Australia make their first Olympics since 2008 with a 1-0 win over Uzbekistan who fall at the final hurdle of a big qualifier yet again J
Must be very frustrating for Uzbeki fans. Their players have obvious talent with the ball but can't seem to win the important matches at senior level (and even under 23 it seems).
Crazy end to the group stage in CONMEBOL qualifying. Bolivia had one foot in the final round, but Peru scored a 96th goal to limit Bolivia to a 2-1 victory in a match that they need to win by 2 goals. So Uruguay somehow advance with only 6 points and having the huge disadvantage of not playing in the final round of group stage matches. Brazil and Argentina seem a notch or 3 above the rest though, and only 2 teams qualify. Huge game b/w Brazil and hosts Colombia this weekend. If any surprise is gonna happen there will need to be an upset in that match IMO.
From what I have seen Argentina is good but Colombia did out play them for most of their game. Just had really bad Keeping and Defensive mistakes. The team has changed a little bit since that match. Brasil looks solid but has not really been tested yet. Uruguay is up and down as they are in most tournaments. It is now a clean slate and a whole new venue for the final stage. I expect Colombia to play much better in Bucaramanga than in Pereira. I would say may the best teams win but it is round-robin. So Technically a team may not even have to win to advance.
Argentina qualify. Brazil will get the other spot if they beat Argentina on Sunday. Otherwise its the winner of COL x Uruguay.
By "No" I guess you mean, "Yes, and also..." . Not like anything I wrote was incorrect. I just wanted to keep it brief. [Also, quite unlikely that Colombia and Uruguay finish in a draw as they will both will feel like they need to win as a result of the absurd scheduling which forces them to play before Argentina plays Brazil].
This is setting up to be a very busy summer of football: Euro 2020, Copa America, and the Olympics. If Brazil make it, I'll be most interested in the Olympics because we could have some really great match-ups. I think that we have 2 superlative Olympic teams: Spain and Germany. These two powerhouses are followed by France, Argentina and some African team. If Brazil make it and they get a better coach and add some new players (Rodrygo?) then they will have a chance for a medal.
The International Olympic Committee released a statement today it remains fully committed to the realization of the Summer Olympic Games in Tokyo and it counseled athletes to continue preparing as planned. With scientists working overtime to find a vaccine and with government efforts being made all over to fight the coronavirus, perhaps there are now signs for hope and optimism.
Brazil made it! And 8 players were not available for the CONMEBOL qualifying tournament because clubs wouldn't release them. I agree with you as this should e a summer with excellent football in Europe, in South America, and in Japan.
I've looked into this a bit and haven't found many answers. Will it now be a U24 Tournament instead of a U23 tournament with the delay? Qualification is done with the lone exception being CONCACAF. I heard they will have the qualification tournament the end of March 2021, still in Guadalajara. That's now the Nations League Finals and the Playoff Round of World Cup Qualification for Group winners A-F. So key young players on a number of teams will be missing. If you do qualify do you give it any priority given where its at in the calendar in regards to World Cup qualification? Most players will have summer 2022 off heading into World Cup with only International Playoffs going on so there is opportunity for some rest before 2022 World Cup. Unless you play in MLS which in most cases you get winters off with few internationals during that time.It was made such a priority by US Soccer during the interim phase of this past cycle with a ton of U23 players brought in for friendlies. Do they abandon ship?
To answer the question about age, I’m pretty sure FIFA has said anyone who was originally eligible is still eligible. So yes it will in practice be a U24 tournament. Which is fair imo since those players are the ones who participated in qualifying.
Thinking about the Men's Olympic Football Tournament, why doesn't FIFA just scrap it? I can't imagine it comes down to funding, since the IOC currently needs FIFA more than FIFA needs the IOC. Is it for the Women's Tournament? Soccer doesn't need the exposure of the Olympics. It's not the pinnacle of international tournaments like the Olympics are for other sports. It has a gimmick quality with the overage players and isn't on the FIFA match calendar. And most importantly, it doesn't provide FIFA any leverage with the IOC in allowing other forms of soccer into the Olympics (beach soccer and futsal). Eliminating the Olympic Football Tournament would allow inclusion of those two sports since they're both five-a-side. They'd also be a better fit for the current era of the Olympics, which has now voted in 3x3 basketball, sport climbing, surfing, skateboarding, and breakdancing! If FIFA and clubs are worried about fixture congestion, this should be the first international tournament on the chopping block. Or they could simply make it a stand-alone U23 World Cup which would make it more legitimate.
That's essentially what it is though, right? Unless you mean they should get rid of the 3 overage players, which I would agree 100% with (but I think you were talking about bigger changes than just that). I could be wrong, but I think the Olympics still has a bit more prestige than the under-20 World Cup. Add to that the importance of the Women's Olympic Tournament and it would seem that there are some good reasons for football to be part of the Olympics.
That's what I took the post to be saying. Definitely helped by the extensive TV coverage of the Olympics. It's the same reason I couldn't care less about catching the world championships in athletics or swimming, but I probably will watch at least some of those events during the Olympics. You are right about the women's tournament, which really ought to just be expanded to 16.
I will say I am sympathetic to the idea of including beach soccer or futsal, which fits in with the Olympic spirit of "exhibition" of sports that don't normally receive much attention. Another somewhat unconventional idea is to make it (the men's tournament at least) a development-type competition, perhaps allowing senior national sides but limiting the tournament to lower-ranked nations. Albeit some might feel it a tad generous to award Olympic medals to teams winning such a tournament. Overall, having it as a U-23 World Cup of sorts is okay I guess, provided the silly overage exemptions are scrapped.
The 1988 tournament was similar to this. I think from memory the only restriction was that you couldn't select players who had played in a World Cup. The under 23 started in 1992. Overage players were introduced in 1996.
That could work if they reintroduced something like that. Or a cap limit, say players with less than 10 international caps.
After the IOC decided to allow professionals to enter the Games in 1981 FIFA decided in 1982 that future tournaments would therefore be open to professionals, but in the case of European and South American teams, only those who had not played in a WC final competition. That was considered to be an unsatisfactory arranegment - for obvious reasons - and so in 1988 FIFA decided that an under-23 age limit would apply to future tournaments. In 1994 FIFA decided to relax this by allowing squads to select 3 over-age players, although there is no obligation to do so. This relaxation was at the behest of the IOC and was propsoed during the negotiations that saw a women's tournament introduced in 1996. The Olympic tournament has a special place in my heart: it is the oldest international competition dating back to 1908 - or to 1896 if the accounts of football being played in the first 3 Games are true - and it ensures football has a highly visible presence in the world's biggest sporting event while keeping it embedded in the wider family of sport.
The IOC officially recognizes Olympic football tournaments as having taken place in 1900 and 1904, though not in 1896. These tournaments both featured only three teams, which were actually clubs and not actual national sides. These were not originally recognized as official Olympic competitions, being classed as "demonstration matches", but were recognized by the IOC later. The latter tournament, in St. Louis, featured 2 American clubs and a Canadian one. The Canadian team won, which means that Canada are technically listed among the winners in men's football at the Olympics.
I'm the opposite with basketball. Love watching the FIBA World Championships but not much into Olympic hoops though I'll still watch it some. But I realize I'm probably in the minority with this thinking.
Depends on the sport, I'd say. For Track & Field the Olympics are the biggest event for every athlete competing. The importance placed on it makes it appealing to watch. But for basketball and football players a gold medal is just another award. Not the be-all and end-all to say the least.