News: Sepp Blatter threatens to cut Europe and S. America WC spots in favor of Africa and Asia

Truely biased statements:
"A side like Ukraine will easily beat almost every single second tier African team (...)"
"Agree with everything you just said except for Chile. I don't really see any African team beating them."

 

Truely biased statements:
"A side like Ukraine will easily beat almost every single second tier African team (...)"
"Agree with everything you just said except for Chile. I don't really see any African team beating them."

 

Well with no bias either way I don't think those statements are far fetched.

He said Ukraine would beat every single second tier African side, I don't believe that includes Ghana, Nigeria or Ivory Coast, so why not, I also think they would be forth best if they were in Africa.

I also think Chile is better then every team in Africa, except maybe Ghana, based on their performances the last 2 World cups.

Ukraine lacks star power but have proven to be a tough nut to crack, and Chile lacks history but as of the last few years are really playing some beautiful soccer with some excellent players.

It's good to have some one defend African teams, there is a lack of that here for sure, but 10 teams better then Ukraine, and Nigeria beating Chile easily(you explained why you said that I know) seems much more bias to me then those comments.

 

Please. I'm not even Chilean. The current Chile team is really good. I'd easily place them at about the same level as Ghana or Ivory Coast. And on neutral ground, I'd take the Chileans.

 

Actually Peru gets a rating of 28th in the world from SPI, and 33rd from ELO. Ethiopia, even after this once in a century run, ranks 110th on SPI and 106th in ELO.

Earning points on the road in conmebol qualifying is more difficult than in any other fed in the world.

And I have no dog in this fight, my boys play in the hilarity that is the hex.

 

My post wasn't ridiculous.
It was facts. Since 1989 we haven't lost any game against african sides.
Unfortunately, at the WC, most of the times Conmebol teams are put in the same pot for the draw together with Caf teams, so it is very difficult to ever face one of them in the WC.

Btw, in those Olympics of 2000 in Sidney, besides losing to Cameroon on the semifinals, at quarters we beated Nigeria by 4-1, and at group phase, took care of Morocco by the same score.

In your case, you base Caf suposed superiority, asuming whatever you want to believe with nothing to support your thesis. In my case, I use history and games that actually were played.

 

How are they not far-fetched?

1. "A side like Ukraine will easily beat almost every single second tier African team (...)"
Easily beat? Every single? Unless the definition of first tier African teams includes the likes of Cameroon, Egypt, Algeria, Senegal, Morocco than how is that not far-fetched?

All of these teams possess far better individual players than Ukraine, whose star players are Yarmolenko and a Serbian national team reject. They may not all possess the same tactical prowess and level of teamplay.

The key words: easily and every single. This is a Ukraine side with Shevchenko that struggled to beat the worst Tunisia side in living memory and in order to win needed the referee to deny a clear handball violation penalty and then second later award a penalty for a blatant dive. This is also a Ukraine side, who at home failed to beat a second rate Cameroon side (without almost all their best players) just several months ago

Yes, stating that is crap Ukraine side would easily beat every single second tier African side is misguided at best. Its actually geering towards disrespectful. Ukraine may well be a top 10 team in Africa (I personally would rate them as 12th), but they would on no planet easily beat every single African team. Ukraine is a tough nut to crack, but they are not a team that easily wins against anyone, let alone second tier African teams.

Just as a point of contention:

I never wrote they were 10 teams better than Ukraine. We will never know, so such a discussion is pointless. My exact choice of words were:
"There are some 10 African countries, who can be Ukraine's better"
Notice the key words: can be not are.

Meaning: They may or may not be better, but they have good enough squads for it to be debatable. Teams like Cameroon or Senegal have better players (as do - by my count - 11 African sides in total). Whether or not that can transgress into being a better team is debatable and since we'll never know for sure the discussion is pointless.

2. "Agree with everything you just said except for Chile. I don't really see any African team beating them."

This one is just ludicrous. Being a good team on form aside... well so is Nigeria, Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire. How can someone state with any level of credibility that none of these sides has a chance against Chile (not to mention that a second string Ghana side who flew in less than two days prior drew Chile 1:1 just several months ago).

Except maybe Ghana? Let's correct that. If we take performances at the last 2 World Cups than there should be NO maybe in that sentence.

