Argentina vs Germany: Final Match Game Day Discussion Thread

I think they are a little better than what you are crediting them for (although underachievers) - because, see, when you start to have to eliminate huge chunks of it like "if you exclude the Maradona era" they appear less good, but the Maradona era *did* happen, and it's becoming remote enough to be called historical, so I still think that Argentina is historically, elite material - but again, be my guest to put them down; I won't be the one to complain.

Because if we started to say - "Brazil is seen as elite but if you eliminate Pele and Garrincha and Ronaldo, they are not as impressive..." Or "Germany is elite but they had a long drought and if you eliminate Beckenbauer..."

We can't eliminate these great players... they are part of reason why these programs are historically elite...

 

I won't insist, since I agree that the intangible factors do play a significant role. But saying that teams vastly try harder is not true. It's the same kind of atmosphere, only at a smaller scale.

 

Well, without Beckenbauer Germany would still have won three titles and reached six finals and eleven semifinals
Look, doesn't matter, I just wanted to point out that Argentina are not historically a consistent top World Cup performer like the others. Argentina had one or two strong periods in their history but have otherwise not been among the top teams in the vast majority of Cups.

 

Probably what I meant is that non-European teams become much more ferocious in playing the games of their lives when they are at the WC, therefore grow in toughness and get to be bigger stumbling blocs. How would otherwise Costa Rica be able to face rather efficiently the likes of Uruguay, Italy, England, Greece, and the Netherlands? If Costa Rica got invited as a special guest to play the Euro, I think they'd rapidly crash and burn, might lose all games... while in the WC they became this unexpected juggernaut. See what I mean? Not even in the Gold Cup Costa Rica gets to be that tough... then you get the WC effect, and suddenly they are a force to reckon with. This is but one example, but it has happened over and over - in every WC you have some teams that get unexpectedly hard to beat. The WC is one tough competition that requires incredible depth and flexibility. It is *the* utmost football tournament on the planet. I'm sure Europeans are very fond of their Euro and it is OK to be proud of it and to be continent-centered; I'm not one to gauge or judge whatever you guys feel that rocks your boat. It's just that the rest of the world doesn't see it the same way. We tend to call regional tournaments, regional... and world tournaments, worldly...

 

OK, so, let's make it official: Argentina does not belong to the football elite!!!
[I very much like the sound of it!!!]

 

I've been following this discussion for a while now, and have enjoyed eloquent arguments from both sides (especially from you and benztown, who has nailed it really), but I feel that this calls for a response, and given that I'm naturally lazy, it also saves me some typing. You have used both Costa Rica and Greece in your arguments until now. You see, European teams become much more ferocious in playing the games of their lives when they are at the Euro (playing against their fiercest rivals), therefore grow in toughness and get to be bigger stumbling blocs. How would otherwise Greece be able to face rather efficiently the likes of France, Portugal, Russia and Spain? If Greece got invited as a special guest to play the WC, I think they'd rapidly crash and burn, might lose all games... while in the Euro they once became this unexpected juggernaut. See what I mean? You get the Euro effect, and suddenly they are a force to reckon with. This is but one example, but it has happened over and over - in every Euro you have some teams that get unexpectedly hard to beat.

Just to add one more thing, the re-organization of the German system was mainly triggered by their dismal performances in Euro 2000 and Euro 2004, which were perceived as national disasters.

Having said all of this (well with your help ), I'd agree with ranking the WC as 10/10, and the Euro as 8/10.

 

Hehe, thanks for an interesting post... it is refreshing to have one's argument turned around like this and I tip my hat to you. Yes, I can't say that our European friends' efficient argumentation (and like you said Benztown, an always intelligent poster, did nail it) didn't change my mind about this. I mean, partially. I don't entirely agree with you guys, but certainly my position got more nuanced and I came to understand better why Europeans like their Euro so much. Still, do you think that Greece wouldn't play even tougher, even more like the games of their lives, in the World Cup, which even you confessedly rank two points higher than the Euro? So if they toughen up during the Euro, they would toughen up even more in the World Cup since they do rank it higher, right? But the issue is, Greece was *able* to win the Euro, but has never been even close to winning the World Cup, for the simple fact that the latter is harder to win.

