things are very different now. Champions League soccer started getting coverage a decade+ ago, something that was never on when I was growing up, and now you can see European League games somewhat regularly on the weekends. Its funny as a kid if you wanted to watch soccer, you had to go to the Mexican TV stations, and for an occasional Italian game on a weird UHF kind of channel it would occasionally pop up on. I never actually saw a cup in earnest until 1990 Italia, which I saw a ton of. Watched every Nigerian game if memory serves, for whatever reason I dont remember the US games. So no experience seeing those ref atrocities you speak of. I know what you're saying though and its a sporting rule. Michael Jordan's Bulls, Joe Montana's Niners, Troy Aikman's Cowboys, Kobe's Lakers etc, flagship teams always get the calls, and the non calls to go their way. It's just a tax lesser teams must pay to win. Its like boxing, if youre fighting the reigning champ, it isn't enough to beat him on decision, you have to absolutely annihilate him to avoid having the refs give it to the title holder by default. The big teams and respected powers get the exact same love when it comes to the refs in soccer. That's why they scream bloody murder on the rare occasion that a call doesn't go their way. Recall Italy having a collective anyeurism after Totti was carded out of the game by the cokehead ref in '02 against the hosts. Italy had no problem with getting a gimme bogus penalty against Australia four years later in injury time, but oh my, it was a crime against god, and all that was good that the mighty Totti would be bounced for going down a little too soft against the hosts. It was high time a minnow got the bogus sort of love the big dogs have been getting for decades, and for complaining Italians (who also whined incessantly when they couldn't get the job done in Euro '04, and needed results from other games on the final match day to advance out of group play), it was a bill long overdue. I think we're seeing a slow diminishing of these problems over time as the Cups have become far more competitive over the past decade. Concacaf used to send a bunch of dogs unless Mexico was hosting. Since '86 they've sent one team besides Mexico into the knockout rounds in '90, '94, '02, and '10, with only '98 and '06 being disappointments. The AFC, a consistent whipping boy of all the feds, suddenly has advanced three different squads into the knockout rounds in '10, and multiple teams to the knockout rounds in 2 of the last three tournaments. That's Huge as the AFC was basically a road apple for UEFA and Conmebol opponents for more than 35 years following North Korea's one shining moment in '66. And then there's the CAF, which while still unable to advance more than 20-25% of its entrants in virtually any of the cups, has developed tremendous depth, and if had the organizational strength and stability of UEFA sides, would likely be sending 2-3 teams to the knockout rounds every cup assuming a little luck in the draw. Its just different now, when I was a kid the only teams worth thinking about were in Europe and South America, today you can count: AFC: S. Korea Japan Australia CAF: Ghana Ivory Coast Concacaf: USA Mexico as sides that can steal a point or three from any team in the world in a serious competition. Just look at the scalps that have been collected by these sides in the last three world cup tournaments alone combined (and I will generously, for them, add a 1 point draw, to the meaning of "scalp"): Victories: Portugal (twice) Poland Russia Serbia and Montenegro Serbia (w/no Montenegro)-Twice Czech Republic France Greece Denmark Italy Spain Draw's: England-Twice Croatia-Twice Italy-Twice Belgium France Slovenia Portugal That's thirteen victories and ten draws against UEFA entrants in the last 3 world cups by these seven AFC, CAF and Concacaf sides. That's really not that bad at all and a massive improvement over the performance in any previous decade. 23 positive results against European sides in three tournaments. That's really an incredible improvement over the past, and it suggests that among the flagship sides of the AFC, Concacaf, and CAF (plus Nigeria once they start proving it), the flagship sides are at least the equals of the random UEFA sides they typically get drawn against, and possibly better in many instances. Its quite intriguing. I imagine the results would dip if '14 was in a UEFA country but it isn't, and it appears the days of UEFA hosting every other tourney are over. My guess is that once Sepp is kicked to the curb, tournaments will probably rotate between AFC, CAF, the Americas, and UEFA tourney to tourney. I tend to doubt it will work out any other way with the only reason it might not work out this way being the question as to whether there are enough viable countries in some feds (and I think if they're going to Qatar they'll go anywhere).
Look, I don't think you can point to individual results. That makes zero sense to me and far too specific, just a case of way to small of a sample size, however I do think you can point to trends and metrics which suggest what happens on a large overall basis. I disagree w/applying the idea to random specific results, i don't have a problem with generalizing them if the statistical studies weren't flawed (and I doubt they were). So I both agree and disagree w/you as I think you sound like you would toss the argument aside generally as well as specifically (I may be wrong about that though).
wtf are you talking about? it's because of bs posts like yours that the zahzahs of this forum continue to spout crap all over the place instead of being ridiculed as they should be.
Geeze. I'm talking about this: if there are studies that have been done on such a thing as racial bias on an international basis in ref decisions (I have no idea if there are, it seems an incredibly bizarre thing to make up), then it wouldn't surprise me in the least that it was true, it would simply reflect a bias that exists throughout the world. My point, if you'd bothered to read it, is that even if the study is accurate, reliable, true, and real, it would still not serve as evidence that an CAF team lost a world cup game because of ref bias. Studies rely on very specific sample's and sample size to project accuracy, you can't simply find a racist individual in Seattle, and suggest that Washington is obviously as racist as Missippippi for instance. If you're going to do a study on racism in the northwest versus racism in the southeast, you need to actually create a random means of testing your thesis, and you need a strong enough random sample size to actually be reliable and predictive and accurate. Pointing to a game, or a ref is the opposite of that kind of approach and ridiculous. There's nothing b.s. to speak of in my post, and your response was really juvenile and ridiculous. How about showing some respect to fellow posters in the forum that are actually inclined to listen, and debate one another, rather than dismiss and disrespect one another? If you're right, with your presumptions and the study is bogus, than your point about it is valid, but if you're simply yelling, internet style because you're annoyed, and haven't bothered to actually think about it or disprove it well, then whose indulging in b.s.?
The more impressive "scalps" in that list were in 2002 (mostly by SK who beat Portugal, Spain and Italy). Not sure if that was very representative of anything. I don't know enough about African football to comment on how they are today, but I still think that despite Ghana's excellent run they were still below the excellence that Nigeria 94 and Cameroon 90 had.