Ok, I will give you that this shows progression. But, this doesn't mean that they are necessarily the future of the beautiful game. Portugal pretty much showed everyone this with their wc failures.
Sure you are making a valid point. But Europe has 14 teams so if one fails the other fills in. Senegal was doing well without winning any youth championships. When they had the chance in the world cup they went all the way to the quarter finals beating the defending champions France. It is a shame we are not seeing this team in this world cup. Cameroun seems to have one of the best teams in the world today, sad we wont see them in the world cup either. This is the prize you pay when you have 53 countries fighting for 5 spots. If Argentina and Brazil were to be in Africa they will not be coming to the world cup as often as they do. This means that whatever experience gathered in a previous world cup goes unutilized since by the time you qualify for the next world cup your players might not be as good as they used to be. For example ETO of cameroun may not be the same player in 2010.
Let's not get carried away. Argentina and Brazil would qualify in ANY federation in the world. Even CAF and UEFA. These two side are continually two of the favorites to win it all because they bring strong teams each tournament. When their key players go down injured, they are deep enough to bring in youths that are often stronger than the injured player. If you were talking any other teams in CONMEBOL I might agree with you, but not the top two.
The last ime I checked, I was surprised too see only 3 Europeans team playing finals of finals in the world cup since 1982. Italy, France and Germany. Obviously Europe is dominated by these 3 teams, and maybe England(was in the finals 40 yrs ago) and Holland 1978 finalists. It is not like that in Africa. No wonder defending champions have been beaten by African teams( France----Senegal, Argentina-----Cameroun).
What this tells me is that these countries have a solid group of players that go through their ranks at the same time. However, they don't have the continual flow of talent at all age ranks. The CAF teams need to continue to send players abroad in order to sustain the growth in the region. Look at all of the countries you named from Europe. Each team has a good league to help continue the growth of talent at all age levels.
I would have been on the same frequency with you if I had not been watching matches between Brazil/Argentina and Ghana/Nigeria/Cameroun consistently and critically. I usually use the olympic teams of these countries. Remember Brazil use almost 80% of its players who won 1994 world cup to play Nigeria during the olympics in 1996 including Bebeto, Ronaldo and Romario. Nigeria beat them 4:3.
...and who has won the wc since? France and Brazil. I don't see Nigeria. Did Nigeria make the cup in 2006? Hmmmmm, no. They had a good group of players that went through their system, and they are no longer one of the top teams in CAF, let alone the world.
You are right. Brazil was finding the going tough from 1970 to 1994, until they began sendiing their players to Europe. Soccer involves technique, skill and money.
Fortunately, Nigeria is still one of the finest in Africa. They are not coming to this World cup because of change of rules. They had better goals advantage than Angola, unfortunately angola has a better head to head count against Nigeria. They all had the same points.
I was at that game. It was one of the best soccer games I've ever watched. But while Nigeria's determination to come back from 3-0 down at the half to win was phenomenal, it was just one game. Over a 10+ game qualifying campaign, Brazil would always make it out of a CAF group.
Sure you may consider it as one game. They did the same thing against Argentina to win the gold. Nigeria, Cameroun and Ghana do not often meet Argentina or Brazil. However, let us pray that there will be more competitive matches among this teams for us to make an informed decision. Until i saw the Ghanaians outplaying Brazil in 2001 youth cup I never imagined that was possible. Recently Gambia beat Brazil under 17, 3 goals to one. The west Africans seem to be splendid, no wonder three of them are coming to the world cup. If Nigeria had made it, we would had 4 teams out of 5. Watch out for these West African countries: Togo, Mali, Burkinna Fasso, Guinea, Ghana, Gambia, Senegal, Nigeria, Cameroun, Ivory Coast and even Sierra Leone will soon shock the world at the senior level.
Aeroplane technology isn't up to that. Travelling half way across a continent mid-week for a game before going home for a league match on the Saturday is feasible. Going half way around the world to do the same isn't practical. For a start it would be home and away, and Mexico are a very average team who would lose to many teams in Europe and South America, rendering the Azteca game meaningless. June 21 1970, Estadio Azteca, Mexico City - Brazil 4 - 1 Italy Yeah they had some trouble there...
Brazil would, but Argentina might struggle if they were in a difficult group with say Holland, Portugal or Italy.
Yeah cause when it's a neutral site both sides have the same disadvantage. Try these results: Mexico vs. Brazil all time at Azteca 27-JUL-03 Mexico 1 - 0 Brazil 13-JUL-03 Mexico 1 - 0 Brazil 04-AUG-99 Mexico 4 - 3 Brazil
The fact is that Mexico never play any top teams competitively at the Azteca. Brazil send the reserves to play in qualifiers and the copa america, never mind friendlies. Even if a European team went to Azteca and only got a draw, they'd spank them at home at least 4 or 5 nil.
Common guys, don't go both extremes i am from the big fans of the Mexican teams especially the 1994 beautiful team. Mexico today is one of the big teams in the world and is very difficult to beat. I dont agree that any European team would beat them 4 or 5 easily in europe. You need to be really strong team at your best to beat Mexico at their good days. However, Mexico is beatable even in Mexico. Mexico hosted 2 wcs and managed only to be in the QF. If we take a look at the wc history, we would find 6 incidents when the nation hosted the wc failed to reach the semi-final: - Mexico 70 + 86 - USA 94 - Japan 02 - Switzerland 54 - France 38 I used to play football with mexican friend and he used to say we are the best team to play the game between the two penalty boxes. He meant, that at ciritical times, Mexico allows easy goals and miss easy ones. This why they play great games but didn't advance a lot in the wc. For me, if you take out the top 5 european teams, Mexico is as good as any of the rest.
What do the teams I support have to do with this thread? That was the single worst strawman I have ever seen on the internet.
- Host = 1 - 1/2 place by confederation = 3. Geographical Playoffs : UEFA/CAF, CONMEBOL/CONCACAF, AFC/OFC - Best 14 teams in the last 2 world cups = 28 Simulation with results of WC 1998 and WC 2002 A) Best 14 teams, last 2 world cups - Europe = 9 WC98 + 8 WC02 = 17 - Conmebol = 3 WC98 + 1 WC02 = 4 - Concacaf = 1 WC98 + 2 WC02 = 3 - Africa = 1 WC98 + 1 WC02 = 2 - Asia = 0 + 2 WC02 = 2 - Oceania = 0 B) 1/2 place by confederation + Host (Germany) C) Final Distribution - Host : Germany - Europe : 17 + 0.5 = 17.5 - Conmebol : 4 + 0.5 = 4.5 - Concacaf : 3 + 0.5 = 3.5 - Africa : 2 + 0.5 = 2.5 - Asia : 2 + 0.5 = 2.5 - Oceania : 0 + 0.5 = 0.5
Well, if 8 out of the 16 second round slots -- fifty percent -- go to European countries, then if we're strictly using second round qualification to determine slots, their number of slots should actually go UP to 16.
The proposal curently before FIFA that the OFC champion joins the final AFC qualifying round to give the AFC+OFC 5 spots is an excellent one.
That would mean Japan,Korea,Australia,Iran and Saudi Arabia/China all at the World Cup...I don't agree with this. 1 of them doesn't deserve to be there unless they win a playoff.4.5 is the maximum they can give to Asia IMHO.