 

That foul which was "bigger than a building", at least deserved a yellow card.
see for yourself in first 25 secs. of this video


And no, it did not save Chile, as through that goal that came from that call, Chile scored (first goal of the match), so it was Cameroon whom had to work from there on, to save their butts (All that Chile needed to pass to the next phase, was a draw and we got it).

 

Well... you haven't won a competitive game against an African side EVER. And the only reason you haven't been beaten by an African side since 1989 is because of one of the most scandalous decisions in the 1998 World Cup.

Chile has four friendlies wins: against Tunisia in 1998 (arguably the only win against a top tier African side), against South Africa (at best a top 15 African team), Egypt (you know... the team Ghana thrashed 6:1) and a Zambian squad played at home in Chile that flew in the day before (ladida).

So Chile doesn't exactly have bragging rights.

So? Do I really have to point out Africa's recent record at the Olympics? Besides Chile's total tally at the Olympics against African sides is 2 wins and 2 losses.

And if we really want to use youth tournaments then BTW: How did the last meeting against African opposition pan out at the U20 World Cup?

No, you didn't. I, on the other hand, do.

 

I'm not talking about that situation (and I am flabbergasted you don't know what situation I'm referring to). I have no qualms with the red card. I'm talking about 1 of the 2 goals that were scored by Cameroon and incorrectly chalked off. The first one is debatable and probably marginally offside, the second one is just the referee saving Chile's behind.

Chile advances amidst controversy

Disallowed goal keeps Cameroon out of 2nd round
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/events/1998/worldcup/news/1998/06/23/chile_cameroon/

---

EDIT:
Just watch this video at 4:15. Clear goal. No foul. No offside. Chalked off. Apparently in Laszlo Vagner's world jumping up and beating a defender to the ball is a 'foul'.


And here - from an unbiased website for referees:
http://worldreferee.com/site/copy.php?linkID=1138&linkType=referee&contextType=bio
Laszlo Vagner (FIFA 1991-1998) took charge of many matches in the last century, but one will stay in everybody's memory: 1998 World Cup group stage match Chile vs Cameroon. Vagner disallowed a goal by Cameroon for a push that didn't happen.

Unsurprisingly Laszlo Vagner ended his refereeing career the same year.

 

Yeah, a disallowed goal according to Cameroon's coach.

That issue on regards to Cameroon's coach is what usually is called a sore loser.

1:23 of this video, (this one is not from chilean tv, and whom makes the comments also agrees with the referee, of the Cameroon player being off side, when he kicked the ball in. )


Oh yeah,for your knowledge :
a disallowed goal, isn`t a scored goal. Cameroon only scored one time in that game.


(post edited : my mistake, at 1:36 of the video was the scene of the disallowed goal, as in the 1:23 of the video was the perfect goal scored by Cameroon).

 

First off: The video you posted doesn't show anything. Check 4:31 of my video which shows the side angle when Mboma heads the ball to Omam Biyik. Clearly ca 2 meters onside.
Secondly: The post-game report and the signalling of the referee shows that the goal was chalked of for a foul. Not for offside (if it was chalked of for offside it would be even more blatant).
Thirdly: Le Roy and the entire Cameroon side were furious. Most commentators agreed with them as did most press articles.
And lastly: The referee only whistled after the ball was heading into the net. It was a dissallowed goal by all measures.

Enough. We're steering of subject. Fact remains you have yet to beat an African side in a full national competitive game.

 

BTW You have to admire the commentators knowledge of football. Apparently according to him if a player is offside on the play preceding the final pass, then he is still offside, even if he returns back to an onside position before the actual final play of the ball is made Got to admire the competency of ESPN commentators.

 

Lol more likely would beat Ukraine to a pulp... you really are an African white knight are you? I see all those teams losing to Ukraine , aside from maybe Senegal and Cameroon(if they can reach their full potential). To say Algeria has better players than Ukraine is laughable, only Feghouli comes close to real quality and even he is often a substitute. Ukraine has far better players, but you do already have little ground to stand do you? since Algeria lost to Slovenia and America... Also to say that this Egypt - who would properly even lose to a side like Hungary or Slovakia and it pains me because I love Egypt - can beat Ukraine is nothing short of comical.

