like i just said in the other thread, I think in Africa the FAs cannot provide the conditions needed to be that successfull in a World Cup, just remember Togo and their struggles in the last WC, I have read complaints from several German trainers of African National Teams about lack of money, support and anything else, even in the more successfull nations. Since I don't see that changing, I doubt that there will be an African World Champion within the next 20 years. Mexico might be strong enough 2014 or 2018 and onwards. I actually have no idea, but since as far as I know, Football is pretty big over there, it is possible that enough talented players are growing up now, they have a notable league to go to, and big European leagues seem to have noticed that they can find one or the other talent over there, Mexican National Team can only profit from that. For the USA, I think the competition from American Football and other sports is too big, I doubt enough talented athletes will chose soccer to form a team that can compete with accomplished powers from South America or Europe. With Australia I think it's similar to the USA, too many other sports and too little interest in soccer, however the league seems to be quite successfull, I think they are more likely to prove me wrong than the USA. With the rest of Asia: I don't see mens soccer on the rise in China, never heard of a league there, I don't think that they will be able to pull something off within some 30 years or so. I'm not so sure about South Korea or Japan either. Summing it up: the only country that I would give any chances to win the cup in the forseeable future (next 20-30 years) is Mexico. After that, it's pretty hard to tell anything... Someone from Africa would be my next bet.
Ok sure, make it Germany instead of Japan then. It's nothing crazy about Mexico having success against Brazil Argentina or the very best Euro teams. Any team that's decent has good results to display in the history of their NT. The entire WC history is naturally loaded with upsets, and at the very same time, it's always the usual suspects that win the tournament. To be that consistent over an entire tournament, that's proven to be something extremly difficult. A non Euro or South American team will win the WC one day for sure, but any prediction as of today is nothing but a shot in the dark, that's why I said it should be "none of the above". Now I've spent too much time on this issue, I didn't really mean to get drawn into this thread in the first place. We have some fundamental disagreements about the criterias and that's fine. If you believe Mexico will win the WC, I'm not one to say that you can't voice that opinion, just as I have my own take on the issue.
The funny thing is, if you put it that way, we don't even disagree. But '"none of the above" implies, given the question, that you don't think anyone will ever do it. You seem to really mean, "Who the hell knows?" I do think that North American, African, and Asian teams have done better in the WC the last twenty years than they have in previous iterations, and there's no reason to think that trend won't until we converge onto something like parity - something ice hockey is not nearly as "close" with. But you're right, no one particularly seems right on the cusp of breaking through, which means when it does it happen, it will be with, most likely, an entirely different roster then they have today and hence impossible to predict.
How about another way to look at it: Will a SA team besides Brazil and Argentina win a World Cup before a team in NA, Asia, or Africa? Cause I just can't see anyone besides the big two having much of a chance to win the WC.
Yea, I'm aware of that, I should have reworded my question. But I seriously cannot see Uruguay ever winning another WC again.
Why not ?? They're perenial WC participants ( well , forget the last one.) , so they have an equal chance of combining luck and skill to bag another one.
I dont think you realise how little Uruguay is. It's about the size of Manchester as a country. That they won 2 at all (and got fourth place in 1970) is flipping remarkable. The USA is the likeliest of the lot. Africa produces the most talent but being an FA president there is an effective profession for thievery and so players will retire from international competition early, not show up, and generally not give their utmost for their county. Mexico is too introverted. But the USA will have the financial resources to buy the best coaching talent and put together a good team. That said I can't see the USA winning a World Cup for 20 years, so the trophy will stay in its traditional homes for some time yet.
Well, as I've said earlier, nothing avoids an outsider to be insanely lucky and win the whole thing. It has already happened in the past, but these lucky teams (such as Germany in 1954) revealed later to be a powerhouse in football. Anyway, to get back to your point, money can't buy everything otherwise Qatar could be world champion. Furthermore, no matter how rich are the US, the MLS won't be able to compete with European clubs for at least 20 years. Europe has more money in football, it has larger audience, and it has better experience. All this to say that we'll still need a bit of time to see a coach hesitating between an Inter Milan proposal and an LA Galaxy proposal. Now having said that, I agree that the US have some good strength. Firstly, they have a very professional perception of sport, and they know what fighting spirit means. As such, even as lucky outsiders, they could win the whole thing, a bit as Germany did in 1954, to become, only afterwards, a powerhouse. To put it in a nutshell, I agree that the US is among the favorites for this, but I would say it's more because of their professionalism and fighting spirit than because of their money.
It's funny how many people think the USA is gonna win a world cup sooner than later. I bet they're all yanks! lol
I'd say it would be an African team. They have been beating some of the best teams in the WC for some time now. 2006 Ghana 2 v Czech rep. 0 2002 Senegal 1 v France 0 1998 Nigeria 3 v Spain 2 1994 Nigeria 3 v Bulgaria 0 1990 Cameroon 1 v Argentina 0 A team like Mexico who some have mentioned have never managed to beat ANY top team despite going to the WC EVERY 4 years. For the US to win, soccer has to become much more important in the country for that to happen.
Too bad "an African team" doesn't actually play international soccer... In order to win the World Cup, you have to: 1. Have some world class talent and lots of quality supporting players/depth. Several African squads have gobs of the high end talent, but depth is often a problem, as are glaring weaknesses at certain positions. 2. Have a stable domestic league to develop young talent. Almost to a man, Africa loses it's potential stars early to Europe, where they can't help their countrymen develop. This is a big cause of Africa's problems with #1 above. 3. Consistently make the WC. You can't win if you're not there. Almost all African teams suffer from a retarded qualifying structure, poor FA organization, and lack of funds. You need to build up experience over several cycles in order to win big game after big game when it counts. Improbably/streaky runs into the quarters/semis are not going to win the World Cup. That's just not how history has played out... Mexico on the other hand, has all three of these. Their recent results against top sides are better than any African team. And they're finally getting past the age old problem of not sending players to Europe to continue to develop and get experience.
agreed to an extent, but to win a world cup the bottom line is that you have to beat the top teams, if u cant do that u cant win. Mexico has shown no ability over the past how many years to be able to overcome top sides, friendlies and other tournaments aside in the WC proper they just cant beat anybody of real quality.
You don't need depth. You just need to be lucky with injuries and form. Most teams barely touch their extended squads during a tournament. Greece didn't have many supporting players did they? What does it matter if players are developed in Europe instead? Uruguay and Italy won the world cup in their first ever appearances. How did Greece manage it then? Mexico have never even made the quarter finals outside of Mexico, and couldn't even reach the semis at home. Unless the next fifty world cups are in Mexico I can't see it happening.
Agreed, Greece got lucky (with injuries, form, and well... just plain luck). They also played a disciplined bunker style that minimized their weaknesses. Nigeria is never going to bunker. Most teams use their best 15-16 players extensively over a big tournament like the WC. For the most part African squads are often missing strength in the 12-16 slots as well as in several starting spots. Goalkeeper is often a big weakness. As I said, a very weak national club system will lead to spotty youth development, a lack of depth at the national team level, and glaring weaknesses at certain positions. Come on. This doesn't merit a response. Being who you are though, you can't see it happening for any non-Euro other than Bra/Arg. If you can't see that the playing field in world football is getting more even, that's your issue. I explained what changes I saw in Mexico that led me to think they might take it to the next level. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But they have as good a shot as any, imo.