When Will Another Giant Emerge?

In the romano derby, there will be with 2 chilean players in each side:
Luis Jiménez for Lazio; and David Pizarro for Roma.

In my case, though Pizarro is from my province (Valparaíso), I'll support Jiménez and Lazio, because Pizarro is no more NT player, and isn't sympathic at all.

DAI MAGO!!

 

I think they are called "El Tri", which stands for "El tricolor" in reference to Mexico's flag with three colors

 

Jaja, desparramai el odio hacia Pizarro por todas partes.

The next South American country to win the world cup will be Chile. After all, 3 of the original 4 CONMEBOL founders (Uruguay, Brazil, Argentina) have already won it... so the pattern indicates Chile is next, right? RIGHT?

..

Oh well, I can dream.

 

es sólo un cambio del eje de rotación

 

france has won 1 Wc... got lucky this WC that had an easy group were they even failed to beat Korea. Everyone knows spain is cursed and cant pass the quaterfinals... then played portugal who do not know how to score. They had it easy... 2002 they were the worst team in Korea.

How is france a super power ? thats like saying England is because they have one WC.

 

I would agree. Although France did well in this WC and in 98 where they were hosts, I think you have to win the WC at least 2x to be considered a 'super power'... And at least 1 of those wins should be in foreign soil.

Going back to the thread, I would say any of the current top 8 in South America could be contenders and do what a Portugal did in this past WC- which is reach the final 4.

Brazil + Argentina - Super Power
Uruguay - "ex" Super Power
COlombia - Ecuador -Paraguay - Chile - Peru

all have potential to show up and play with any team in Europe. Remember something F.L.I.P, CONMEBOL has by far the MOST difficult WC Qualifying tournament - way beyond anything they have in Europe. It's long and it's intense. Can you imagine grouping all the TOP European sides under 1 group and giving them only 4.5 spots:

THEIR GROUP OF 10 WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS:
ENGLAND
SPAIN
PORTUGAL
GERMANY
FRANCE
ITALY
TURKEY
SWEDEN
HOLLAND
CZECH REP

4 DIRECT SPOTS AND THE 1/2 SPOT WOULD PLAY OCEANIA --

I WONDER HOW OFTEN ENGLAND WOULD MAKE IT

 

Y Argentina por que?

 

just look at the groups that in europe... Serbia finished 1st and the only other good team in their group was spain.. ARgentina beat them 6-0 !!! Did argentina beat any SA team 4-0? No, not to say Serbia is a bad team but, to lose that bad is awful. Also Poland was in the WC and Colombia beat them with a crappy b-list team in poland 2-1.

My case is england qualifies against scotland, republic of ireland, north ireland, wales.. That is 5 countries that are basically the same country. That is not fair.

Then italy qualifies against san marino which is an island taht is part of italy and has never won a qualifier b4 ... it is not are they going to lose its how bad are they going to lose.

I mean even in SA Boliva is a great team they just have a hard group. If they went to Europe they would def qualify once in a while same as Peru. I believe Paraguay,Uruguay and Colombia would always qualify. There really arent that many good teams. It just seems they are good because they get so many slots for the WC. Also its not fair taht every other WC is in Europe. It 90 italy, 94 USA, 98 France, 2002 Korea/Japan, 06 Germany??? WHY DO thye get it every 8 years !!!!!!!!!! Again not fair

 

cause maaaan their good. Spain, portugal, england,holland, crap I know im forgetting someone also produce quality players like those others but havnt won a WC, or havnt won one in a LONG time. Of those Giants argentina is getting up there in years though since their last WC win, germany right behind.

 

Well you have to view these match ups, outside of the 3 SA WC winners (Uru, Arg, Bra), as 2 'eras'. England invented the game and has had a footballing tradition that dates back to the 1800s. On the other hand, Colombia didn't even partcipate in a WC qualifier until 1958. May of the European sides have had a pretty good head start on most of the SA footballing sides. But if you look at the last 20 years of past results, here's what you get Eng v Colombia

1988 - Eng 0 v Col 0 (In England)
1995 - Eng 0 v Col 0 (In England)
1998 - Eng 2 v Col 0 (Frace 98)
2005 - Eng 3 vs Col 2 (In USA)

I can tell you that 3 v 2 scoreline was not indicative of the game. At best they both deserved a draw (Owen scored a hat-trick in that game). And both Colombia and England had sub players, so it's tough to tell.
I think if you look at the last WC - and you see Ecuador losing to a Beckham goal for Eng., you see that the parity is there. England to me is not a 'super power' in football. Neither is Spain. To have an easy WCqualifying round that allows your NT to always pretty much make it in to a WC is a huge advantage.

 

England was just a lucky team, period.

