You failed to address my other point. That if Europe only sent it's best 5 teams every 4 years, it wouldn't have only one good team reaching the latter stages in a 20 year span. Depth. The truth is the only thing from stopping other European teams advancing further a lot of the time....is other European teams.
Europe sends more than just 5 teams. The second bold point again speaks to the obvious, if you have 15 teams from Europe vs 5 teams from S.A it is obvious that you will have more Europeans facing off with Europeans... it's 3:1
obviously Brazil had git into a delined state (post Ronaldo era ) while Argentina were still in trasition to Messi era ..
I know English may be your second language, so my advice to you is to look up the meaning of the word 'if'.
This topic is starting to bore me. It has become too much QQ England is by far the most voted as overrated team, we can see it by the replies. Then we started with the Europe vs S. America, which the real answer is simple. they are very balanced one just has more teams competing in the WC at a time. UEFA has 53 teams - 4 consistently good CONMEBOL has 10 (smallest association in Fifa) - consistently 2 good teams what's there to discuss? simple mathematics can deal with this equation... I personally think it would be a lot cooler to have CONCACAF and CONMEBOL joined up, that would add the US and Mexico into the mix. But that would never happen because of distance (smaller countries would have a hard time paying for the flights) and because FIFA wants the US and Mexico to make into every WC tournament. Good for ratings and good for their pockets! By the way US needs another WC... most profitable WC ever, best ratings, best attendance... come on now Fifa! give us another one!!
Results matter but the best team doesnt always win, upsets happen and you can still feel that team A even though they lost to team B is still a better team on paper and would win 9times out of ten. []__[]
I just counted all games between Europe and S.America during that same time period.. this is what I came up with (by the way I count PKs as a win not a tie) 23 wins for Europe 18 wins for S.America 10 ties where did you get 29 games from?
Europe vs S. America in knock out stages 12 wins for Europe 7 wins for S. America all of the 5 ahead were on this last WC Uruguay being 2 of those losses (semi and third place match) Paraguay losing to Spain Brazil to the Netherlands Argentina to Germany
And how many were by Brazil? The last time a South American team other than Brazil or Argentina beat a European team after the 1st round was in 1970.
Does it matter? we have 10 teams hahaha that's 20% of our Federation!! If you include Holland, Germany, Portugal, France, Italy, Spain, England that's 13% of your federation winning those games for Europe!
What does the amount of teams in the confederation have to do with this? I thought the argument was that UEFA teams are well represented in the latter stages compared to CONMEBOL only because there are more of them in the tournament. It looks to me that it's more likely down to only one South American team being able to beat UEFA teams in the knock-out stages with any regularity.
First bold, yes that's the argument Second bold, yes 2 teams from S. America are usually regular enough to beat European teams, while Europe has 4 teams regular enough to beat S. American sides. If 2 teams make up all the numbers for S. America it shows how dominant those 2 teams were, so what?
First bold, yes that's the argument Second bold, yes 2 teams from S. America are usually regular enough to beat European teams, while Europe has 4 teams regular enough to beat S. American sides. If 2 teams make up all the numbers for S. America it shows how dominant those 2 teams were, so what?
I don't think in WC82 Brazil would have beaten Italy the majority of the time, the Italians were more balanced, and more importantly, had a better game plan. Brazil confided too much on its individual players to pull them through, despite the weak keeper-centerbacks axis.
Well, Argentina sent England home in WC98...the penalties flattered England, which bunkered the entire second half and overtime after Beckham was sent off. Last WC, Paraguay and Uruguay elimiated teams that had in turn, sent home some of the Europan teams at the group stages. So you are arguing that Uruguay eliminated South Korea, but could not have done the same to Greece?
People should stop bringing up this argument. They won't ever join up. Also, did FIFA care about Mexico when they banned the senior team from qualifying for 1990 because of using an ineligible in an underage tournament?
Thank you for you original and well-reasoned contribution. In the average world cup, how many countries, do you think, ponder whether they "can do it?" that year?
If Concacaf included the Falklands, the Pitcairn Islands and a variety of other tiny barnacles into their confederation, how much impact would it have on the number of decent teams it sends to the world cup?
That's your opinion but the general consensus is that the 82brasil team is one of the all time greats that never got to win a world cup. And the majority of experts and fans believe that if they played again brasil would win easily. Now that's just opinion as well but we will never know, but like i said before results matter to an extend but cant just go by results. []__[]
Well it's eaier said then done right ... At time before the game 90% people think Brazil will be in final and eventually win it Like I mentioned many times ... Rossi demon came up on time and scored a rare hat trick there. Brazil got >60% of possession and created lots of chances - wasted ... any way history