You really don't know anything about Ukraine do you? Konoplyanka, Tymoshchuk, Rakitskiy, Kucher and Yarmolenko these are all very capable players and I probably have forgotten a few. It is very ironic and very funny that you should start pointing fingers with overestimating...

more cherry picking logic from you, brilliant. yet it was all fine and well when Ghana had that stroke of luck in the group stage wasn't it? just like Ghana deserved a penalty for that non-existent handball in the match against Germany? Honestly I can't understand why you keep going like this when you have nothing to stand on. Ukraine is just a small example, want an other one? a far superior Nigeria side was unable to beat a very weak and pathetic Greek side on the last world cup. Or that Slovenia managed to beat Algeria? or is that too embarrassing for you?
ah, friendlies the white knight's favourite argument, because it is their only argument. What did you say to me a while back when my team beat your precious Ghana to a pulp in a friendly? oh yeah now I remember "honestly, who cares about friendlies" oops! by the way summer friendlies are often the most worthless one's as teams don't care at all about it and prefer to just experiment with many substitutes.

Do you hear that England? YOU SUCK! because your top teams are dominated with individual foreign players who outshine your native players. I guess new Brazilian rising star Bernard is considered third-class... Or Willian who was bought by Chelsea this summer or the interest of Manchester City and Manchester United in Douglas Costa, real third-class players. Also apparently according to zahzah logic you are being outshined by African talent when there are African players in the top 3 teams... I also guess it doesn't count that are still good Ukrainian players in those teams.

Yes I have the audacity my dear African white knight, because you don't have anything to stand on. The statistics are overwhelmingly in UEFA and COMMEBOL's favour; not a single African team has made the semi-finales, the world cup in Africa that was supposed to be Africa's moment to shine turned out to be deception with almost all of Africa's team getting eliminated in the group stage and the next world cup won't be any better, mark my words. Africa just not ready yet, same case with Asia. if there would be play-offs between second tier UEFA teams and second tier CAF teams it will definitely end in more heartbreak for your African white knight heart.

 

I won't respond to all of your feverish nonsensities, as to not embroil into sidetracked discourse. Just the key ones.

I see all those teams beating Ukraine. I'm not saying they definitely would, but most of them have way more talented players, but I agree that with exceptions like Tunisia and Algeria are nowhere as well organised as Ukraine is.

Yeah? Like who? The only players that come to mind are Yarmolenko, Tymoshchuk and the Serbian national team reject. And you said it yourself: "all very capable players". Meaning good, but nothing special. Sort of like Algeria.

a) That Algerian side was returning to the World Cup after 30 years and played very poorly, they have actually improved since then.
b) Algeria is sort of like Ukraine - no real great players, but a decent team with good tactics and organised teamplay.

Well... if you remember that game Nigeria was its own worst enemy (comfortably controlling the game then a mindmelt and a senseless red card - the clueless coach did the rest).

What's more: How can you even compare that Nigeria side, without Mikel, coached by a clueless last-minute hired on coached and embroiled in locker room fighting for match bonuses, vs a team with good chemistry, a competent coach and several breakthrough players. APPLES AND ORANGES. You're using the example of Nigeria at its worst compared to a resurgent Nigeria. Go figure!

BTW: Greece is a way better side than Ukraine.

First off Algeria weren't exactly 'played off the field'. Secondly - and I'll repeat myself - the whole Algerian escapade at the World Cup was a disgrace (absolutely no forward creativity) and they have actually improved since then. Do Algeria have a team good enough to beat Ukraine? Definitely.

Agreed. But you are comparing apples with oranges. Friendlies are very poor indicators of anything, but they are often the only ones we have. The problem is Ukraine doesn't have many games against African sides (the World Cup game against Tunisia, a friendly against Cameroon and 2 friendlies vs Libya (lost 1, won 1)). The fact remains that until we have better proof all we can say is that Ukraine has in no way proven to be better than the African second tier sides.

Meanwhile the Netherlands friendly is a whole different ball game. It was just prior to the World Cup, meaning the test that really mattered was at the WORLD CUP. Even if they lost all games prior to the cup, all that counts was how they performed at the cup itself.

Well... not to get too deep into it, but most people admit that this is becoming a problem for the English national team.