They stumbled in their qualifying group but took advantage that it was an incredibably easy group and went tru

Beat Paraguay thanks to an own goal

Had trouble with T&T and scored because Crouch used a T&T player's dreadlocks as a gym rope

Drew with Sweden

Beat Ecuador thanks to a set piece/free kick

Thankfully they finally got theirs against Portugal

 

I would say yes... of course. As football evolves it has become a true international/intercontinental event. Players from SA weren't being sent to Europe until the 90s, where there was a true boom. That European 'standard' helps the other part of what most footballers in SA don't usually experience - true professionalism. The talent in SA is there, if not better, but what most players/teams lack in SA was the ability to play as a team, to conduct yourself as a professional at all times and to play every minute to the last whistle. Now with the flight to Europe, they started experiencing better grounds, clubs, players, organizations, refs, etc., that showed a different level of the game. Well to ay, because of so much exportation, the 'other' 8 SA players are commonly found playing in the top leagues in Europe. Some teams more then others. Uruguay's NT base is 'star studded'. All their players pretty much play in the top sides in Europe. Colombia has an intersting base of players in Europe, Mexico and Argentina. Paraguay, Chile and Peru are not far behind. Ecuador got off to a late start so they are just truly starting their 'exportation' of players.
It helps these SA sides especially because they are not as surprised or shocked by the stars they see on the pitch, 'cause they themselves are now world stars. They now play next to the spaniards, english , italians, germans, etc. in the top clubs that theyve heard about all their lives. so now they know what they can expect. So add the level of talent with an increased level of understanding for the game and professionalism and you'll see that seeing any of the SA sides reach deep in the next WCups.

But there's the other issue - you have Brazil + Arg pretty much always grab a guaranteed spot. So the rest of the 8 are fighting for 2.5 positions. It's a tough one to call every 4 years.

 

how much you wanna bet that the teethless, pale flabbies from britain have this thread in their radar?

 

the "present elites" are: Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina (yes. Argentina can rape 98% of the world, there's no reason they shouldnt be world elite if they are favorites every WC).

The "Historical Elites" (IE: Like the Red Wings, Canadiens, Leafs in NHL.............or "Cowbows, Steelers" in their league etc..........the ones who still get world respect/recognition for what they've done are:

England, Germany, Italy, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina (Coincidently the 6 who were given "Top 6 most important football nations of all time" at the 2004 FIFA 100 years ceremony (I even bought the "Comemorative plack" offered online <limited edition> (such a waste of money i know lol)



in S. America, Brazil Argentina are the elites. (present ones).
Uruguay hasnt been a "present elite" since 1974 (1900-1974 .....not bad for 3 million).



But that argument that "others had a head start" is horse shit. From 1900-1958, Uruguay/ Argentina/Brazil were working their asses off to be the best in the world , beating Colombia in hard fought games and really working their asses for those wins. (and to claim the glory, pride etc)

Then all of a sudden COlombia shows up and says : "Anything before 1958 doesnt count because we got good in 1958"...........is horse shit.
(Just like Ecuador now, who most people werent even football fans until recently...............run their mouths that 1900-2001 never existed. (Jesus , try beating Ecuador in Quito in the Ecuador copa america of the early 90s like ARgentina did..........and say "it didnt really matter"

Truth is, all the teams worked their asses off: But ARgentina/Uruguay/Brazil were better than the Colombias/PAraguays/Chile's etc etc etc.....that's pretty much it.

What can you argue about the elites in the 40s or 50s? That they had "Magic technology" that made it unfair for Colombia or the rest? They just had more heart/balls/.......which lead to their talent (see Maracanazo 1950).


Just that argument never did it for anyone, because it's just like Mexico's excuse when Colombia beats them in Libertadores ("Oh.....you've had 40 years of practice and us only 7..." ) pffffffff. Whatever (they would prob complain if we politely asked them NOT to keep all their stars, like all the leagues in S. America find it imposible to do.

 

Listen, you can't deny the lack of organized football in various SA nations (same holds true for African nations who started off pretty late)
Many Europeans settled in Arg + Uruguay as well as Brazil in th early 1900s and brought the game with them. I'm not saying that there weren't Colombians or Paraguyans playing in 1918, but more so as an amateur sport then what you had in Uruguay and Argentina. Colombia didntt play in the WC qualifying competition until 1958 - Copa America participation started in 1945 in Colombia -- But Copa America had been around since 1918! That has nothing to do with balls/heart...that has everything to do with lack of organization and being able to play at a higher level. That's not Uruguay's issue but it is somethign you have to take into account. Look at their 1st Copa America participation in 1945 - routed by Uruguay 7-0 and then Argentina 9-1. Obviously it wasn't even a contest. That's why I say there are 2 seperate eras for CONMEBOL and World Cup competitions - the 1st 40-50 years of Conmebol's existence was purely a Uruguay-Argentina-Brazil game. They were representing ALL OF AMERICA at a time where the game was still being developed. The Colombia/Ecuador/Paraguays of today have done an excellent job at putting things a bit more even. Uruguay will always be a contender but they will never dominate the way they did back in the early to mid 1900s. Back in those days, hosting a WC event was not even close to what is today - it's apples vs oranges! - heck the 1st WC was played with 'invitees'.... a 3rd place USA team says it all --

