Argentina vs Germany: Final Match Game Day Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'World Cup 2014 - Knockout Rounds' started by bungadiri, Jul 11, 2014.

  1. raviept

    raviept Member

    Jun 11, 2010
    Braga
    Club:
    Sporting Braga
    Nat'l Team:
    Portugal
    Don't forget the group Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, and Portugal from Euro 2012. We haven't seen such a group in any of the two competitions for a very long time. Netherlands was not at its best and was eliminated without standing a chance, a team that reached the final in 2010 and the semis in 2014.
     
    jerrito repped this.
  2. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    Yeah, I only looked at the paths of the eventual champion. There are of course many examples like yours. I previously mentioned that Germany failed to get out of the group stage in both 2000 and 2004, but in-between reached the World Cup final.
    As I said, historically, the quality density was just so much higher at EUROs. The eventual winner has to climb a steep mountain in either tournament, and admittedly the World Cup is probably slightly more challenging to win, but of the flip side, it was always easier for a mediocre team to give a good showing at the World Cup while being obliterated at the EUROs. Whether this will hold up remains to be seen. This time around, the quality of the World Cup really was very good and mediocre teams like England who would have made an impact in past tournaments went home with one point (against a Costa Rican B-team no less).
    On the other side of the coin, the 24 team EURO will take a lot of suspense out of the group phase which is a real shame.
     
  3. Brasitusa

    Brasitusa Member+

    AC Milan
    Italy
    May 14, 2014
    Club:
    New York City FC
    The quote didn't show. Oh, maybe it's someone I have on ignore, that's why the quote wouldn't show. Sorry for the confusion.
     
  4. Brasitusa

    Brasitusa Member+

    AC Milan
    Italy
    May 14, 2014
    Club:
    New York City FC
    Exactly. And then, after the 7-1 thumping, I'm quite sure that Brazilians will respect Germany forever and ever, LOL.
     
  5. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    That must be it...
     
  6. Brasitusa

    Brasitusa Member+

    AC Milan
    Italy
    May 14, 2014
    Club:
    New York City FC
    Sure, but if you look at the fact that the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Greece have all won the Euro but not the World Cup, you'll understand that winning the World Cup is way more difficult for various reasons - other great players ineligible to play in the Euros, other top teams and other worthy contenders in the WC, geographic displacements, like you said climate and football style, etc. Similarly, Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Colombia have all won the Copa America and never amounted to much in the World Cup.

    I hear the Europeans in this discussion but just by paying attention to what I just said one realizes how much harder the full World Cup is, above any regional competition in the entire world. There is a reason it is called the WORLD Cup.
     
  7. Cris 09

    Cris 09 Trololololo

    Nov 30, 2004
    Westfalenstadion
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    The Euro's run the risk of becoming watered down with the expansion as well.
     
  8. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    Yep, it won't be easier to win it, but it takes away the brutal group phase.
     
  9. raviept

    raviept Member

    Jun 11, 2010
    Braga
    Club:
    Sporting Braga
    Nat'l Team:
    Portugal
    But that's your mistake, saying that teams like Bolivia or Peru winning the Copa America is equivalent to Greece or Denmark winning the Euro. It's not, because these two have reached the WC multiple times. Greece even have qualified out of the group in this last WC. And Checoslovaquia, Netherlands, and Soviet Union have at least once reached the final or semis of the WC. So, the difference between the Euro and WC, in terms of difficulty of winning it, is not much much greater than having one more knockout round. Statistically, you can expect that a team that reaches a final of a Euro has the quality to at least reach the semi of the WC. Denmark and Greece are exceptions, I agree, but they were nowhere near teams like Venezuela or Bolivia in terms of quality, like some claimed here. They had to beat at least four top European teams. That should prove that they were good.

    This is not to say that UEFA is better than CONMEBOL. Only that there are many more competitive teams in Europe, making the Euros very competitive and with a dimension and quality density close to the WC. The main differences have already been stated here.
     
  10. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    Club:
    VfB Stuttgart
    Well, you can't go back that far. I'd say that the EURO only became as big a deal over time. Heck, when the Soviet Union won it, the biggest nations didn't even bother to compete. There was no Germany, no England, no Italy, no Spain, etc. Only 17 teams entered.

    By the 1970s, it was accepted as another major tournament, but I'd say that it only reached its current status with the expansion to 16 teams in 1996, because that transformed it into a proper tournament with real play-offs, etc.