TBH Willian is the worst 30 mln eur spent this season. That said from time to time great Brasilian players do appear in the Ukraine Premier League. Not all of the Brasilians in the Ukraine are third rate, but most are. And they are the top dogs in the league. Szachtar is overreliant on its Brasilian players, Metalist on its Brasilian and Argentinian players, while only Dynamo Kyiv bases its success on a mix of Africans, Brasilians, Europeans and a few of Ukraine's finest (Yarmolenko). The only Ukrainian players that stand out in these foreigner based teams are Yarmolenko and Husyev (Dynamo) and Serbia reject Marko Devic (Metalist). Ukrainian star Seleznyov was basically even deemed surplus to requirements given the Brasilians at Szachtar were just better players.

How can you deny this?

Watch out. You'll get a heart attack from all the vitriol. Calm down, take a chill pill and then reconnect with logical thinking.

 

BTW Such a level of aggression directed ad personam normally suggests that a person is losing a discussion, stays in denial and subconsciously decides to forget about logic, facts and just decides to go for the jugular.

Ergo thanks for basically handing me the victory in this discussion.

 

Okay I'm going ignore you from now on as you are clearly delusional and just keep on using the same strawman argument over and over again. We will see in 2014 how African teams hold up this time, our Ukraine argument will probably go on for a while since - and I think we both agree on this for once - Ukraine will probably not beat France.

aggressive? I have just been snarky, since you ask for it with your finger waving and claiming our bias while pretending to be unbiased. I'm sure a lot of people here have more aggressive replies for you in mind but decide not to reply. Seeing your almost obsessive behaviour during this years u-20 world cup how bad Euro teams were preforming and your constant rants why Spain didn't deserve to win the world cup. "winning" the discussion shows also a child like mentality, once people start to think a discussion is a game to win, it ends - there is no discussion anymore. I hold nothing personal against you dude, sorry if you feel it so. But why don't you just admit your African bias? I admit I have my bias, I think little of the African clubs and the last African cup of nations that I saw also made it hard for me to see African teams as serious threat on the world cup. I don't hate African teams, I actually prefer underdog teams in general but I just don't see them making impact any time soon. Even though I hope I'm wrong(as long as it isn't against The Netherlands lol).

 

It was definitely not a gift, the player didn't stop the ball at edge of the penalty box, he stopped it right on the goal line and was the last man back. If he doesn't put his arm (which wasn't stuck to his body ), the possibilty that the ball enter the net is 100%, that's why the ref has to give a red, because there is never a 100% chance with a penalty. A handball from a untarget shot "somewhere" in the box is debatable (even though the rules say penalty), that wasn't the case here.

I would be very careful of not stereotyping especially with what your team showed during its last two World Cup appearance .
We might as well say that "Dutch players have a tendency to hack like butchers to the slighest contact". After being involved in one of the most disgusting WC match ever against Portugal in 2006 (4 red cards), they again showed off the full extent of their talents in 2010.

 

First, I hadn`t seen these images before, which clearly shows there is no off-side position, to which I thought was the reason why the goal was disallowed (my mistake, propperly repped your post over it). However, the image of the moment when the Cameroon player heads the ball towards Biyik isn`t clear at all, so you can't asume anything that really happened at that moment only basing your opinion over it.

On the issue, there are some unquestionable facts, though :
At the moment of the ball being headed, the chilean defender whom attempted to head that ball, is falling down in the same direction from where the Cameroon player (Mboma) jumped from, which could be (a possibility, not a fact) due to an illegal charge on him. As a second issue, although it doesn`t appear on the video, but it is said on the very same report you previosly posted by CNN, the line referee had his flag up, which means that he saw something (could be over an offside or maybe another thing, as we don`t really know why he raised his flag for and at the end, the whole responsability of what got called afterwards goes on the referee of the match, Mr. Vagner). As a third issue, and most important about it, is that Mr. Vagner was right behind at less than 5 meters from where the action took place, without any player except the actors at sight between them, so without doubt, he had the best angle possible to judge the play. When he called it, he showed no doubt on what he called, which you can clearly realize from how fast the narrator of the match noted that the goal was disallowed. The fact that the ball was in the net, is only due to how fast the play was, as in the video you posted, from Omam Biyik's kick, to the moment it was noted as a disallowed play by the commentator, less than 1 second happened (I don`t know about you, but in the video you posted at 4:21 inmediately before, the narrator says "Omam", I clearly listen a wistle, even before Omam Biyik's kicks the ball. Could be from the crowds though), so it is very likely that at the moment he kicked the ball, the referee had already wistled it, disallowing everything that happened afterwards, with it. Note that in the video you posted, none of the players protested the call (nor from Cameroon, nor Chileans, except Omam Biyil's face with open arms, and the only protests came from outside of the pitch).