 

funny thing is you talk about "2 eras" as if things really changed from back then. Alright, I wont blame Colombia's 1950s record on them sucking................but how do you explain the 70s and 80s? (fault of Colombia's FA in 1913 I asume..? )

you speak of 2 eras (first when Uru/Arg/Bra ruled S. America)..........and guess what, this went through the 50s, 60s,70s, 80s and finally 1 change in the 90s. (and wasnt even a replacement.....all were momentary <IE: Chile 98, Bolivia 94, Colombia 94 (was good while it lasted), Paraguay 98, and now Ecuador 2002-2006

all of them were proclaimed the new "succesor" to the # 3 spot (the "present #3 obviously) cause historically there is more of a chance of Bolivia invading the USA than anyone going into the "Top 3 elite spot" <taking away Uruguay of course>

Really, sure there's a "head start" that can affect for maybe a few years, but it's not like being 30 years ahead gives the team super powers. Look at Japan, they became as good as the teams of Europe who have been organized for 100 years.........and they've been officially organized for like 10 years (and got to that level after like 6)

really man, Ill give you that argument of justifying the 50s for them sucking. But how do you justify the rest? Not even worth trying.

 

que pasó bolso te rompieron la cola ayer

 

Perdon, yo no tomo en cuenta equipos que van decimos en la tabla


___________________

Vieron a Boca meterle 7 a San Lorenzo??? Y la gente todavia dudaba de Basile ...

 

You mean to tell me you wont accept that football hasn't changed from the early to mid 1900s? Dont be so stubborn. There are ABSOLUTE differences from the 1st era of FIFA and the 2nd era. -( It's like trying to compare Babe Ruth with Barry Bonds - it just can't be done). Athletes overall today are bigger and faster - - the game is played much more tactical then before - - it's a much more true international game, at club level, national level and even at fan level - Then you go to FIFA WCups and you go from and initial tournament that started with 13 nations and has now evolved to 32 nations - Uruguay today is unable to host a WC without having to put in a significant amount of money that it may not be able to afford. Asia and Africa are playing bigger roles in the sport. This change/globalization is happening in all sports - you think Argentina was a contender in the world of Basketball 30 years ago the way they are today??

Slow down buddy. I said many of these teams outside of the original 3 have been playing catch-up - and it started in the 50s - 60s, not the 90s. If you look at the stats - Colombia began playing a role in the 60s - first WC was in 1962 - They also had their first copa libertadores semifinalists in 1960 and 1961 . That's when the shift in parity and competition in Conmebol took flight. Uruguay was the #1 powerhouse in the 1st era - Argentina and Brasil took over that role around the same time. All the "other" teams started to play a bigger role, a more consistent role - In copa americas, in copa libertadores and in world cups. The last 15 years have seen the big 2 leap away from the remaining teams. Today, in Conmebol, Uruguay is no more then Paraguay, Colombia, Ecuador and Chile. I would say they're all on even ground. That's a great thing for our confederation. I know it makes you bitter because of the great history that Uruguay owns, but this is the reality of the game today. As the years go on, you will start seeing IN ALL CONFEDERATIONS, even more parity. You saw a Greek team win the last Eurocup. You saw a Portugal be part of the final 4 in the last WC. Outside of the big 2, you can not tell me who the next team in Conmebol to win a Copa America, Copa Lib, World Cup berth, World Cup. [/quote]

As noted previously, there is too much parity today in Conmebol, outside of the big 3. There will never be a true #3 team in Conmebol and what you'll see is the difference between Arg/Brazil and the rest become smaller. You think 15 years ago, you would have Ecuador beat Brazil/Argentina the way they do today. You think you would have thought that Colombia destroys Uruguay 5-0 and plays Uruguay the way they do today. Or Colombia tie Brazil in Brazil the way they did in the last qualifier.

what are you blind... 30 years is a HUGE advantage in any sport. Also, only YOU CLAIM Japan is as good as the teams in Europe (I assume you mean the power teams). Did you not watch this last WC. Anyway, let me make it easier for you:

World Cup record

• 1930 - Did not enter
• 1934 - Did not enter
• 1938 - Withdrew
• 1950 - Banned
• 1954 - Did not qualify
• 1958 - Did not enter
• 1962 - Did not qualify
• 1966 - Did not enter
• 1970 to 1994 - Did not qualify
• 1998 - Round 1
• 2002 - Round 2
• 2006 - Round 1

now, within Asia, they dominate -- BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HEAD START - relative to the Vietnams, Thailands, etc.

'nuff said -- I think I gave you a pretty good summary

 

Japan as good as the Euros? You must be high.