 

It doesn't work like that. These are professionals competing for the two most prestigious trophies in international football. They don't go: "This trophy isn't quite as highly esteemed as the other one, so I'll only give it 80%". They're there to win it at all costs, regardless.

First of all, I think you're focusing too much on past laurels. That's interesting and all, but when assessing an individual team at a particular tournament, it's not helpful at all. Especially with smaller nations you can't expect them to constantly produce similar talent over the course of decades. Greece stumbled upon a winning formula in 2004 where they had the right coach, the right players and the right tactics coupled with the necessary luck.
I mean even in Europe, before 2004, Greece only qualified once for the EUROs and that was in 1980 when they went home early with one point.
It was the right team at the right time. These stories happen, even at the World Cup. Think about Turkey in 2002, with a bit of luck they reach the final and who knows what could have happened. And they still came out third. In 98 Croatia was third in 94 it was Sweden. These cinderella stories happen, even at the World Cup only that in those cases, they all lost in the Semi final by one single goal, whereas Greece beat the Czech Republic in the Semi final of 2002 with a silver goal in extra time. These were all one-off teams, riding their talent as well as their luck, only Greece happened to be slightly luckier.

BTW, while the EURO 2004 will forever be remembered for an ultra-defensive Greece team winning it, other than that it sported some fantastic offensive play throughout. It really was a brilliant tournament and it's a shame that nobody remembers that.
That epic group match between Holland and the Czech Republic might just be one of the very best games I've ever seen. I highly recommend you watch that game. After that, I'm pretty sure you won't say that the teams don't try as hard at EUROs anymore.
And then there was of course that Sweden-Denmark game that screwed Italy, or that legendary Portugal-England encounter after which the ref had to fear for his life because he disallowed an English goal and even needed police protection for a while. Reporters from The Sun placed a massive English flag (60mx90m) in front of his private house, something that was done during WWII in order to mark targets for bombings. There was a massive witch hunt going on in the English media...hardly something one would expect unless they really, really, really believe the tournament to be the real deal. They wouldn't put a ref on the cover of The Sun for four straight days if it wasn't important, even if he was wrong (which in this case wasn't even the case, or at the very least highly debatable).

 

Wow, pretty interesting, all that... This kind of passion reminds me of the Libertadores Cup... I know, club football, but that's where we see this kind of thing, in South America.

Do you have a link for it? Can it be downloaded/streamed? I trust you on that; it should be very entertaining and I'd like to watch it.

This said, I can't imagine a professional player wouldn't try *even harder* at the World Cup. I mean, it's not an issue off "this tournament is less prestigious therefore I'll only try at 80%" - your take on this, sorry, is a bit of a caricature. What I mean is, the mythical, magic feeling of playing in the freaking FIFA World Cup should pump up a professional player more than any other tournament.

 

Most of Russia is in Asia, huge region that is Europe and Asia mate

 

I've agreed with what you said, Spain hasn't the pedigree to be named a constant favorite in every world cup to come. Another WC has to be one to forever erase that. Spain will be considered a favorite for the next world cup, but perhaps not after that. I see the French were hardly talked about this world cup, perhaps they need another one as well.

 

as a greece fan, i think a few variables need to be added to the equation:

- greece has only been in 3 WCs. for nation with very little pedigree in football, it's preformances have improved with each tournament.

by comparison; i believe it took mexico until it's 14th all-time WC match to register it's first ever WC victory. it took bulgaria until it's 18th ever all-time WC match to notch it's 1st ever WC victory.

it took greece 5 matches to notch it's first ever WC victory.

when i speak of pedigree, i speak of a intl. tradition, former players/managers/coaches as role-models and a domestic model/style of football, to rely upon in unfamiliar settings, with unfamiliar teammates against unfamiliar opponents.

greece has none, because it's domestic infrastructure is very poor. there is not one national academy for footballers or coaches. potential greek coaches need to learn basic italian/german/english/dutch to earn uefa coaching licences. without a full grasp of those languages, one can assume there isn't any full grasp of various principles of coaching that is learned. domestic coaching is poor, hence the domestic footballers are usually 2nd best tactically; against more refined opponents.

where greece shines is old-fashioned man to man marking, ala euro 2004. even to this day, some of the best man-marking CBs in all of europe, if not the world.

given all that, even as a greece fan, it would be massively unfair to 'europe' to have greece represent europe against most south american sides, vis-a-vis WC x Euro in theoretical debates. the domestic model is poor by euro standards...this is a nation that relies upon clubs in other leagues to refine it's footballers. i believe denmark would be a better candidate.

