Re: Ecuador vs El Salvador May 27,2009 The teams you named above have had quality football over the years but for the most part have not managed to win jack shit in most of their history. That seperates the tier 1 from tier 2. That is what seperates the boys from the men. The teams that make it all the way to the final from the teams that simply had a "good run" a few times. A single trophy and a couple 3rd place medals don't make you the same world power that Italy, Brazil and Germany are. These are teams that are continously winning and continously making it to the finals. Just because Spain won the EuroCup and had a few good runs means jack. Holland and Spain are continously trying to make it to the first tier with great football but in the end of the day...a single trophy to each and that is all. No consistency at all. Hell, Holland didn't even qualify for the 2002 WC. Uruguay - old news. Historically great with trophies to back them up but nowadays...they have seriously declined. England may have won a controversial WC at home but that does not excuse the fact that they failed to qualify for the WC in 94 and the Eurocup in 08. 1st tier NT don't do this - they qualify!!! Portugal - WTF have they won? Nothing, lost to Greece in their own final in the EuroCup in Portugal in 2004. Their golden era is over. Croatia made it 3rd to a WC...all of the sudden they are a 1st tier team? Turkey made it 3rd to a WC too...and so have Sweden. Denmark and Greece have actually WON a EuroCup too. That does not make them 1st tier teams? Hell no. It just barely makes the 2 tier teams to be fair. So were did you want to place Ecuador again? Between the 2nd and 1st tier? I would love to as well, but I'm not living in "La-La Land". I would say Ecaudor is a shoe in as a third tier team. Lol...it is great that you support our NT. I do, no questions asked, but I am not dilussional either.
Re: Ecuador vs El Salvador May 27,2009 I was about to say that...and ESPECIALLY POINT OUT Uruguay and England...but more Uruguay...14 COPA AMERICAS dude, that's NOOOOTTT a 2nd tier team. And on top of that 2 World Cups. enough said...
Re: Ecuador vs El Salvador May 27,2009 Having quality football every 10 to 15 years before hitting another slump does not make a team a 1st tier team...it means having quality - period. ALL THE TIME!!! Uruguay's Copa America's run is indeed impressive, but the last time they won was in 95...and then 83 and 87...before that, they hadn't won since the 60's. They have no consistencty. And while they won 2 WC in 1930 and in 1950. Do you know since 1950, they failed to qualify for a WC 6 times??? 3 of those times were out of the last 4; 1994, 1998 and 2006. And 2002 was after a play-off with Australia only to end up getting their asses kicked out in the 1st round. Were is that champion consistency when they have to scramble a reprechaje just so they won't fail to qualify for a WC 3 times in a row? If that sounds like a 1st tier team to you, then I understand why you believe Ecuador should be a 1st tier team as well. England, as I mentioned have won ONE trophy....one single WC trophy - which has all sorts of conspiracies attached to it as well, even by Havelange - who said it was a "tarnished" WC. But regardless of that one win, that one championship title, that one WC; it does not make them a 1st tier NT either. Teams that don't qualify for their competions like WC 1994 or the EuroCup in 2008, are not 1st tier teams... They may be hot or cold at times but 1st tier teams are for the most part, always "hot"... But just to recap...if Uruaguay is soooo much better than I give them credit for, and should be considered a 1st team tier with their 2 WC and 14 Copa Americas - then how the hell can you justify Ecuador being a first tier team?
Re: Ecuador vs El Salvador May 27,2009 Cris...you sir have just raised an almost inarguable argument...good points.
Despite a couple of absenses from Continental competitions, England have won a World Cup and have always been able to compete and provide a close challenge to the other top National sides of the World, so historically they will always be considered a 1st tier side, as too would the legendary Uruguay for their great number of successes. With regards to modern day tiers, I think that one thing we can all agree on is that the tiers of International Football are now more closer than ever. If I were a player playing for a second tier team and was going into a game with a top tier side, I would no way show fear and would go in with incredible confidence giving how small the gap in standard is now becoming. This would especially apply when against top tier sides such as Italy, France and Germany, who unfortunately look weaker than they have in a long time, or even ever, and could very well suffer early exits at next year's WC giving how competitive the International game is now looking. Plenty of shocks and new beginnings could be on the cards for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.
except it's still safe to say that if Mexico played Germany or France that they would get rocked. Ecuador has played against Spain, and the result was pretty ugly...the truth is that the big teams will win almost all of the time.
