U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Soccer
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-17-2013, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Leeds, UK
22,236 posts, read 23,726,724 times
Reputation: 8608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davy-040 View Post
the Netherlands and Italy/England should be in Pot 1 instead of Uruguay and Switzerland imo.
It would make more sense, but we can at least rest in solace, knowing that it isn't always determined by which team is actually better.

England have the possibility of getting put in the same group as Germany, Spain, Brazil or Argentina. Hopefully we'll get Switzerland instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2013, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Glen Rock, NJ
667 posts, read 1,495,731 times
Reputation: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG View Post

It's not a matter of opinion. UEFA is objectively the better confederation based on actual results in the World Cup. Like I said, 25 out of 32 semi-finalists in the past 8 WC came from UEFA. CONMEBOL had 6 semi-finalists but in 5 of those cases it was Brazil or Argentina. On what basis should CONMEBOL deserve more seeds then? If CONMEBOL teams are really as great as you say they are, why don't they show it in competitive matches against other teams? You mention Chile, well Chile have never made it past the first KO round at the WC except for 1962, when they were hosting it. What makes you so confident that they can beat any top European team on a good day? Colombia's record is even worse, it only made it out of the group stage once in its history, in 1990, only to be eliminated in the first KO round. Same goes for Ecuador, only made it out of the group stage once in its history (in 2006) only to be eliminated in the first KO round. And while Paraguay made it to the QF last time, that is hardly representative for their average performance at the WC - it was the first time in Paraguay's history that they made it past the first KO round. I could go on and on (I'm sure I don't have to tell you about Peru, Bolivia or Venezuela).

I do not agree that CONMEBOL qualifiers are harder than UEFA's either. At least teams in CONMEBOL have the enormous luxury of being allowed to slip up here and there without instantly ruining their chances for qualification. Uruguay has only won 7 out of 16 matches and it is still able to qualify and even clinch a seeding position at the next WC. Same goes for Ecuador, which has already qualified despite winning only 7 matches and all of their wins were at home. Compare this to UEFA, where finishing second to Italy meant instant elimination for Denmark or where France will be unseeded at the play-offs because it finished second to Spain. Portugal only lost one game and it's in the play-offs. A team like Ecuador could never make it in Europe because home advantage alone will not be enough to ensure qualification. I know people from other continents (esp. South Americans) love to portray the UEFA qualifying groups as one big team beating up on a bunch of minnows a la San Marino but the reality couldn't be further from the truth.
It is a matter of opinion. Former champions Brazil, Arg and Uruguay are part of Conmebol. That's almost a 1/3 of all the teams in the conference so it is what it is. Conmebol plays a home and away all within the same group so it's clear and clean at the end of each qualifier who are the best in the continent. Obviously with UEFA's membership it makes it all but impossible to have such a qualifier in place but rarely do you have a group that's 3 deep in WC contenders as you have in Conmebol. Also, in TODAY's futbol terms most of conmebol teams have the majority of their players playing outside of SA. So for a WCQ, a conmebol club member has to within the WCQ campaign, travel back to their home country back in SA for 1-2 days and then travel again within the week to another country. So for example, Messi had to go play in Buenos Aires to meet Bolivia (tied 1-1) and then travel to the humidity of coastal Colombia way up north (won 1-2). Those are circumstances that UEFA players do not have to endure.

Pekerman(Argentinian coach) took helm of Colombia after 3 matches played. We ended up 2 points behind Argentina after our WCQ campaign, with the best defense in Conmebol, the best visiting record in Conmebol and the 3rd best goal scoring sheet and 2nd best goal differential (who knows what would've happened if Pekerman had been there all along). That's pretty darn balanced imo.
Add teams like Chile, who since Sampaoli (Argentinian coach) took the job has only lost 1 match in the past 6. They've owned seeded teams like Switzerland (friendly) and tied Spain 2-2 (Chile was up on score up to the 90th minute).

Oh and to the recent poster....England can also land in Colombia's group

Sidenote: This is no 'fluke' for Colombia. This team is based on our success in youth levels. This current team is mostly the under 20s that played WC U20 Holland (and lost WF to Arg in 2005...thanks to Messi). Prior to that these 'kids' had won the South American championship. They know each other very well and have played in top Euro competition for a while. This is our core squad:

Ospina (GK): NICE (FRA) - starter for club
Guarin (MF): INTER (ITA) - starter
Armero (DF): NAPOLI (ITA) - sub
Zuniga (DF) : NAPOLI (ITA) - starter
Falcao (STR): MONACO (FRA) - starter
Teo (STR) : RIVER PLATE (ARG) - starter
James (AMF) : MONACO (FRA) - both (At 21 yrs old Monaco bought him from Porto for over 40 m Euros)
Cuadrado (MF): FIORENTINA (ITA) - starter
Yepes (DF) : ATALANTA (ITA) - starter
Zapata (DF) : MILAN (ITA) - starter
Sanchez (DFM) : ELCHE (SPA) - starter

