World Cup Expansion to 48 Teams (Update: FIFA Council Agrees 2026 Slot Allocation)

Uruguay was also continental champions (Copa America) in 1983, 1987 and 1995.
For the last 40 years time frame, they won twice the amount of continental championships that Argentina won in the same time frame (together with Brazil, also the ones to guilt for not allowing Maradona to ever win it, in his life).

 

also continental champions in the 60's(once)
in the 80's(twice)
in the 90's(once)
world cup semifinalists in the 70's
besides the obvious golden era of the 20's and 30's

consistency anyone?

How many other NT within the seven aforementioned can match that?

 

Yes, I was only focusing on this decade to show Uruguay is no Hungary or England, a has been.

 

He did "get away with it". Had he not handballed Uruguay were out. Because of the handball Uruguay got an unfair opportunity to survive.

I can fully understand why he did it, and I think a number of other players might have had the same reaction too. That doesn't stop it being cheating though. It doesn't stop being cheating if you get caught.

And I repeat, if an English player had done that, there'd be no defence of it from people who defend Suarez now.

If you are happy to say that in your opinion there's been no difference between England and South Korea (or Uruguay and South Korea) over the last 40 years of the world cup, and both have been consistently at the same level throughout that time, that's fine.

Some might suggest your opinion lacks a little credibility as a result though.

Others might suggest that picking only one data point for each, and ignoring all the rest, for nearly half a century of world cup play, distorts your findings somewhat.

Choose different data points, such as making the last 16 or 8, and the pictures changes rather, showing up flash-in-the-pan results

Time in Last 16 (12 in 1982)
12 - Brazil,
12 - Germany
10 - Italy, Argentina
9 - Mexico,
8 - England, Spain, Holland
7 - Sweden, Belgium
6 - Belgium, Uruguay, France
5 - Bulgaria
4 - Poland, Paraguay, Chile, USA
3 - USSR/Russia, Denmark, Ireland, Romania, USA




Times in Last 8 (top 2 of 2nd group stage in 82)
11 - Germany
10 - Brazil
8 - Argentina
7 - Italy
6 - England
5 - France, Holland
4 - Spain
3 - Poland
2 - USSR/Russia, Uruguay, Mexico, Peru, Yugoslavia, Austria

* taken from an earlier post using 1970 as a start point.

 

Ah yes. People love football because it's possible to cheat without adequate punishment.

Maybe I should introduce another poster, who claims that like Uruguay, The The Netherlands have no right to be included in a list of consistently strong world cup nations, as they'd done nothing for decades until a recent world cup - clearly he agrees that historical results count for little.

Here he is...

 

Many reasons, one of them because it's a sport that requires talent and courage to succeed, which has been lacking for England for some time but not for Uruguay.

The Dutch, let's not forget, have not won the World Cup. However, two straight WC semifinals refute my statement overall. In any event, to pick one more team to join Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, France, Spain and the Netherlands, it has to be Uruguay.

 

And I would bet you over the next 30 years England will win more world cup matches than Uruguay.

Uruguay are doing brilliantly of late, but like any small nation, a great team can only last so long, and their results will invariably slide back towards their mediocre norm.

Similarly, England will invariably rise back to their losing-in-the-quarter-finals-on-penalties norm over time.

 

So cheating is now a courageous noble ideal now?

Only if you think the distant past is relevant to football of today.

 

He didn't get away with it.
He got a direct red card, the same as anyone who handles the ball deliberately inside the penalty zone, just as how it is written in the rule book, and according to it, he was sanctioned.

Hey man, if you don't like the rules, go complaint to the IFAB, which is in fact, 50 % under the United Kingdom's administration . For the rest of the world, we play the game accordingly to the rules that they write for the game.

you think that Suarez didn't know what was coming for him, when he decided to put his hands ?

He knew it and therefore, he inmediately accepted the red card as it came and walked out of the pitch, as he knew that what he had done is described as one of the worst foul plays in football, which is sanctioned. It is not as if he had done something wrong, pretending that it never happened.
It's a foul play, a very ugly one, but still a foul play. And since it happened in the penalty box, a penalty kick gets called, which it also was called. Everything was done according to the rule book.