We'll agree to disagree... England won a single WC. Beyond that one time, prior to 66, they never had and never again played in a final up to this date. Actually, they never again even made it to a semi final - EVER!! Their next best spot is 4th which they reached in 1990. That is it. Beside those poor WC runs, England also missed out on 3 WC by failure to qualify since 1966. Three! That's a lot of WC aprearances missed for a 1st tier NT. In Europe, England failed to qualify a total of 5 times!!! Out of the times they did play...they only reached the semi finals once, and were eliminated. This was at home in England 96. These figures hardly impress me as being "world beaters". Once again, the difference between those that can compete and those that can win, is the difference between a 2nd tier NT and a 1st tier NT. As far as Uruguay goes.... if a 2nd or 3rd tier national side had the choice of meeting Germany, Brazil, Italy, France or Uruguay in a semi final...it is pretty safe to say that they would all prefer to meet with Uruguay. But we are not discussing England here, but Ecuador, and what tier they should fall into. As stated, I think we are 3rd. Feel free to continue you England discussion with me in the "Off Topic" thread.
In most cases the teams that actually took England's places in competitions went very far. The absenses though are overshadowed and heavily ignored because England have been crowned as Champions of the World, have reached the 1990 semi final, and have always remained competitive and provided a close fight to the other top national sides of the World. Practically everybody will class them as a historically top tier team, and with every WC or Euro that they enter they are always one of the favourites to win the competition.
Re: Ecuador vs El Salvador May 27,2009 According to Havelange, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-fixed-referees-claims-ex-FIFA-president.html Personally, I call it bullshit but it is enough to raise a few eye-brows. What stunned fans the most, was the goal 3rd English goal that never crossed the line, but was given to England by the linesman as the ref was unsure. Regardless, they won it...but they have not done anything even remotly close to that again. As I said, one semi-final in ALL competitions either before or after that and nothing more. Not 1st tier team if you ask me...but thats just me.
These are those 1st tier teams you talk about... That is right, there are 8 absences that are overshadowed when in fact it is a reality - I therefore bring them to light to prove my point. 8 absences at the world stage. Not 1st tier team material if you ask me. Only if you read "The Sun". Please know that I am not trying to discredit England not take away their accomplishments, its just that is the end, their accomplishments just aren't that many.
For the most part the teams I mentioned have not won jack? Are you kidding me? Are those multiple World Cup and Continental titles nothing to you? If you think Italy, Brazil, Germany and the likes are the only first tier teams in the world that is your opinion, but leaving others that have shown good football and have won titles through the years is questionable. Uruguay: World Cup titles and multiple Copa America's. You claim they haven't won a Copa America since 1995, yet one of the teams you listed as first tier, Argentina hasn't won the Copa America since 1993. England: The fact is they won a World Cup and your rationalization about its validity doesn't matter. You said it was a blunder that they didn't qualify for WC 94, yet another team you classified as first tier, France has made the same amount of World Cup's as England (12). Portugal: How is their golden era over simply because they got second place at Euro 2004? They were a semi-finalist at the last World Cup and their young stars are barely coming of age. Croatia: Beat your first tier German team at the highest stage, the World Cup 3-0. Not to mention have shown they can play with the best in Europe and around the world. As far as Denmark and Greece winning their Euro titles, making them second tier teams, that is not the discussion. Otherwise, teams like Peru and Bolivia who have won the Copa America can also be considered second tier teams according to you and Ecuador who has played better the last few years is a third tier team? For the most part we have shown our level of football on the international stage when we beat or tied many of the teams you classified as first tier. Now, we may not be at our highest level currently, but Ecuador is still a team those at the top are probably wary to play.
Cris - When the majority of people rate the tiers of football, it isn't just about how many accomplishments teams have made, but also about being able to compete with and defeat their fellow tier teams. Throughout time England have always been considered as one of the best, and have been able to prove it by defeating other top sides at a decent ratio. Even during the three WC's that they failed to qualify for, they were still funningly enough considered as a top notch team. Many of the teams that took their places in competitions were actually historically or for the time period 1st tier teams, for instance Netherlands in 94, who went on that year to reach the WC Quarter Finals where they were narrowily defeated by eventual Champions Brazil, or Croatia in 2008, who for that year were considered as one of the top sides around. I suppose it's entierely one's choosing though as to how they judge tiers, but I like many, would rather base it on not just achievements, but also competitiveness.
