This seems to be a big discussion with El Tri fans. In my opinion the Confederations cup is the better award, and is our highest footbaling achievement. But I think we can all agree that the Olymlics was a very huge part of our growth. The fact Neymar was priced at around 36 million euros and our entire squad was at about 39 says a lot. Your thoughts?
Olympic gold and its not close at all. The 99 Confed Cup was a nice start, but it does not carry the prestige of an olympic gold medal. A couple of reasons. The confed cup in 99 was very different than the one we have now. Right now the confed cup is seen as a good warm up for the WC, but in 99 it was still a relatively new tournament with very little prestige or history. Most teams were reluctant to come; France decline to come. While the Brazil squad that we beat was a talented one, it was not their main NT Under those conditions and considering we were the host, i think we were always one of the favorites to win it. Imo winning the gold medal in a foreign land against what is essentially the main brazil squad (minus a couple of guys.. maybe) has a lot more merit The gold medal won in London is easily the greatest achievement of any concacaf nation
I agree with a lot of your points. But I wouldn't say it is not close at all. I understand the 99' was a different format...but so was the World cup. Yes, it would have been better had France gone, but Germany is no slouch either. So winning a tournament with Brazil, and Germany is still very impressive. Although you hit it on the head with foreign land. 100%. Playing and winning in front of 88,000 in Europe is amazing.
Germany was just bad during that era. They went to the Euro and only got 1 point and even got demolished by Portugal´s B team a la Mexico 2006. That being said I think it´s the confederations cup for the fact that it was a senior tournament over the youth tournament even if it´s the closest thing to a senior tournament. That being said it´s right up there.
germany was so bad, they lost to england after 34 years (lost twice) and caused the coach's dad to have a heart during the second defeat. that's how bad they were.
Yeah the Ribbeck era is probably the worst time for the national team and they kept struggling but suddenly got to the WC final. That´s why 2002 was the weirdest world cup ever. You had a final between two teams that were probably at their lowest point ever just a year before.
http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/stories/classicqualifiers/news/newsid=709638.html it's a bit of a reach though, because it was no longer ribbeck, but voller, who was not quite as bad. outside of the 2002 wc, he was not very good either though. one of the worst to put on a german jersey.
I think the olympic gold longer tournament and to win it in england is BIG. the 99 confeds cup was great too, but the way we exited the world cup 2 years later kinda made the win of the confeds not so great.
i agree with this, also the one thing i loved about this gold medal win was the long road from copa america and how it is still going, we still have a couple tourneys and qualifiers to go and then theres the world cup at the end, we have an exciting couple of years ahead of us.
Every competition should stand on its own. I we don´t do good at Brazil, it doesn´t mean the gold medal get´s diminished. Besides 99 was the culmination of the 98 team and didn´t have much to do with 2002 thanks to Lebrija. We had the Meza era in between.
Actually the way Mexico played in the 2001 confeds cup made the 99 not so great. Pinche Ojitos and his Toluca players made us look like a facking joke in Korea/Japan 2001, I don't think anyone in 2002 made any connections between the world cup and the confeds cup in 99. And IMO there should not even be a debate between which is better to me is the olympics, the Confeds cup is not much IMO, and it was even less back in '99 when it was held every two years.
ugh...the Meza era is what i call the "dark ages" that team was beyond pathetic Lapuente should have never been fired in the first place
everyone started freaking out after the last minute win against panama and the loss to trinidad and tobago. lapuente righted the ship somewhat, but with the team ojitos had built at toluca he seemed destined for success on the NT. no one envisioned the first brucenaccio debacle, the aztecazo, and the ass raping pavon gave the NT when they hired meza, the players he called (especially his toluca buddies) to be so bad, the loss where the team looked lost against bulgaria, the loss to colombia where campos let a ball go through the middle, and they gave up a 2 goal lead after omar blanco gifted the game winner...., the ass kicking england handed out before confederations, the confederations where the only goal came from a victor ruiz and the butterfingered korean keeper.... maybe everyone kept thinking happy thoughts and about the brazil game in guadalajara and hoped the team would play like that again. maybe they weere being hindered by those ugly ass jerseys
also, just because you play a tournament in at home, it does not make it any less prestigious. It still the same trophy you get at home or abroad. does the u17 world cup 2011 mean less than then one in 2005? I don't think so
Let's be real. Playing abroad presents a lot more problems than being at home... especially when you have such a big home field advantage in the Azteca. There is enough data to suggest that playing at home helps your overall performance