Only the first WC was invitational as you call them. Which btw, was also hosted by Uruguay. Back in those days air travel didn't exist so whenever you had to play a match away, teams had to make long journeys on ship and railroad, which for most of the times, the teams retired and didn't play. For the 1938 qualifiers, North and Central America and the Caribean, had only one spot where most countries retired before playing a single game. Only Cuba remained and therefore they qualified for the WC. Now at the WC, as they used a simple knock-out format, to reach quarters any team only had to defeat 1 opponent, for Cuba, it was Romania, whom was defeated after playing 2 matches (first ended in a draw, but in the re-match the Cubans won). For the 1994 WC, you are being very unfair to Bolivia. For Conmebol qualifiers in that WC, Conmebol was separated in 2 groups, where Bolivia shared their group with Uruguay, Brasil, Ecuador and Venezuela. Bolivia which was a formidable team at the time, was undefeated playing at home, finished second one point over Uruguay, basicly because while Bolivia defeated Brasil at home, Uruguay couldn't and only got a draw against Brasil, playing at home. It was how both teams did against the eventual WC champion, what decided whom went to the WC and whom stayed at home.
Yeah, it does. It's nonsense to think otherwise. A completely different football universe, with invitation only tournaments, no qualifying, long boat voyages to get to the sites, no traveling fans, single knock-out matches and differing levels of professionalism amongst the teams. And I include the two European based World Cups from the 1930s in this category. As you may know, the Argentina team in 1934 was like a B or C squad with almost none of the better Argentine players.
The second most prestigious trophy in international football are the EUROs. I calculated the average age of the winners: 1996 Germany_____________________27.91 2000 France_______________________27.95 2004 Greece_______________________28.35 2008 Spain________________________26.00 2012 Spain________________________26.74 2016 Portugal_____________________27.87 2020 Italy_________________________27.27 I won't calculate the stats for the Copa America as I regard it with all due respect a mickey mouse tournament (not because of the quality but because of small number of teams and laughable format) and not worth to draw any conclusions from. So the picture for the EUROs looks a bit different. Several winners who were beyond the 27.00 years threshold. I wonder why the World Cup is that much different in that regard. I repeat it. 5/6 winners since 1998 were below the 27.00 threshold.
Very "goofy" statement. That "terrible" record wasn't playing in Uefa, but Conmebol instead, which is lots more harder than any group from Uefa. In Conmebol, in the all vs. all format, at the begining of qualifiers it's 8 teams out of 10 teams, whom are in dispute for the WC spots. In Uefa qualifiers, it's basicly only 2 teams in each group for a WC spot, where whom finishes 2nd, also gets a playoff against another team which finished second as well. With the only exception of Ecuador and Bolivia, all the other Conmebol teams in the WC, have reached quarters at least once each. That's a lot more than most Uefa teams can say on their behalf. Nope. 22 teams out of 55 teams that have never even gone once to the WC in their lifetime. That's 40 % of the whole membership of UEFA, never going to the WC. In other words 60 % of its membership has gone to the WC. In the case of Conmebol , it's 9 teams out of 10 (90 % of them). This is depth.
That explanation actually is very easy. Russia is the biggest country, not only from Uefa but from the world as well, and till now, their best finish is a 4th place when they were part of the extinct USSR. The quoted comparisson is the equivalent to compare Russia with Uruguay. Not only over surface but also over population. On Uruguay's case, we are talking about a country that has won 2 World cups and also reached the semi's 3 other times. In football, you don´t win over size, but talent instead.
LOL no Thanks for proving my point. That qualifying from UEFA is hard and how easy is to reach the WC from CONMEBOL. UEFA had a final where both teams had 0 wins in 2010 and last time France stopped 2 countries with 0 who showed that they were capable of actually wining. One by destroying Argentina and the other beating Brazil. UEFA shows that if you are good enough to reach the WC you are good enough to have a good tournament That is depth not a QF. LOL. UEFA has more semis - 18 - than CONMEBOL has countries. And you brag that 9 reached the QF. Romania reached the QF .... we are proud of the actual teams beat in 1994 not the QF
Well, you can be positively certain that when Paraguay (1), Colombia (1) and Perú (2) reached the QF, they were equally proud as Romania of the teams they beat to get there, when they got there as well. In my case, I'm proud of the time we reached the semi's.....