The only thing that wasn't done right, was to kick the penalty kick trying to knock down an angel sitting on a cloud.

Nobody is defending Suarez.
He got punished as how the rule book dictates it to be.
If you can't see the facts, I can't help you.

Yeah, they can think whatever they want. I have no control over that.
But as there are some who think the same way as you do, there are also others who think exactly the same way as I do.

That's why this is a debate forum.....

members express their opinions, which not necessarily will be the same

 

Winning matches, losing on penalties, etc... only losers care about them, the only thing that means something are titles.
Make it about titles and I very confidently take that bet.
Uruguay's crappy little football league keeps creating more talent than the mighty EPL and will continue to do so.

 

Curious statement coming from someone who defends a team that has only won 1 (one) WC at home, and has not even won once their continental championship, whom talks about another team who has won 2 (two) WC's, one at home and one away, and as to now, it is the team that has won the biggest amount of continental championships of any team round the whole world, and whom happens to also have an historic better head to head results, playing against his own team, both at the WC and /or at friendlies.

http://www.11v11.com/teams/england/tab/opposingTeams/opposition/Uruguay

I grant it to you.
It is very difficult to beat the englishmen when it gets to over rating their own NT.

 

I don't see any difference between what Suarez did and the action Ole Gunnar Solskjaer did against Newcastle back in the 90s. Solskjaer was applauded as he went off as his actions were understandable and accepted by all. I've never heard anyone say Solskjaer "cheated". If anything, Solskjaer is viewed as a 'hero' by Manchester United supporters the same way Suarez is by Uruguayans. They did whatever action was required - by hook or crook - to help their team stay in the game.

And isn't it Terry Butcher who has often said that whenever he sees video of Maradona's second goal against England in '86 he says to himself, "Right THERE! I should have fouled him right there."

 

I agree. Why should a "tactical" foul be judged differently than a "tactical" handball? What makes one "better" or "worse" than the other?

(As long as they are punished by the ref accordingly, of course...)

 

And Uruguay will reach more semifinals, and perhaps even beyond.

Possibly even before the quarterfinals.

Your definition of cheating, not mine nor apparently FIFA's or any of the continental confederations.

 

As a direct result of his cheating, his team stayed in the world cup, when otherwise they'd definitely have gone out.

For him? Yes. For Uruguay, it gave them a chance they didn't deserve. When Suarez went mad in the tunnel after the penalty miss, he didn't look like a man suffering to much for his actions.

That's precisely correct. Sometimes though, punishments don't fit the crime.

The only thing that wasn't done right, was to kick the penalty kick trying to knock down an angel sitting on a cloud.

And I maintain, if an English player had done it, it would be regarded as the worst example of cheating ever.

Probably, but the latter category will only be people who can't help but carry their world rivalries biases into what should be proper discussions.

Nobody in their right mind would seriously believe a team that's got out of the group stage twice in their entire history has been consistently at the same level as England over the past 40 years.

Unfortunately you've kind of painted yourself into a corner with that stance, so you are left with just the options of looking hopelessly biased or looking ridiculous.

Have fun with that!

 

Yes, because Uruguay's current short term good spell and England's short-term weak spell can safely be extrapolated for decades.

Uruguay, because they've been good for a few years, somehow are supposed to be immune to the fallow years that have invariably impacted every small nation, including Uruguay, throughout the history of the game.

Err...you don't think FIFA thinks deliberate handball is cheating?


The daft thing in all of this is that this little exchange came about because somebody was so hung up on England that he couldn't even let a comment refuting the world cup being too big at 32 teams lie, because it had a list suggesting that you might as well have a world cup with just 8 strong nations in it every time if that's all you are interested in. It was not a deep discussion on who the best 8 world cup teams are.

Such biases destroy any attempt at genuine discussion, which is why we have the world rivalries forum, where people can bash out their petty grievances to their heart's content. Sadly, for some people, leaving it there is never enough.