    But even so, Czechoslovakia was a genuinely good team in 1976, the Netherlands may never have won a WC, but they reached the final three times and were somewhat unlucky to never win it. Denmark certainly profited from the smaller tournament back in 1992 which increases the chances of a surprise team, but they still had to beat quality opponents in the form of a brilliant Dutch team and the defending World Champion Germany, as well as surviving the group stage with host Sweden as well as France and England...I dunno abut France, but England was certainly World Class back then, semi finalist in 1990 and probably quite a bit better than the eventual runner up Argentina, yet they didn't make it out of their group.
    The only case where you might have a point is Greece. Again, they had to legitimately beat lots of top teams and they even did so under the 16 team format, but they stunned Europe with their old-school defensive tactics with man marking, etc., something we hadn't seen since the early 1990s. It's certainly conceivable that this trick wouldn't have worked on teams from Africa or the Americas.
     
  11. Brasitusa

    Brasitusa Member+

    AC Milan
    Italy
    May 14, 2014
    Club:
    New York City FC
    #1561 Brasitusa, Jul 23, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2014
    Again you make good points, but it is telling that only a handful of countries out of the 208 FIFA countries have won the World Cup, while obviously the regional tournaments in all six confederations have had a much larger number of winners. The thing is, the World Cup has many more intangibles. You just mentioned one - a certain style of defensive tactics allowed Greece to win the Euro while conceivably it wouldn't have worked on teams from other continents.

    See, when Germany ties a game with an African nation - Ghana - in the World Cup, when top teams have a lot of trouble getting passed supposed lowly competition like Algeria and Costa Rica, it takes a toll. It's harder to keep advancing and surviving these scares. One collects injuries and yellow car/red card bans. One needs a lot of depth. One needs to be flexible and adapt to different styles and be able to come up with solutions in order to do well against vastly different (but still hard-to-beat) teams. Also, you are often playing in unfamiliar territory, after traveling huge distances and even having to adapt your body to the local strains of bacteria in the water and the food, as well as different time zones, different temperatures and humidity, even different subspecies of grass for the field, and different behaviors from the fans. Add to that the fact that while your regional opponents are used to facing you and vice-versa and even though you praise your tournament they might not feel like it is such a special occasion, the regional tournaments won't be felt by players as the Holy Grail of the World Cup in a professional player's career, so the stamina and resolve and full-blown effort you will see in your opponents will be much fiercer in the World Cup. The sheer fact that professional players are being exposed to two billion viewers from all over the world (including scouts) will make them try to play the game of their lives when they are competing in the World Cup, including, to increase their market value for contracts. Say, a player from Costa Rica who isn't as good to compete for a spot in the top European clubs, might still hope for a rich Middle Eastern sheik to want to hire him for his team, or to land a spot in the Japanese league or something. That player will be trying as hard as he can to be noticed since it could be his ticket to escape relative poverty and obscurity.

    You know, get a young player going through the development leagues and ask him what is his ultimate goal in life as far as his future activity as a player is considered. You might hear very often "one day, play in the World Cup, hopefully score a goal there, maybe win it." I'm quite sure you wouldn't hear that someone's ULTIMATE goal is to... play in the Copa America or the Euro. That's also the prestige factor, and it counts. It is an important factor regarding the level of effort. A professional player would be ready to die for an opportunity to play in the World Cup... not so much in a regional tournament.

    You add it all, and the endurance required to get to the WC final and win it is probably several orders of magnitude higher than what is needed for a regional tournament.

    You guys can't reduce all the multiple factors involved into just "another round, beating an additional top team." It's just not that, which is very much suggested by the fact that only a very restrict, very narrow elite of football nations have ever won the World Cup, while the field is a lot more open as far as regional tournaments go.
     
  12. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    I would put it this way. On a scale of 1 to 10 for the average European, including players, winning the World Cup is, of course, a 10. Winning the Euro varies, but for most probably not less than 6, and probably not higher than 8. A few (less than 10%) might put it at 9. I doubt more than 1 in 100 would put it equal to the World Cup at 10.

    I don't know about South Americans and the Copa America, but from what I've read it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as important to SA fans as the Euro is to Europeans. Or the Gold Cup to CONCACAF folks.
     
  13. Brasitusa

    Brasitusa Member+

    AC Milan
    Italy
    May 14, 2014
    Club:
    New York City FC
    #1563 Brasitusa, Jul 23, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2014
    Yeah, that sounds right. For South Americans winning the Copa America is fun especially when the main rivals reach the semis and the final, but as compared to the World Cup? Probably not higher than a 5. The WC qualifiers probably rank higher for South Americans than the Copa America and of course qualifying is a big deal, but even beyond qualifying, doing well on it, placing higher on it than the main rivals, probably is ranked higher than even winning the Copa America and would be 7 or 8. This is probably why we have some trouble understanding all this enthusiasm for the Euro among our European friends.