- as far as luck between greece 2004 x turkey 2002, i would say turkey had better luck with it's draw for group play (brazil/costa rica/china) along with it's R16 match (japan)/QF match (senegal).

turkey did very well, you can only play who you're matched up with. taking nothing away from turkey, they had dream draws.

 

Of course I'm not going to write an essay defending my point, it would only lend legitimacy to yours that it does not deserve. You may think you gave a good argument, but in fact you didn't and I only gave a counterexample to prove your argument was not so good.

Get back to me when Greece, Denmark and Czech Republic win the WC, would you?

More minnows means overall less quality, if anything it falls farther away from the WC with the expansion.

No tournament missing Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and some others by default will be just a small step away from the WC. It's a gap that will never be breached in fact: Argentina beat every single European team on its path to the WC final with relative ease, and lost to a near perfect Germany with seven minutes left in overtime while missing DiMaria (their second best player). The EC can be called the second best international tournament (although some editions of the Copa America have been better than the corresponding Euro), that's not the same as saying it's just a small step behind the WC.

These type of examples prove nothing. Argentina went out in the quarterfinals at home in Copa America 2011, then reached the final of the subsequent WC.

 

Sadly, Argentina did not participate in many WC editions (34, 38, 50, 54, 58) when it had great generations of players - a WC win in one and a final appearance in another is all it would need to be at the true elite level. In addition, what Argentina brings to world football is a cadre of players which at the very top tier surpasses every nation except Brazil, the greatest WC performance of all time is not by a Brazilian, Italian, German or Dutch, it's by an Argentine, and a league with an immense tradition and success, clearly greater historically than the Bundesliga or the Brasileirao. Overall though, even when taking into account that it did not participate or send its best side to five WCs, Argentina still has underachieved to the talent that it produces. Strangely, this WC with a team that never played the football that was expected and overall disappointed expectations, Argentina managed to reach the WC final and made it into an exciting match against a team favored by almost everyone. This suggest that Argentina has difficulty finding the balance between exquisite play required by tradition with enough pragmatism to actually win the tournament.

 

Argentina did participate in 1934 and 1958. They got out of group stage both times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_at_the_FIFA_World_Cup

 

Thanks for your valuable contribution, wiki surfer

I further elaborated the argument a few lines later: Overall though, even when taking into account that it did not participate or send its best side to five WCs,

 

Elaborated argument is fine, but your very first line started with incorrect history "Argentina did not participate in many WC editions (34, 38, 50, 54, 58)"

Wiki or not, one needs to be correct when using history as argument.

 

Fair enough, I was just too lazy to elaborate on the first line.

 

I am going to analyze this last Euro and these supposedly good teams more closely to add some relevant data.

lets look at those teams Spain played:
Croatia-3 and out in WC 2014, only points gained against worst team in entire tournament. DNQ 2010
Ireland-have not seen WC since 2002
Ireland and Croatia had not seen the second round of a WC since 2002 and 1998 respectively, hardly group of death material.

Italy- 3 and out, last in group in WC 2010, 3 and out in WC2014 with only points earned against another Euro team

France-3 and out, last in group in WC 2010, good in 2014

Portugal-4 games in 2010, could only score against North Korea, 3 and out in 2014

So all of the teams Spain in 2012 played were either DNQ or crap in WC 2010, and most were DNQ or crap in WC2014. Some big names there, but most sucked in the WCs surrounding that Euro or were not good enough to qualify ahead of the teams that sucked in those WCs. You really need to stretch the imagination to call 2010-2014 France, Italy, and Portugal top teams, when their WC performances clearly showed that there were not top teams in during that time frame. Doing well in a Euro, like Italy, while shitting the bed in the surrounding WC does not make one a top team. One could conclude that the Euro is easier because it is was the only tournament where Italy could accomplish anything.

I looked at the other Euros you listed and thought about those teams and the performances in the surrounding WCs, many (like the Czecks, Russians) have the same issues I just demonstrated for the Euro 2012 teams, sucking or DNQ for the either the previous or following WCs, though not to the extent of Spain opponents in 2012 mostly sucking on both ends.

