Is there an era in which either Europe or S-A was truly dominant ?

Well think about this:
SOme African NT , US or some Asian NT were always there at every WC, but what did they achieve? passing group is best for them? besides the lucky S Korea to have reached semi 2002 thanks to the ref - ONE TIME wonder... believe me


So if we"group" those NT in to 1 continent, their number in WC is also big but it did NOT change the outcome to be at semi WC level or did it?

 

It would be more accurate to said:
"From X south american teams qualified, Y teams reached the semis in WC"

For example (about SA teams):
- In WC'70: 2/3 teams reached the semis.
- In Wc'2010: 1/5 teams reached the semis

 

Yep. And curiously.... in the last ten years, Ronaldinho won the FIFA World Player of the Year award two times, Kaka one time, and Lio Messi has won four of them..... Between Messi and Kaka and Dinho, they have 7 out of the 10 FIFA awards of the last ten years.

To be fair. The 1990 World Cup, was played in Europe. And the 1998 World Cup, was played in Europe, and won by the host country. The 1994 World Cup was played in the US, arguably neutral ground, and was won by Brazil.

I think we should consider the mentioned facts before assuming that two World Cups in the 1990s by European nations = dominance in the 1990s. Needless to say, it's not necessarily that I disagree with you, but I find your claim to be biased or flawed.

 

Clever of you to leave out Hungary.

It is like mentioning great 60s football players, and leaving out Pelé, for the convenience of saying that Europe had the better superstars.

Well done, again.

 

Hungary is the greatest European side of that decade, but by themselves they cannot overcome Uruguay early in the decade and Brazil later in the decade together. I also did not mention Argentina, which could have sent a squad featuring DiStefano, Sivori, Rial, Angelillo, Maschio and Sanfilippo had they cared enough.

Technically, Varela was 32 at WC50, he also had an excellent performance in WC54 at age 36 as only in his absence did Uruguay lose the semifinal match against Hungary. You can substitue Pele with Zizinho, while obviously not at the same class as Pele, it still puts the South American XI ahead for the decade.

 

If we include Pele, SA has three of the titans in that 50s squad, plus Varela, Didi and Schiaffino who are top 25 in their own right. There is no way Europe can match up with this, with only Puskas amongst the true canonical players during that decade. So to answer your question, yes, your European squad would be overall less good.

 

So you want take away results and facts and use opinions to decide who was better during that era.



[]__[]

 

I want to correct myself.

It would be: average points for Confederation.


btw, i agree that comparing only NT, or only top players, it would be a partial analysis. but at the end, the answer.
No, neither was TRULY DOMINANT (exc. war era & XIX century)

 

Interesting, so your say yourself, that your claim that SA is dominant at the moment is pure bullshit.

 

Only one WC has been played in this era the current best player in the world is south american. Confederation Cup and club world cup were won by south american clubs.


[]__[]

 

And the best player lost 4-0 to an European side. 7 of the last 8 Semi finalists at World Cups were from Europe, the only South American side needed an handball to reach the semis. After that they were beaten twice by European teams.
That you argue with two Mickey Mouse cups, shows how desperate you are.

 

I think by the main question of the thread that you're referring mostly to the quality of the very best individualities that would make ideal teams from each continent decade by decade. If so, I think since the beginning of the 20th century the balance has tilted clearly for Europe only until the 1910's by the late development of football in South America and bowed in favor of this latter continent in the 1940's by the outbreak of the World War II in Europe. Then, I can't see any obvious predominance of either of these, both always produced great stars quite on par.

 

Kempes was really an extraordinary forward. I tend to think that he's sometimes underrated because his career isn't tied to a big club, but only medium (Rosario Central and Valencia), but I believe he was really a world-class player, a very complete hard-working attacker, strong, with a great capacity of possession, very versatile to operate as an attacking-midfielder, left-winger or striker, capable to create their own spaces or carrying his team from the midfield as he did at the 1978 World Cup.

In Spain he left a very deep mark, led his team to win the Copa del Rey in 1979 after memorable victories over Barcelona and Real Madrid, and won the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup as the topscorer and most valious player beating to Barcelona, Nantes (a strong team at that time) and Arsenal and the European Cup over the two-time European champion Nottingham Forest.

 

Mickey Mouse cups? So what other competitions are you taking into consideration other than the WC. Like I've said only one WC has been played in this decade I dont know why you keep mentioning 2006 since that was part of the prior decade. The best players always come out of south america is a fact and the best teams in history have come out of south america. I know is hard for euopeans to swallow their pride that their old colonies can play the game they brought a lot better than them but is time you guys accept it.



[]__[]

 

I'd say that at late 70's the Argentine goalkeeper Fillol got over him in a couple of years, but I think it's fair to consider to Zoff as the best of the whole decade.

Anyway, Europe leads clearly the total production of goalkeepers then with Maier, Jennings, Croy, Viktor, Shilton, Clemence, Hellström, van Beveren... over Mazurkiewicz, Leao, Gatti...

 

Don't forget to Figueroa. I think that Figueroa and Passarella form the best central defensive pairing at 70's, even was Beckenbauer for Europe.

 

So you are saying, that the Europeans dominated since the eighties.

 

Don't forget to Cubillas, Zico, Bochini, Falcao, Brindisi, Ardiles and Rocha.

 

I think the attackers make the advantage for Europe at 70's. Apart of Kempes, who I think was at the top level, and Jairzinho, there were only Sotil, Reinaldo, Morena, Houseman, Bertoni, Bianchi, Caszely, Muñante, Dinamite... but I think there isn't an obvious advantage at overall including defenders and midfielders at the very top level for that decade.

 

The agenda is so obvious to see. While Kempes was impressive at the 1978 World Cup (on a drugs cocktail), some things here aren't right.

Nantes wasn't a "strong team" in Europe. They always exited in the first or second round, with the exception of 79/80 and 85/86, despite winning the domestic championship a couple of times (73, 77, 80, 83).

Against Forest, Kempes played only one leg and wasn't decisive in that one he played. Surely pales in comparison with other European Super Cup performances of the 70s.

True, he scored the two goals in the 1979 Copa del Rey final (against Madrid) but scored in total three goals over the whole campaign and hadn't a big contribution in the two games against Barcelona.

If he "left a deep mark", why are his ratings so poor? Not in one season (which happened with more players) but in almost all seasons.
https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/la-liga-rankings-1975-93.1813986/

Strange huh?

 

First of all, I thought this was a comparison in terms of a South America's 1990 XI vs Europe's 1990 XI? If not, then I'm wrong from the get-go. If so, then I do not see how Europe would "dominate".

Secondly, I would like to add that at the 1990 World Cup, it was Argentina that eliminated Brazil. Added to the fact that Maradona was injured for the final game, added to the fact that Caniggia (who was a key player up to that point) could not play in the final, and still West Germany won thanks to a non-existent PK. And Colombia (the other South American that was playing good football), was eliminated by Cameroon, not by a European nation (note: England barely managed to beat a Cameroon team that was playing without 4 of their key players, who they lost to yellow card accumulation in the game vs Colombia).

That one tournament that a South American side won, was pretty bad for South American generally speaking. Colombia collapsed under the pressure of the drug cartels and the superstitious beliefs of the Colombian players themselves. Argentina lost Maradona at the beginning of the tournament, which no doubt was a crushing blow for Argentina. And still, a South American side won that tournament.

And at the 1998 World Cup, France won it in their own home, by defeating a Brazil team that (for all practical purposes) was playing without their best player.

On that basis, I find it difficult to believe that Europe "dominated" to the extent that you clearly think they did.