Squads? Or starters? Most countries SHOULD have a pretty good idea of who their best 15-20 players are at this point in time, as well as the majority of their starting lineup. This window is largely about trying to resolve the competitions for those last few roster spots and finalizing the starting lineup. For example, for my team (the USA), there are really only three starter spots up for grabs.....keeper (Steffen or Turner), LCD (due to the injury to Miles Robinson), and striker (Pepi, Ferreria, Wright, ?). The other eight starting spots are pretty much written in stone. And the only other real roster questions are who is going to be the backup LB behind Antonee Robinson, and what combination of attacking midfielders/strikers Berhalter is going to choose. And then, of course, there's the fact that FIFA has not clarified whether or not the final rosters will be the traditional 23 players, or the rumored 26 players. So I'm guessing that most other countries are doing the same thing the USA is doing this month...i.e. trying to resolve positional battles and/or competitions for their last few roster spots. So lineups will likely include 6-8 likely WC starters, with a few players competing for spots mixed in. That's what the USA did against Morocco, and will also be doing tomorrow against Uruguay.
Good thing for the early WCs because that is where the bulk of CONMEBOL braggin rights come from. Yes dude Uruguay winning pre man on the moon and Chile's 1964 semi that sure shows the depth of CONMEBOL. 5 UEFA countries being finalists without winning ... with Netherlands having 3 losses .. weak I mean past 1960s only Uruguay did something ..... in 2014. CONMEBOL has been a hitching a ride with Brazil + Argentina since the 60s
Uruguay also reached semi's in 1970. And not semi's, but Peru reached quarters in both, 1970 and 1978, eliminated in both basicly by other Conmebol teams. Both Paraguay and Colombia reached their only quarters during the last decade (Paraguay in 2010, lost to Spain; Colombia in 2014, lost to Brazil). Oh, and Uruguay also reached quarters in 2018 (lost to France).
2006 Italy wasn’t enough of a clue along with you also referencing the average age of 27 for WC winning sides as to what I was on about…
Chile won Copa America in 2015 with an average age of 28.4. For 2016, we won again at the Bicentenial Copa America with an average age of 29.6 (basicly same players, one year older). Age can be an important factor. But its not decisive.
You got your wish, IM. Hungary 1 England 0. All four 2018 semi-finalists lose on the same weekend. Amazing.
Yet France, England and Spain remain my World Cup favourites for the time being. At least until September when the NL group stage comes to its end.
Are you guys serious comparing CONMEBOL and EUFA? England/France/Spain/Germany/Italy/Portgual/Belgium X Brazil and Argentina Isn’t look like a bit of unfair? With only 2 powerhouses, in the last 32 years, 9 WC, CONMEBOL was present in the final 6 times, which means ~ 67%.
What do you mean Chile's "semi' in 1964 ? Chile became World champions, the moment I was born in this country, that year..... . . Btw, in things not equivalent in importance, there was no WC in 1964. Chile's 3rd place was from 1962
France 1-2 Denmark Hungary 1-0 England Imagine if Brazil or Argentina had lost to Denmark/Hungary… folks in this forum would be going crazy
Ok ok, maybe it’s too much for Brazil/Argentina, but can you please send this to Hungary, Bosnia, and Denmark. I don’t think they quite got the message.
A team needs a strong identity, I agree. This has nothing to do with the league they play in, but with pride, mentality and love for the shirt and the country. And its actually one of the reasons i think this argentina team is so strong: all those players LIVE for NT, much more than any club they play in, they live and die for the NT. Its one of the reasons they are undefeated in so long: pride, unity and love for the NT.
England were poor, but several of that team won't be anywhere near the starting XI v Iran. Justin, Coady, hopefully TAA, Bowen (although he was one of the better players on the day) are all pretty certain not to start, injuries permitting. I like the Nations League, but coaches are going to use it to sort out their squads as they have no other games before Qatar, so it will be no surprise to have what may be considered upset results.
"Considerably above 27" is 27.1 and 27.3 average? Are you being serious with this age thing or its a joke?
Lol, Brazil trashed south korea and Argentina destroyed Italy and somehow we suck even harder than before. The "actual powerhouses" lose but it doesnt mean anything
UEFA teams not showing any evidence that they are on the level of Argentina or Brazil right now. And Germany, with a lineup featuring 8-9 likely WC starters, has looked utterly mundane against a B/C level Italy so far....