Actually over the past 10 plus years Mexico have shown that they are capable of hanging with the big boys, for instance in top continental competitions they have defeated Brazil (3 times), drew with Italy, Netherlands, and Argentina, and narrowily lost to Germany, back when Germany were an incredible side. Today if Mexico were to collide with the declining giants of Italy, Germany, and France, a Mexico win would come as no shock at all as they are very capable of pulling off a win against the modern day versions of such sides.
As I said, there is a difference to showing "good footbasll" and "showing good football with some sort of consistency". Uruaguay are and should be proud of their world titles and continental titles alike. But unless they start to show that they can not only win more games than they lose at the highest level, they are not a 1st tier team in my book. You cannot live on history alone... Are you saying Argentina and Uruguay are even in the same class?? Please... France have also made it to more finals -showing more consistency and have won the EuroCup twice as well as the Confederations Cup. I am guessing it is over because it started in 2000 and that was 9 years ago. The likes of Figo and Couto are gone. Yes, they have very talented players and they may very well become the next "Golden Generation" but the Portuguese "Geração Dourada", as it is known, is pretty much over. And if we can look at Uruguay's history to consider how good they are, then we should be able to look at Portugal's history as well and add that as a variable too. 19 times! You know what that is? The amount of times the have failed to qualify for a Euro or a World Cup. Ok...lets see below, Denmark beat Germany in Germany to win the European Cup in 1992. Does that make them a 1st tier NT?? I am curious if you think Denmark are a 1st tier team...Certainly, a victory over Germany during a EC final in Germany is a greater accomplishment than beating Germany during a WC quarter final in France. And yes, you are right, they can play with the best of Europe and the world, but they are not the best. Not by any means. There is the difference. I never said Peru or Bolivia should be 2nd tier teams...but from a historical point of view, they have accomplished more than Ecuador has. I said Denmark and Greece would barely be considered as a 2nd tier NT - and please don't tell me you rate winning the Copa America the same as a winning a Euro Cup. I don't disagree with this...but until we start winning with more consistency, we aren't ever going to be considered anything but a dark horse in all the competition we enter. I actually based it more on continuity and consistency (hence using history to demonstrate this). England have neither of these. They have failed to meet the standard that you, the English media and the rest of the world have for them. I would say they are truly underachievers as they certainly have the class of players to accomplish so much more than they have. This new team under Capello certainly has given them the edge, but until they can actually go the extra mile with consistency, I think they will continue to bring more dissapointment and frustration to their fans than joy. Look, I am not saying that what "I say, is how it goes...". This is just my opinion on how I percieve the difference between tiers. If England is a 1st tier National Team in your book allowing you to sleep better at night, then so be it.
Excellent and FRIENDLY argument here. I'd have to say that you both have good points but I tend to agree a little more with Cris. No doubt England has a very solid squad based on individual performance. Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, Ferdinand, Terry, and the list goes on about the depth of impressive players; nevertheless I think their team has not accomplished anything to the likes of Brazil, Italy, France, or Argentina. I think England could compete with them on any day of the week, but they haven't won as much. Look, Italy is in a relative slump right now, as is France so they are all having troubles, but they have a history full of finals. I hope that made sense haha
I'm not saying they are in the same class, what I said was that Uruguay has won two World Cup's and since you mentioned the last time they won a title, it has been longer for Argentina. More finals than who? Ok, just because the "Geração Dourada" as it is known may be over because Figo and Couto are not on the team, big deal. That is just a title for a team that did well, but if you look at Portugal's recent showings in international competition and their young players I think you should not guess "it is over because...that was 9 years ago." Not only is Uruguay's history good, they field competitive teams usually. If you think Portugal is a second tier team simply because they didn't qualify in the past, they like Ecuador have played well the last years. They compete and any of the teams you have listed as first tier would probably not want to play them in an elimination game. I wasn't saying Denmark was a first tier team, although they have good football. I said this about Croatia, not about Denmark. So is France, and Germany the best? That's why a team you classified as second tier, Spain won the Euro 2008. I don't rate it the same, but the champions of Euro Cup will have a hard time beating the champions of Copa America. If you based it on continuity and consistecy, how is winning a World Cup in 1966 and going fourth in 1990 not consistent? Not only that throughout those years they have beaten many of teams you have as first tier. I don't have any standard for the English team, I am a fan of Ecuador, I was just wondering considering their titles and level of play you would say they are second tier. Like you said "we'll agree to disagree." I am not vouching for any of these countries, but they do have good levels of football historically, or currently with multiple titles or just good playing in international games. If you think teams like Spain are second tier based on your evaluations, so be it. Tiers are subject to personal assessment, but you do have valid points.