You claimed that Ireland and Croatia would make a group of death, then later state that Brazil's ko opponents in 2002, Belgium, England, and Germany were not that difficult. You appear to credit second tier European teams playing in the Euro as tough, but consider second tier European teams in the WC as easier opponents. Can you explain this inconsistency.

 

I would like to buy your Argentina coloured glasses. While they had better statistics in the Switzerland game they still needed overtime to beat them - and the Belgium, BIH and Netherlands matches where dead even games and could've gone either way.

Sometimes I believe if Maradona wasn't Argentine, he wouldn't be half as famous.
Reminds me a bit of Apple's marketing strategy, if you're ever present and just repeat your message enough, people will actually start to believe...

 

The problem with your analysis is that you judge teams not by their 2012 iteration, but by other iterations. Teams fluctuate, simple as that. Even a team like Spain itself that was brilliant in 2012 crashed and burned only 2 years later.

If you look at the FIFA rankings, as of June 2012, Croatia was ranked 8th, Ireland 18th in the world. Add to that Italy and Spain and you have a group of death at any World Cup.

Similarly, Portugal was really playing well in 2012, just watch their games. They were a lot stronger defensively back then, as was Italy while France was on an upward curve, though other than Ireland, they may have been the weakest team facing Spain that year...which only goes to show how hard it actually was.

 

Ah how I love these arguments.' The Euros are easier because Italy did well in 2012 or Greece won in 2004 or Denmark won in 1992 while they achieved nothing in the WC at that time' (paraphrasing here to summarise this ever repeating argument)
In fact there is a much easier explanation - teams just hit their peak form in one year and are unable to repeat it the next tournament. No voodoo, no 'Euros are crap', no magic tricks but simply having one tournament where everything comes together perfectly for them, the right coach, the right strategy, the right climatic conditions, their star players not injured and in peak form etc. so rather than take this perfectly reasonable and likely explanation you instead have to denigrate an entire tournament.
And to make your argument especially silly - this phenomenon works the other way around too (warning, sarcasm coming up)
Italy win WC 1982 and then fail to even qualify for Euro 1984. This clearly demonstrates how easy the World Cup in comparison to the mighty Euros
England had a terrible Euro 1988 wher they lost every match, had a terrible Euro 1992 but in between reached the semis of the WC. But then the World Cup is a Mickey Mouse tournament
Germany won WC in 1990 but lost in Euro 1992 to Denmark
Germany Euro 2000 last in group, Euro 2004 last in group. In between they reached the World Cup final. What a Mickey Mouse competition.
Turkey QF in Euro 2000, third in WC 2002, Euro 2004 did not qualify. What a crap competition that WC must have been.

 

This was the group stage. It proves that Euro groups can be very tough. Netherlands finished with 0 points. No matter how bad they were, they could still score. They had Robben, Sneijder, and Persie. Germany was still Germany. Portugal was playing well defensively and counter-attacking. Denmark had Bendtner and they were ranked in the FIFA top 10 at the time.

I agree that two years is a long time, enough for teams to change dramatically in quality, but the argument is that the Euro was very similar to the WC in all regards. You had a group stage where groups can be equally hard. There are exceptions, such as group A from Euro 2012, but that was due to the hosts being Poland and an uneven distribution of teams across the pots.

I can't talk for everyone, but I'm not ranking the Euro as high as the WC. The whole point of this discussion for me is that the Euro is a very competitive tournament, and that you should not dismiss the results obtained there so lightly when evaluating the quality of the teams.

 

Now, invert the argument and consider the teams that Spain beat in WC 2010 to be champions: Portugal, Paraguay, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, Chile, Honduras. It's 4 out of 7 Euro teams. Take Germany and Netherlands and you also don't have top teams. It's not such a huge difference, since Italy was playing better in 2012. Portugal was not crap in 2010, since they only lost to the WC champion. Defensive, yes, but still organized, and the team also played much better in 2012.

 

I was telling you how Europeans feel about it. We don't give a ******** about Uruguay and Argentina not being there. I highly doubt that any one of them would have won a recent installment of the Euros.
For us it is not that big of a difference, because we think we are the best anyway (except for Brazil). You can call that arrogant, that's fine, doesn't change how people here feel about it.