Powerhouse Nations In Decline

England have had a record of not qualifying for one major tournament per decade, so this is in tune with what normally happens since the 60s.

I would not call England "powerhouse" on the level of the obvious 3 and maybe Argentina/France/Holland.

But if you mean since 1996 or so then yeah you're right.

 

i think england isn't a powerhouse since lineker's era.

they are a second level NT.

for me, powerhouses are: Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina and France.

 

Argentina? Explain why they're a 'powerhouse' over England, Holland and Spain.

 

Because the numbers of world class players and for some apresentations, like in the 06 world cup in the group level and in qualifyers to the world cup.

but from the 5 that i listed, they are the worst.

 

England aren't in decline, they're on the same level they've always been. Cock-ups like the Euro 2008 qualifying campaign notwithstanding, it's normally a moribund qualifying process followed by an advance into the last eight of whatever tournament we participate in. The penalty shootout is just the lame punchline to an old joke.

 

2 > 1 > 0

 

Here we go again.

[stock_quote]By that logic Uruguay are a powerhouse.[/stock_quote]

 

yeah but come on we know he meant in the more modern world cups. two world cups and a final in the last 30 years (modern game is weighted more so than world cups 1950 and before, at least by most people. not that those achievements back then weren't very good in and of themselves, of course. back then they made a final as well in 1930 iirc anyways) that is a pretty nice record. of course they also seem to always play well at the u20 level and have had some nice olympic success recently including the last one in greece of course. even if in the last 15 years, their has been a dry spell in pretty much all competitions for the senior team. Plus, the amount of players they have provided at the very top-notch is ahead (though not by a lot) of those other countries. in a top 200 list i would say argentina would be right there with italy and germany below brazil obviously, but above england, holland, etc.

those factors combine for me to put them ahead of england and holland and even slightly ahead of france imho. spain isn't even close to them.

 

In other words, a full footballing generation has passed since the team could legitimately claim to have achieved anything of note.

 

England is roughly the same as before. Their Euro 2008 Qualifiers do not mean anything. Italy probably is in decline. Inzaghi, Del Piero, Totti, Cannavaro, Zambrotta, Gattuso, Nesta and Toni are over 30. They have some talents coming up, but the team needs to adjust.

 

you can claim they have declined from the late 70's- 80's but just cause they haven't achieved anything in one generation doesn't mean they aren't a top 5 power which is what sidis claimed in his post. which admittedly isn't the topic of the thread, but whatever.

 

No he didn't. He claimed they are a "powerhouse" (whatever that is) ahead of other teams like Holland, Spain or England, despite being distinguished from those teams by nothing of note.

 

yeah top 5 power, powerhouse, whatever, but the main contention is that they are ahead of holland, england, and spain. if you take a longer time frame than one generation, say about 25-30 years, i think a good argument can be made that they are ahead of those 3 nations. last 15 years, then yeah they aren't.

 

I'll tell you what distinguishes Argentina from those teams: they' better. Do you watch football on the telly or do you just browse through wikipedia?

 

Better? As in won more or progressed further in international competitions?

 

Surely you can only look at recent history when judging a team otherwise the likes of the USA, Australia, Turkey etc would be considered crap still.

 

As in being a better, stronger team. It's the good teams that make the trophies (although they might not), not the trophies that make the good teams. It seems like people in this forum got the causality all wrong.

 

The results on the pitch don't agree with your assessment.

 

This is football, they not always do.

 

Or in this case at all in recent memory...

 

Argentina can not be claimed as being a better power in recent football as their is no evidence at all to support this.

They are a better power historically in that they have had more success but that imo does not make you a power, its all about recent results which Argentina and England have shared pretty average performances in tournaments.

 

Did you see Brazil winning at all in the eighties? Were they not a powerhouse? Is there a single team on earth with more than 50% chance of beating Argentina? Don't bother to answer.

No it's not. It's about playing the game. Unless you want to put Argentina and England together, of course.

 

In the eighties it had only been 10 years since Brazil had won the world cup. Argentinas last recent memory of near success was the 90 final. England made the semis in the same competition it doesnt make England a top 3 power though. As somebody else mentioned Uruguay should be a power using the Argentina logic.

 

To answer the first question: No more than England.

For question two I'll give you France, Italy and Brazil, 50/50 would be England, Spain and Holland.