What happened to the World Club Championships? I know they were supposed to have a 2nd one in 2001, but then the sponsor went bust, and then 2002, was WC, so you couldn't have it in the same year. Now I'm hearing that it will be held in 2003 in Spain, where it was supposed to be held in 2001. Has anyone heard anything about this? Did they just scrap the entire thing or what?
I agree it should of been scraped and if it has FIFA has done the best thing it could with the tournament.
I have no idea why but since I can remember Europeans have always been against proving that they have the world's best clubs in the actual playing field.
Or maybes because it was played in South American conditions with no time for the European sides to acclimatise. Had it been held in Manchester in January then you would have seen a different result. The problem with the tournament was that there was no time in the season to play it. I think Blatter still wants it to continue, but I'm not sure which plans are in place. If we were to get a world wide calender for all leagues, then I could see it working, but until then it will just prove a farce.
No idea why? Because we have no need to. What an infantile preoccupation (one driven, often maniacally, by the South American club game and it's HUUUUUGE inferiority complex). Who cares? No really ... stop and think before you answer. WHO. CARES. Just enjoy your football man. Why concoct dull competitions that get in the way of meaningful encounters?
You're right- the World Cup is really the only thing that matters, with club ball filling in the years between.
Translation: My team didn't win, so I must look for external reasons rather than acknowledging that they reached their rightful place and congratulate the winner for doing what my team could not and has not ever done- win in all conditions, on four continents, regardless of the opposition. You really want to know what happened? I'll tell you what happened. Brasil happened. Lol, you would have seen Brasil win in long sleeves! Fvcking please. Most of the Argentines (who biologically are at least as white as Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese, in case someone tries to come here and play the race card with regards to hot weather) and Brasilians live and play in Europe. The Senegalese mostly live and play in Europe. They had to acclimatize just like the UEFA teams did. I guess you think Ronaldo or Roberto Carlos is somehow better suited to hot weather than Desailly or Campbell... Get a clue. Hey, the Germans did just fine in the weather, as they did in Mexico '86, and as the Italians did in USA '94. They just lost to better teams. It ain't the weather- it's the superiority of your opposition. It's all about discipline, conditioning, talent, coaching and belief. Quit making excuses. If you can't do that, at least come up with better ones than the weather. Just play ball.
The difference is that in all the cases you cite, the players have plenty of time to acclimatise. Real Madrid and Man Utd had to travel from a European winter to a Brazillian summer with no time to get accustomed to the conditions, then each play a very strong Brazilian side. If you took a Brazillian side and had them play a game in Russia in December/January with no time to acclimatise then they would struggle. If you took them out there and gave them 2-3 weeks before they had to play then they would do much better. It's often hard for teams just in the Champions League who travel to Kiev or Moscow in late November, so moving from summer to winter or vice versa is going to be even harder.
Way to take one part of an entirely factual post and try in vain to dismantle it. I'll put it more simply... Most of the Selecao live in Europe. Most of the Selecao play in Europe. They experienced the same weather changes as the players who play for UEFA nations. The fact that their passports identify them as Brasilian citizens means absolutely nothing, because most... of... them... don't... live... in... South America. Ianman's post suggested that the hot weather would have affected (example) the Europeans who play for Inter, Roma, Barca, and Real, but not Ronaldo, Cafu, Rivaldo, or Roberto Carlos. That's asinine. I'll say it again: The Germans didn't allow the weather to be a factor. Why can't the rest of UEFA be as disciplined as they?
All right, I was typing while you posted. Sorry. It didn't seem to hurt Roberto Carlos or the Germans (from Bayern and Bayer) who played deep into the Champions League. Look, Man U's internationals don't win when the World Cup is held in Europe, either; why should weather be an excuse now? What would it take for you to simply admit that your team was outclassed, outworked, outdisciplined and outthought? How many titles must Brasil win, in how many different continents, against how many opponents? Some of you will never be convinced, no matter what the Selecao does.
Huh, I've read all the posts and haven't seen anybody dening that Brazil are a great team or denying that they are worthy world Champs, or denying that their respected teams only lost due to weather conditions. However I have seen posters merely pointing out that different weather conditions do have an effect on certain teams. Do you really think that if a team who plays in cold conditions for four years then plays in hot conditions for a month isn't effected by the change ? Do they have super thermal skin ?
Regardless of the weather, the fact remains that the European teams don't want the tournament. It was seen as little more than a way for FIFA to generate more money for itself via TV revenues. Manchester United were rubbish, no doubting that (and there was precious little defence of their play in the media over here) but the body language of players during the matches made it obvious they had no desire to be there. Even the unofficial world club championship held each year in Tokyo generates precious little interest in Europe. Maybe it should be held, but by invitation only. That way if the Euro champions drop out, a team that actually wants to be there could take their place instead.
No. What I'm saying is that aside from the few days of training the main CONMEBOL teams (Argentina and Brasil) had before each of their qualifiers, most of these players spent the last four years in the same place as their UEFA counterparts- Europe. It's not like the bulk of Brasil's finals starting XI was even around for most of the qualifiers, anyway, and when they were, they didn't stay in South America for long, as they had to return to Europe for league play. No one got the benefit of significant playing time in weather similar to that in J/K but the second-tier CONMEBOL teams, the CONCACAF teams, and the hosts.
So the fact that Beckham et al play there football in cold wet conditions in England for four years whilst Carlos etal play their football in the sunny and humid conditions of Spain and Italy had nothing to do with it ? Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that differing conditions play an important role in how a team performs nor can it be given as an excuse as why a team was defeated, except in extreme conditions search terenchel rain or icy pitch. I just think it's a bit naive to claim that weather coditions have abosolutely no effect on a teams performances.
How did the World Cup get involved in this? Brazil won the tournament because they played the best football and because they prepared best for the competition. Rather than work on skills in the month or so preparation time that teams had, Scolari concentrated on fitness and it showed - only Korea were as physically strong. Germany also worked hard on stamina levels, and they reached the finals. England's preparation was largely based on technique and set-pieces, and it showed - they were not physically strong enough to last the full 90 minutes in every game. Brazil prepared best for the finals, and coupled with the quality of players they had, they were worthy champions. But back to the World Club Championships. I challenge anyone to spend 6 months training in Manchester during Autumn/Winter, and then move to summertime Brazil and expect identical results the next day. It is not physically possible for most people to not see a drop in standards. This translated into under-par performances, which along with the fact that the players did not want to be there, meant that the real Man Utd and the real Real Madrid did not participate.
Big enough to admit when I'm wrong... There's obviously some confusion here, and I can see that I am the cause of it. I misread "WCC"(World Club Cup) in n00bie deluxe's post as "WC" (World Cup), which obviously completely changes the way weather fits into the equation. I didn't even give it enough thought to check, because this is a tangent that often occurs in these threads. As a result, Ianman, when you posted the bit about European teams not being acclimated to the weather, I was under the impression that you were talking about England's loss to Brasil at the World Cup. That's why I responded the way I did- some posters have tried to use weather as a World Cup excuse when they should simply have praised Brasil for being the superior team, and been done with it. Bocatuna, I interpreted your response as a defense of said excuse. My posts were appropriate in the context of the World Cup, but not for a club tournament. I apologize to the both of you, and will now slink quietly away to wipe the egg from my face.