Other 'stars' that are likely to be in the WC roster:
Jackson (STR) : Porto (POR) top scorer for Portugese League last year
Bacca (STR) : Valencia (SPA) transferred to Spain after being top scorer in Belgium league
Juan Quintero (AMF) : Porto (POR) - 20 year old AMF star...voted top 5 player in the U20 TurkeyWC
Perea (DF) : Cruz Azul (MX) : starter (former Atl Madrid)
Aldo (MF) : Morelia (MX) : starter
Muriel (STR) : Udinese (ITA) : both
MacNelly (MF) : Al Shabab FC (ARA) : starter
Abel: (DFM) : Toulouse (FRA) : starter
E.Valencia: (DFM) : Fluminense (BRA) : both
Valdez: (DF) : Ind Santa Fe (COL) : starter


Above is our core team at the moment. We have a couple other making 'waves' at the moment that may make the team:

Mosquera: (DF) : America (MX)
Pabon: (FW) : Valencia (SPA)
Balanta: (DF) : River Plate (ARG)
Montero: (STR) : Sporting (POR) - currently top scorer in the league
Murillo: (DF) : Granada (SPA)

And with all this I bring back Pekerman. The Tactician behind Argentina's WCQ 2006 who DOMINATED qualifiers and played a beautiful WC for Argentina. He learned A TON from that WC (benching a very young Messi). But a manager with a ton of skill and this is clearly the best Colombia roster we have ever had to play in an international field.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 08:18 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
2,942 posts, read 4,397,978 times
Reputation: 3402
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfsr1544 View Post
It is a matter of opinion. Former champions Brazil, Arg and Uruguay are part of Conmebol. That's almost a 1/3 of all the teams in the conference so it is what it is. Conmebol plays a home and away all within the same group so it's clear and clean at the end of each qualifier who are the best in the continent. Obviously with UEFA's membership it makes it all but impossible to have such a qualifier in place but rarely do you have a group that's 3 deep in WC contenders as you have in Conmebol. Also, in TODAY's futbol terms most of conmebol teams have the majority of their players playing outside of SA. So for a WCQ, a conmebol club member has to within the WCQ campaign, travel back to their home country back in SA for 1-2 days and then travel again within the week to another country. So for example, Messi had to go play in Buenos Aires to meet Bolivia (tied 1-1) and then travel to the humidity of coastal Colombia way up north (won 1-2). Those are circumstances that UEFA players do not have to endure.
True, but apart from those three (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay) what have CONMEBOL teams done in the World Cup to merit extra spots?

I don't agree that the best teams in CONMEBOL necessarily come out on top in the group. Some countries have an unfair home advantage due to the conditions (e.g. high altitude) in which the games are played. Ecuador is a prime example: it has won a total of 7 games (out of 16) and all of their wins were at home. Away from home, it has lost 5 games and drew 3, and all of the draws were against lower-placed teams. Ecuador may be a hard team to beat at home, for reasons that have nothing to do with football, but I don't think it's among the best CONMEBOL have to offer.

Quote:
Pekerman(Argentinian coach) took helm of Colombia after 3 matches played. We ended up 2 points behind Argentina after our WCQ campaign, with the best defense in Conmebol, the best visiting record in Conmebol and the 3rd best goal scoring sheet and 2nd best goal differential (who knows what would've happened if Pekerman had been there all along). That's pretty darn balanced imo.
Add teams like Chile, who since Sampaoli (Argentinian coach) took the job has only lost 1 match in the past 6. They've owned seeded teams like Switzerland (friendly) and tied Spain 2-2 (Chile was up on score up to the 90th minute).
Colombia does seem like a promising team. I look forward to playing them next month. I don't think you can really draw conclusions based on results in a friendly, though. Friendlies are often used to try out new players or new strategies, not many teams play at full strength in these games. Switzerland beat Brazil in a friendly a few weeks ago but who really thinks Switzerland is the better team?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Finland
24,268 posts, read 18,838,874 times
Reputation: 11103
So when 50% of all CONMEBOL qualify for the WC, and nations like Czech Republic, Denmark, Turkey and half of the nations like France, Sweden, Croatia and Ukraine may not qualify - the South Americans want more places? They should have 4 at the most.

South Americans don't seem to have any realism with the quality of football in Europe. Most European national teams would wipe the floor with nations like Ecuador and Venezuela.