    I feel that North and Central Americans care more for the Gold Cup than South Americans do for the Copa America. I mean, it is not infrequent that South Americans won't even send their A teams to Copa America, while definitely North and Central Americans will try do do very well in the Gold Cup, especially regarding the Mexico-USA rivalry. This of course may be because the Gold Cup is actually the *one* official competition that our national teams *can* win... since we are very far from being able to win the World Cup or even the Confederations Cup (although we did get close).

    Brazil has at times sent even its C team, not even B, to compete in the Copa America, while of course all countries send their A teams to the WC Qualifiers. So, placing ahead of Argentina in the qualifiers seems more important than winning the Copa America which may or may not have the best players.

    Also, people seem to pay a lot more attention to the Libertadores Cup than to the Copa America. Of course, they will do so when their clubs are in it, which is true for just a minority of the clubs, but oh boy, there are lots of passion flying around from even the group stages of the Libertadores, and winning it all can become a rather ferocious all-out war (almost literally, since at times there are incidents, some of them even with fatalities among the supporters). We just don't see the same level of passion for the Copa America.

    So I'd say that in South America, the two main competitions are the World Cup (including finals and qualifiers), and the Libertadores, with other tournaments such as the Copa America and the Copa Sudamericana being very much secondary.

    Now, one interesting aspect is that South Americans are actually very fond of both the Confederations Cup, and the FIFA Club World Cup, something that Europeans largely despise, if I understand them correctly. I'd say that provided that the native country is involved, people will be more likely to root passionately for their national team in the Confederations Cup than in the Copa America (paradoxal as it might sound, because you need to win the latter in order to compete in the former). To a lesser degree, the FIFA Club World Cup will also foster some passion - both for the South American representative, and against it. For example, the last edition, when my club Cruzeiro's archirivals Atletico Mineiro played the FIFA Club World Cup in which they crashed and burned and got eliminated before the final, Cruzeiro fans were faithfully following the proceedings, rooting against Atletico. People would pay a lot more attention to that than to some Copa America game unless it involved Brazil vs. Argentina.
     
    igorcsso and Hayaka repped this.
  14. raviept

    raviept Member

    Jun 11, 2010
    Braga
    Club:
    Sporting Braga
    Nat'l Team:
    Portugal
    Again, it's because the Euro is much more than a regional competition. It's not on the same level as the Copa America.
     
  15. Tukafo

    Tukafo Member+

    Oct 12, 2013
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    But why shouldn't people value their regional tournament? Football fans around the world also greatly value their local league and follow it with great intensity, they cry when their club team does poorly and they celebrate for weeks if their team wins the league. So why should regional nations tournaments be any differently?
    Most European national teams have great rivalries with other European teams. Also matches like Spain-Portugal, England-France or Italy-Germany have massive pulling power and they never grow old. It 's not as big as a WC but it's not that far behind in prestige for us.
     
  16. Brasitusa

    Brasitusa Member+

    AC Milan
    Italy
    May 14, 2014
    Club:
    New York City FC
    #1566 Brasitusa, Jul 23, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2014
    You know, the insight I've just had, is that our WC Qualifiers *are* our "Euro-equivalent," not our Copa America. Because, see, your WC qualifiers are scattered around and your main teams don't compete directly against each other in the qualifiers, so outside of the WC finals themselves, it's only in your Euros that you directly face each other.

    We do our CONMEBOL qualifiers with all South American nations directly competing against each other, round-robin home and away, and it happens every four years (spread out over a long two-year period so it's always present in our minds), with the A teams involved. *This* is what then gets to result in bragging rights - if Brazil ends up ahead of Argentina, or Chile ahead of Colombia, or Uruguay ahead of Paraguay, etc.

    So, the every-two-years short-lived Copa America with nations not even always sending their A teams, becomes much less important.
     
  17. Brasitusa

    Brasitusa Member+

    AC Milan
    Italy
    May 14, 2014
    Club:
    New York City FC
    #1567 Brasitusa, Jul 23, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2014
    Hm... you seem to have quoted the wrong post, since the one you quoted was not about regional competitions.

    Anyway, well, I think I just found the right answer to this question, I hope. Read my post about the WC Qualifiers in South America versus the Copa America. So, it's not that we don't uphold our regional competitions, it's more because most likely we feel that the real one is the Qualifiers to which we send our A teams and in which everybody is also represented all together in one big group (unlike in Europe), while we don't even always send our A teams to Copa America.
     