But they are also making reaching Copa finals and qualifying top of the CONMEBOL group... England; 1 WC France; 2 WC, 2 EC and 2 CC (confederations cup) I don't doubt that they will grow into a footballing force again...but let's see if they can accomplish something before we rate them. They have not really been competing well at the international level at all to be fair. Agreed then Greece won the Euro as well...and so did Denmark. Spain is a great team, and right now, probably one of the best in Europe - they might very well be a 1st tier team. Let's see if their history of choking is finally over... Agreed England are 2nd tier, buddy...I cannot give clearer examples of "why". The fact that they are competitive and have beaten a few big teams means very little as they have never been able to go beyond a quarter final but twice. And you make very good points as well...I think all in all we can put this discussion to rest and I'll say thanks for the great debate - it was fun.
We are only 10 days away from playing Peru for the WCQ. I feel confident about going into this game because Peru is basically out of the World Cup and since we have a lot more at stake i think that we will come in strong to win the game and we have to get some goals in to get our goal difference better
Don't get too overconfident about this game....it's the little guys that get us shook and surprise us. Here's the list for people who haven't seen it...the NT official Squad List: Arqueros Máximo Banguera (Barcelona) Marcelo Elizaga (Emelec) Cristian Mora (El Nacional) Defensas Jairo Campos (Liga de Quito) Giovanny Espinoza (Barcelona) Marcelo Fleitas (Emelec) Jorge Guagua (El Nacional) Iván Hurtado (Sin equipo) Isaac Mina (Deportivo Quito) Néicer Reasco (Liga de Quito) Volantes Walter Ayoví (Monterrey) Segundo Castillo (Everton) Fernando Hidalgo (Barcelona) Édison Méndez (PSV Eindhoven) Jefferson Montero (Independiente José Terán) Cristian Noboa (Rubin Kazan) Pedro Quiñonez (Santos Laguna) David Quiroz (Emelec) Antonio Valencia (Wigan) Delanteros Felipe Caicedo (Manchester City) Joffre Guerrón (Getafe) Pablo Palacios (Barcelona) Joao Rojas (Emelec) Carlos Tenorio (Sin equipo) (DEO) I'm disappointed about Fernando Hidalgo and Pedro Quinonez being on this list....one completely sucks at futbol period (Hidalgo) the other fouls more than ANYTHING and is dangerous to keep on the field (Quinonez).....I'm surprsied Fleitas is on the list Line up vs Peru: Banguera; Reasco, Campos, Fleitas, Mina; Noboa, Castillo, Quiroz???, Ayovi; Rojas, Tenorio (unfortunately) I'd definitely not put Hidalgo up there ever again after his horrible game against Venezuela and his mediocre performances in general...he sucks ass and I don't know HOW he gets to be on the official list. Why the hell is Urrutia not on the list??...Vizuete is an IGNORANT, we need his experience in these type of games where we have no one else to put in our mid.
I might get in trouble for saying this but I would play Caicedo over Tenorio, unless he has too many yellow cards I don't remember but he has been playing top football now for a month or so and it could be a good time for him to push around the little Peruvian team. I'm just waiting for a hat-trick from him; I just hope I don't have to wait too long.
my lineup against Peru ----------------------Elizaga Reascos -----Hurtado -------Fleitas -----Ayovi ------------Castillo----- Mendez ------ Montero------------------Noboa ---------Guerron --------------Rojas
question # 1 doesn't Guerron have too many yellows??? or else even I, who am not a fan of him, would make him start...just not as a forward Oh yeah and Hurtado and Mendez can't play against Peru for sure b/c they have too many yellows.