So Europe has only 13 of 32 seats in the WorldCup..
Quincy
countries and the strength of the UEFA compared to the other
associations...
Except for Brazil and Argentina there is no real contender to the WC
except for European nations, including a lot of new ones like Spain,
Portugal, Netherlands, Russia, The Czechs, Croatia, Sweden, Romania,
Ireland or great historical teams like Poland, Hungary, Austria...
ups,... Most of them are not there ...
Real Mardin
I agree with you completely.
The problem is the number of teams who are good enough to contend for
qualification.
In the past 15 years the numbers of these teams have increased at a
far greater rate than any increase in berths UEFA may have seen.
Of course, UEFA is to be commended for developing such a competitive
confederation. However, it's got to the stage where some UEFA teams
have become victims of their own success.
This much is certain: we need more berths for UEFA.
Frankly, no team finishing second in a UEFA group should be put
through any kind of qualifying playoff. Such is the strength in depthy
of UEFA that second place in a UEFA group is not a failure, it is a
success (this year's Switzerland, Greece, Latvia, Israel group being a
kind of exception that proves the rule) and should be rewarded as
such.
If the above means extending the World Cup to 36, 42 or however many
teams, then so be it. An enlarged World Cup would be even more of a
spectacle.
RM
Insane Ranter
This is complete nonsense.
Pedro Dias
Can you name any team that someone not currently addicted to
psychotropic chemicals might consider a contender who are not taking
the trip to South Africa?
Quincy
Remember Denmark 1992 and go on with your opinion...
Pedro Dias
Euro is not the WC. No rational reason why it should be the case, but
it is a fact that outsiders occasionally win the Continental
tournaments, but never the World Cup: the closest thing to a dark
horse winner is England in '66. Even for runners-up, you only really
have Sweden in '58.
And honestly, I see no Denmarks in this year's also-rans.
Real Mardin
>
> Can you name any team that someone not currently addicted to
> psychotropic chemicals might consider a contender who are not taking
> the trip to South Africa?
For me it's not about absent UEFA teams who could be considered
genuine contenders to win the World Cup, it's about absent UEFA teams
who have the quality or entertainment value to make a positive
contribution to the tournament.
Afterall, if we were to limit qualification to teams who have a
realistic chance to win, we'd have to reduce the World Cup to a 6 team
tournament.
Sorry to bang on, but I have genuine concerns about New Zealand having
the quality to make a positive contribution, I wouldn't have such
concerns about Russia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Croatia, Romania or
Turkey.
RM
FF
> On Nov 20, 10:33 pm, Quincy <ab...@email.de> wrote:
> > On 21 Nov., 00:34, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 20, 1:57 am, Quincy <ab...@email.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > This is actually a little bit hard if you consider the amount of
> > > > countries and the strength of the UEFA compared to the other
> > > > associations...
> >
> > > > Except for Brazil and Argentina there is no real contender to the WC
> > > > except for European nations, including a lot of new ones like Spain,
> > > > Portugal, Netherlands, Russia, The Czechs, Croatia, Sweden, Romania,
> > > > Ireland or great historical teams like Poland, Hungary, Austria...
> > > > ups,... Most of them are not there ...
> >
> > > Can you name any team that someone not currently addicted to
> > > psychotropic chemicals might consider a contender who are not taking
> > > the trip to South Africa?
> >
> > Remember Denmark 1992 and go on with your opinion...
>
> Euro is not the WC. No rational reason why it should be the case, but
> it is a fact that outsiders occasionally win the Continental
> tournaments, but never the World Cup
The reason is simple: the WCup is the main thing to win, the Euro
nowhere nearly as important. So all big teams concentrate on the WCup
and only secondarily on the Euro.
Abubakr
I saw the the play-offs in the UEFA section and if those teams are
representative of the lower ranks in the standard in Europe then good
riddance to the teams even further down the pecking order.
Quincy
Ahem, You don't think that in 1954 Germany was an underdog??
Really funny..
Quincy
Just for you to learn football history.
1954 the German team wasn't even seeded. They were the underdogs
already in their QF against Yugoslavia and SF against Austria. Lucky
for Germany they had quite an easy draw, becauase:
They would have been the big underdog against England, Uruguay or
Brazil, teams that were considered much, much more stronger than the
German team.
Fortunately for the German team where was still another team, a
Wunderteam, even much stronger than all of the teams mentioned, who
handled them and took those teams out: Hungary.
Before the final Hungary had an ELO rating of 2172, a number never
ever reached again by any team. The Hungarians had 5 and half year
streak of not losing, including defeating England in England first
time ever with 6:3 and 7:1 (!!) in Hungary.
That streak was only interrupted by one single loss: The final against
Germany.
You still say, WC 1954 was won by a favorite?
Quincy
> On Nov 20, 11:34 pm, Pedro Dias <pedrod...@snip.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Can you name any team that someone not currently addicted to
> > psychotropic chemicals might consider a contender who are not taking
> > the trip to South Africa?
>
> For me it's not about absent UEFA teams who could be considered
> genuine contenders to win the World Cup, it's about absent UEFA teams
> who have the quality or entertainment value to make a positive
> contribution to the tournament.
>
> Afterall, if we were to limit qualification to teams who have a
> realistic chance to win, we'd have to reduce the World Cup to a 6 team
> tournament.
Tell me the 6 teams you think they hava a realistic chance to win?!
number_six
> This is actually a little bit hard if you consider the amount of
> countries and the strength of the UEFA compared to the other
> associations...
>
What would be the primary objections to a gobal qualifying pool,
rather than regional pools allocated a fixed number of spaces in the
field for Copa Mundial?
Too much travel? Loss of traditional rivalries? FIFA flummery?
Inglourious Basterd
true. Holland in 1974 were probably also the faves to beat the Germans.
Ivan "Maximus" Lendl
Also in 1990, the true favorites were Argentina, but they played
pretty poorly.
Insane Ranter
failed to make the FINALS.
bubba
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
FUCK OFF HIJRA
Quincy
wrote:
No they weren't. Argentina played the complete WC1990 quite poorly.
Germany was favorite there since the beginning, when they spanked co-
favorite Yugoslavia 4-1 (who went on to become 5th of that WC) in the
group stage.
Quincy
It's the travelling. You never will see a football team travlling
around half the world just for one game.
Furthermore that global pool will yield Argentina, Brazil and 29 UEFA
teams + perhaps 1 from Africa ;) This is not what is desired.
Pedro Dias
No, I just say it was not won by a dark horse. Not the same thing as
an underdog a-tall.
For what it's worth, I agree with your account of affairs, except that
I think you overrate England. But then England always seem to be
overrated by most everyone.