Also I don't know what is more stupid - basing an argument on the Bible or the FIFA ranking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Scotland
7,972 posts, read 10,106,591 times
Reputation: 4093
Most people know Europe has more quality teams - usually people from the America's think different. Even teams with small populations produce quality sides. So does South America, Uruguay for example, but Europe has been consistent in doing it for decades. Outside Brazil and Argentina there is not really the abundance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
5,899 posts, read 8,433,927 times
Reputation: 4367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
So when 50% of all CONMEBOL qualify for the WC, and nations like Czech Republic, Denmark, Turkey and half of the nations like France, Sweden, Croatia and Ukraine may not qualify - the South Americans want more places? They should have 4 at the most.

South Americans don't seem to have any realism with the quality of football in Europe. Most European national teams would wipe the floor with nations like Ecuador and Venezuela.

Also I don't know what is more stupid - basing an argument on the Bible or the FIFA ranking?
what? you HAVE to be kidding

I would say most europeans know NOTHING about southamerican futbol. You should came play in CONMEBOL and then talk, or at least watch one game. You think CONMEBOL is Arg/Brasil and then 10 San marinos and is NOTHING like that, the average team in conmebol is much much harder and competitive than the average team in UEFA, clearly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
5,899 posts, read 8,433,927 times
Reputation: 4367
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG View Post
I just think it is massively overhyped by South Americans, which is especially annoying when they downplay UEFA in the process. As soon as South American teams other than Brazil and Argentina start getting consistent good results at the WC (= at least QF) I will reconsider my opinion.

Edit: I hadn't read your last post yet. Glad we at least agree on merging CONMEBOL and CONCACAF

If anything, CONMEBOL is massively underestimated by Europeans. WC 2010 proves that: ALL southamerican teams get to the round of 16 and all (save Argentina against Germany cause we had no coach, lol) did a very impressive job at the world cup.

Take the current WORST side of conmebol: Paraguay. Recently played the BEST side of UEFA: Germany. They tied. And played in EUROPE

Yeah, i know, its a friendly and yada yada yada, but imagine taking the worst side of UEFA (i dont know, San Marino or one of those little countries you play there) and bring it to southamerica and make it play against Argentina or Brazil (or any other side for that matter): it would lose 30-0.


Thats the difference. Theres a HUGE gap between teams in UEFA, while Conmebol is so high in quality that every team can lose or be left out of WC anytime. Of course conmebol deserves more spots!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
5,899 posts, read 8,433,927 times
Reputation: 4367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
So when 50% of all CONMEBOL qualify for the WC, and nations like Czech Republic, Denmark, Turkey and half of the nations like France, Sweden, Croatia and Ukraine may not qualify - the South Americans want more places? They should have 4 at the most.

South Americans don't seem to have any realism with the quality of football in Europe. Most European national teams would wipe the floor with nations like Ecuador and Venezuela.

Also I don't know what is more stupid - basing an argument on the Bible or the FIFA ranking?

oh yeah, and cezech republik, denmark, turkey, sweden, croatia and ukraine would NEVER have make it to the WC if they played in COMEBOL. While in UEFA, depending on the group they land in, they could easily make it, cause they have to play against countries like san marino or luxemburg in those games that end up 20-0.

If THOSE teams played in conmebol, forget it, they would have never set foot in the world cup.

So, yeah, of course they are harder. There are many european teams that go to the wc every 4 years that would get TRASHED in southamerica.

The only european teams that could realistically compete in southamerica are germany, spain, netherlands, italy, maybe france, england, belgium and portugal and stop counting. Thats it. All the other european teams would get trashed here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Finland
24,268 posts, read 18,838,874 times
Reputation: 11103
We'll see. Ecuador will be so assraped in the WC by any European team they don't know what hit them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
5,899 posts, read 8,433,927 times
Reputation: 4367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
We'll see. Ecuador will be so assraped in the WC by any European team they don't know what hit them.
any european team?? hmmmm, serious level of underestimating here.

But even if they are, i wanna see the likes of even the big teams in europe like spain or germany, playing in quito a over 3,000 meters of height. They WON every game there, the only one that was able to tie was Argentina, with Messi and all the superstars. So, Ecuador might be weaker in the wc than in the qualys, for sure, but this proves just how incredibly hard conmebol qualys are. And dont even get me started on La paz, Bolivia: Argentina havent won there in like 20 years, and last game they played there (this year, wich ended up in a tie), Di Maria, Messi, etc couldnt even breathe. You saw them go try to breathe in those breaking masks every 5 minutes.

And this are players who have to go from their very competitive european teams to play at 4,000 meters altitude and play the next day in an environment that takes AT LEAST a week for humans to adapt to.

So, yeah, everything is hard in conmebol, even the "easy" teams like Bolivia. Between the fans, the insane conditions, the heat, the local crazyness and support of the fans, the pressure, etc, i would love seeing the european teams trying to play in conmebol. it would be kinda hilarious
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Soccer
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top