  18. Brasitusa

    Brasitusa Member+

    AC Milan
    Italy
    May 14, 2014
    Club:
    New York City FC
    #1568 Brasitusa, Jul 23, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2014
    I'd say, the Euro is *felt* as much more than a regional competition... because seriously, you guys *do* need to realize that good as it might be, it actually *is* a regional competition...

    Why, do you have any non-European nations in the Euro? Do you have foreign (as in non-European, non-naturalized) players competing in the national teams during the Euro? No to both questions? There you go, the Euro *is* a regional tournament.
     
  19. Tukafo

    Tukafo Member+

    Oct 12, 2013
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    Brazil, Italy and Germany are historical elite, Argentina most certainly are not. Argentina never even played a role in World Cups until they hosted it in 1978 (and no, 1930 doesn't count). They then had a great decade followed by 20 years without even a semifinal appearance. Not a bad nation by any means but not a historical superpower on par with the others
     
  20. Brasitusa

    Brasitusa Member+

    AC Milan
    Italy
    May 14, 2014
    Club:
    New York City FC
    I know that they are underachievers... but most of the time with great teams and great players, which is probably why most people think of them as having the pedigree. I mean, what fun is a World Cup without Argentina? They are a very important part of the show - and they've reached some finals as well, even when they didn't win. When you think of a Maradona, a Messi... people do look up to Argentina. These things sometimes are more subjective than objective. I still sustain that fans around the world would quote Argentina as belonging to the elite.

    But hey, as a Brazilian, I won't need a lot of incentive from you to drop them from the elite, hehehe. ;)
     
  21. Tukafo

    Tukafo Member+

    Oct 12, 2013
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    The Club World Cup is easy to dismiss for Europeans because the opposition is significantly wesker than in the Champions League. My team is the current World Club champions and they achieved that by beating Gangzhou Evergrande from China and Raja Casablanca. Sorry, but not exactly very sexy compared to. Juventus, Barcelona or. Real Madrid. The Confed Cup is looked down upon because it has no depth. Of the eight best teams in the recent World Cup only one participated in the Confed Cup (and they wouldn't have even played in the Confed Cup if they hadn't been the host).
     
  22. raviept

    raviept Member

    Jun 11, 2010
    Braga
    Club:
    Sporting Braga
    Nat'l Team:
    Portugal
    #1572 raviept, Jul 23, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2014
    Ok, saying it differently, the Euro is a regional competition with half the teams of the WC, most of the contenders, and the same format. The qualifiers are the same for both competitions, so your comparison with your qualifiers is not accurate. The intangible factors you mentioned play a varying, sometimes insignificant, role. You can say that WC2006 was a Euro with one additional round and many teams that did not add to the quality density. 2014 was different, and that's why so many Euro teams crashed. Winning the WC is more important, but the difference in difficulty is not as big as you make it to be. There is no competition comparable to the Euro, aside from the WC. The additional round makes the WC more selective in terms of the group of winners, but the quality required to advance the same number of rounds is similar. I would take the WC over the Euro anytime, but the performance of a team in the Euro can be a good indicator of its potential to do well in the WC.
     
    Dage repped this.
  23. Tukafo

    Tukafo Member+

    Oct 12, 2013
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    Yes, they belong to the elite now but historically it's a little different. Before 1978 they were generally on a level with Peru or Chile. If you exclude the Maradona era Argentina has basically had as much success in World Cups as England historically. Both had a controversial home WC win and otherwise a lot of quarterfinals. It has been only this tournament that brought them back into the elite.
     
  24. Brasitusa

    Brasitusa Member+

    AC Milan
    Italy
    May 14, 2014
    Club:
    New York City FC
    I don't doubt that, and I agree. What I mean is just that people like to watch these competitions and root for or against teams that are there. I didn't imply these competitions have the same level of depth or quality, far from it.
     
  25. Brasitusa

    Brasitusa Member+

    AC Milan
    Italy
    May 14, 2014
    Club:
    New York City FC
    I very much disagree with much of what you said, and it's probably a lost cause for either you or me to convince the other, so, we'll have to agree to disagree. I still think that even when you have the same basic contenders plus one or two (basically, the WC adding to the Euro set-up, Brazil and/or Argentina or both as true contenders when they are good enough - which obviously wasn't Brazil's case this year) the WC is still *vastly* harder to win than the Euro, even when won consecutively by the very same team, because like I said the WC is vastly more prestigious, people try vastly harder, and the variations of style and intangibles are vastly less homogeneous. Anyway, that's my opinion and it won't change; I respect yours but can't agree with it, sorry.
     

Share This Page