 

It shouldn't. One isn't worse than the other.

Stopping a definite goal though, to me anyway, is worse than stopping a possible shot at goal, and IMO opinion should be punished worse.

In rugby they have a "penalty try" decision, where the referee judges that a player has committed an infringement because if he didn't a try would have been scored, but that's really another discussion.

The professional foul red card was brought in because so many thought taking a yellow through cheating and bringing a player down, was a better option than letting him run through and have a shot.

The unfortunate downside now is that you see players being sent off for fouls where the player has gone down under minimal contact. In other words people are being sent off for committing accidental professional fouls, which is a complete contradiction.

 

Probably, but nevertheless, you would be still cellebrating in total madness for winning the match.
It's not for nothing, but many of the most dirtiest players of history, were english or foreigners which played at the EPL. Many of which are regarded as heroes by your fans, both at club level and at NT level.
(nowdays even this same Suarez, is still regarded almost as their best player ever at Liverpool, for example)

It always is lots easier to talk about something disgusting, when it is others the ones involved, but it will always be harsh to talk about it, when it affects your own. Yours here, is just an hypocritical atitude, condemning others when they use questionable tactics, when at the same time you guys do it all the time.

When your objective, before actually playing a WC, is to win it all, even being a finalist is being a loser (the loser with the highest position, but still just another loser, the same as whom ended at the bottom of the rankings of the tournament). The only thing that counts, for almost everybody, is to reach the highest position possible.
And for England, the same as for South Korea, it was to be 4th once, during the last 40 years. And the only consistency that they both have (which is the same), is that despite how many times you have played diferent WC tournaments in the last 40 years time frame, is that sooner or later your teams got elimininated before reaching the top 4, of any of those tournaments.

 

October 2007
Merseyside derby
Everton 1-1 Liverpool when this happened in injury time...



Kuyt converted the spot kick to give Liverpool the victory.

Does anyone view Phil Neville's action any different than Suarez's? If so, I've never seen it mentioned anywhere in this forum.
Did either of them "cheat"?
To me, it's irrelevant. They did what was required to give their teams the best opportunity of avoiding defeat. As others here have mentioned, it should be expected by any and every player in a similar situation to attempt to do the same.
For me, a player who deliberately dives in the box without contact and asks for a penalty is more a "cheater" as he's attempting to deceive the officials. Neville and Suarez never tried to deceive.

 

If Kuyt would have decided to kill another angel (kick the ball out), would have been exactly the same situation, as both matches would have ended in a draw with exactly the same score : 1-1

What came afterwards in the penalty kick definition for the 2010 WC quarters match, is just another story....

(btw, great spot on post, rep for it)

 

Exactly.
And did you hear the pundit in that video (sounds like Andy Gray)?
"Well, there's no option here, Phil Neville. He knows there's only a couple of minutes left. He knows that he's just gotta dive there and hope his goalkeeper can do something."
Never suggested Neville as being a "cheater". On the contrary, he actually appears to condone Neville's actions.

 

Uruguay, unlike any other small nation and most big nations, has won the World Cup. Since you care so much about the past 40 years, Uruguay has given in this period of time Francescoli and Suarez, two legendary players greater than any to come from England during this time frame.

Which is why FIFA awards a free kick/penalty kick for it. Just like it does for any other kind of foul too.

You also seem very hung up that Uruguay is on this list, despite their various successful runs in the tournament.

 

All-time World cup table:

1. Brazil 227 points
2. Germany 218
   
3. Italy 156
   
4. Argentina 140
   
5. Spain 99
   
6. England 98
   
7. France 96
   
8. Netherlands 93
9. Uruguay 72
   
10. Sweden 61

Note the big gap between #8 and 9.

 

In points?
Or trophies?

 

Yeah, since the context here is 'recent performance' I think the trophy count is essentially 0-0 in this case.

The good thing also about using the all-time table is that it puts more weight on recent WCs since they are bigger tournaments that involve more matches played, while not totally discounting older WCs for those people that have a more lenient definition of 'recent'.