As a side note, Cameroon afterwards protested, but not only against this particular game, but also making false accusations on racism being the fact that eliminated them from this WC in "ALL" of their games of this WC.

 

Well considering I've seen Ghana flop constantly against the US twice in the last cup, I'll second the motion.

Also just to reiterate from earlier:

Peru ranked top 35 in the world by SPI and ELO, Ethiopia ranked outside the top 100, even after their run this year. Even after.

Not sure why people make some pretty deluded arguments about the relative strength of conmebol.

It seems pretty clear to me, Brazil has been a top 1-5 team in the world for 60+ years, Argentina a top 7 team in the world for about 40 years.

Conmebol's second tier consistently slots somewhere between 10th-20th in the world easily, generally these teams are amongst Chile, Paraguay (which has slipped), Uruguay and Colombia, Ecuador has climbed from nowhere to top 20-40 status for about a decade while teams like Peru, Venezuela and Boliva slide in between 35-50 despite being the cellar dwellars of conmebol.

It's history and its present. Add in the world cup will be hosted in S. America and Colombia, Chile and Uruguay could impress even more (though Im worried about Uruguay's age).

And again, no axe to grind being a US fan, and often arguing with conmebol fans that if the US qualified in a mega fed out of Conmebol they'd usually finish between 3rd and 7th, get an autobid, and a median slot finish would probably be 4th or 5th.

 

I don't know why that's so ludicrous. The current Chile team is just as good as any African side. I happen to like Chile's team more than any African side. Could a Ghana or Ivory Coast beat them? Sure, anything's possible. But I'd definitely bet on Chile winning more than Ghana or whoever. And my original statement was made in response to someone saying a bunch of second tier African sides would likely beat Chile in intercontinental playoffs. Did I over exaggerate a bit when I said Chile wouldn't lose to an African side in intercontinental playoffs? Yeah. But using the word "really" in my original statement the way I did, it's not like I was saying there is zero percent chance of it every happening (maybe you just didn't understand the nuance, because obviously it's hard to hear tone of voice when reading something over the internet). But my statement isn't far from the truth. Chile are just as good as any team in Africa, and I don't back down from it. It's just my opinion, but the way you keep going on about it every single post like I'm spouting damning lies is just ludicrous. You've said your piece, I've said mine, now move on.

 

So basically we both exaggerated or miswrote our comments, because we actually both agree with this statement. Chile vs Ghana, Nigeria or Cote d'Ivoire are pretty equal matchups. Chile may or may not win them, but so may the African sides. Not much difference in depth and quality.

 

Well... Chile were wrongly done in the first game against Italy.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that its a rascist thing, but up until 1998 there was a peculiar tendency of African sides getting the almost all possible calls go against them or getting served the short end of the stick (starting from Cameroon and Algeria back in 1982). They were more likely to see a red card or concede a penalty, while opposition almost never got the same treatment. There was actually a study done somewhere in Africa where they showed some sort of bias in World Cup games. I'm not saying all the calls were wrong, but, for example, if an African player did something that may be red card worthy than more likely than not the African team would get a red card. It actually only seemed to fade out at the 2002 World Cup onwards.

 

No worries. It just sounded like you were starting to take things a little too personal, and I wanted to clear up my statement.

 

That's part of the game, after some time everyone must accept that many times there will be mistakes, specially done by referee's (they are human, and so, they can have them once in while), but to cry out to the seven winds, how you are intentionally being mistreated, is more to the likes of a bad loser. Every team sometimes gets lousy calls on its favour, but sometimes those same teams also get bad ones against.

If you are not up to it, don't play football.
Oh yes, we were "smugged" from a victory in our opener game against Italy that WC, yeah sucks but francly it is hard to believe that the referee in that game, did it intentionally. He simply made a mistake and if we would have scored more goals we would have won anyway, and as we didn't, it ended in a draw.