2010 FIFA World Cup Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
he's saying there aren't enough teams from outside europe and south america making the knockout stages of the cup, so let's stack the draw to make it even hard for them to make it there.

brains need to be engaged.

I had just said I understood that. :huh:

No I don't agree with exclusions, to me that why first rounds aren't one game knock outs.

Its as if the caribbean & central american teams were forced out of the CONCACAF because they fail to beat the US and Mexico too many times.
 
I understand I'm not a huge soccer fan but if you took the 16 top ranked teams you would exclude Africa, Asia, Oceana, and likely North America. That will do nothing to improve the sport.

The best analogy I can come up with is March Madness. There are 64 teams but not necessarily the top 64. Do deserving teams get left out, yes but it makes for an exciting tournament. Also don't underestimate people's desire to have an underdog to root for.

This had come to mind too
:up:
 
I understand I'm not a huge soccer fan but if you took the 16 top ranked teams you would exclude Africa, Asia, Oceana, and likely North America. That will do nothing to improve the sport.

I know in the US part of the reason soccer is on the upswing is the fact the US is making the World Cup and is starting to competitive.

The best analogy I can come up with is March Madness. There are 64 teams but not necessarily the top 64. Do deserving teams get left out, yes but it makes for an exciting tournament. Also don't underestimate people's desire to have an underdog to root for.



The best analogy I can come up with is the women's Olympic hockey tournament. Canada and the U.S. are so far beyond everyone else that it's downright embarrassing. It really is. You can pretty much predict that the gold medal game will be between those two countries.

It got to the point this year that the IOC is openly contemplating pulling the plug on the sport. Of course, the argument in support of keeping the sport in the Olympics is that eventually the rest of the world will catch up.

Well, yes and no. The main issue is that outside of North America, national federations simply do not spend the requisite amount of money to advance the quality of the sport. And as a consequence, the quality of competition will suffer, as any gains they make over time will dwarf the leaps and bounds that teams in North America will make.

That can translate to soccer, as well. Here in Canada, the most popular sport in terms of participation is association football (soccer). It's not even close to hockey in numbers. Yet Canada continuously underfunds the national soccer program, which means that we will never make the leap to the next stage.

Conversely, soccer in the U.S. is just as popular as in Canada, but pour significantly more money per capita into the program. And that's why they qualify for the World Cup regularly - and advance to the second round, at least.
 
Didn't the IOC get rid if women's softball because of that as well? I think the winter olympics are much less diverse than the summer games. It wouldn't surprise me if the women's hockey event was axed but I hope not!

Perhaps the same could have been assumed about mens olympic basketball? During the original "Dream team" days, they seemed lightyears ahead but now the world basketball teams seem much more competitive in the last couple of Olympic games.
 
Leave continental allocations as they are for 2014. African teams aren't getting smashed, that is the key thing here. They're just not finding a way to get the three points and secure progression.

They should be assessed on how competitive they are, not whether they are progressing or not. It's a world cup, progression from the group stage is always most difficult.

In '06, Ghana was the only African team to progress, yet Cote D'Ivoire, Angola, Tunisia and Togo were all competitive in the group
stage.

In '10, Ghana might still get through and they beat Serbia, the best mid-tier Euro
team at the World Cup. People over-anticipate that Cameroon and Nigeria will be awesome because they've been impressive in the past, the reality is that their squads aren't that good this year. Cote D'ivoire should have beaten Portugal. South Africa aren't even one of the best 15 African sides... And are only here because they are hosts.

Egypt is arguably the best side who aren't at the tournament and they are from Africa. Can't really think of any nation who should
be here instead of any of the African sides. A case could be made
for Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Sweden but quite simply, they didn't do
enough to get here... Ireland and Ecuador maybe....
 
Perhaps the same could have been assumed about mens olympic basketball? During the original "Dream team" days, they seemed lightyears ahead but now the world basketball teams seem much more competitive in the last couple of Olympic games.

Yes, and the rest of the world has caught up because basketball exploded internationally because of foreign NBA players like Yao Ming, and as a result of that countries began putting more dollars into programs than in the past, increasing the quality of coaches, training, etc.

My point is that even if countries like North Korea qualify for the next five World Cups, the overall quality of their play will not increase at the same pace as countries like Spain or Germany that have massive national programs.
 
I had just said I understood that. :huh:

No I don't agree with exclusions, to me that why first rounds aren't one game knock outs.

Its as if the caribbean & central american teams were forced out of the CONCACAF because they fail to beat the US and Mexico too many times.

i was criticising him, not you.


may as well force concacaf out too - they've never won a world cup. let's just do europe (with fringe teams who'll matter about as much as the teams from other confederations) and south america (with more teams who matter as much as oceania, asia etc).
 
Yes, and the rest of the world has caught up because basketball exploded internationally because of foreign NBA players like Yao Ming, and as a result of that countries began putting more dollars into programs than in the past, increasing the quality of coaches, training, etc.

My point is that even if countries like North Korea qualify for the next five World Cups, the overall quality of their play will not increase at the same pace as countries like Spain or Germany that have massive national programs.

qualifying for the world cup helps - just by getting there new zealand football is getting a huge amount of money from fifa which can go towards development, which in turn means better players, which in turn means competitiveness. the impact of the 2006 world cup is still clear in australia.

no matter which confederations are involved, there's only going to be maybe 12 teams who are going to win it. might as well advance the game at the same time.
 
This is true and I was actually coming in here to make that very point, which kind of invalidates my argument a little bit.

So, yeah, I imagine there will be even more money for N.Z. soccer after this tournament is over.
 
i was criticising him, not you.


may as well force concacaf out too - they've never won a world cup. let's just do europe (with fringe teams who'll matter about as much as the teams from other confederations) and south america (with more teams who matter as much as oceania, asia etc).

:lol:
 
The best analogy I can come up with is the women's Olympic hockey tournament. Canada and the U.S. are so far beyond everyone else that it's downright embarrassing. It really is. You can pretty much predict that the gold medal game will be between those two countries.

It got to the point this year that the IOC is openly contemplating pulling the plug on the sport. Of course, the argument in support of keeping the sport in the Olympics is that eventually the rest of the world will catch up.

Well, yes and no. The main issue is that outside of North America, national federations simply do not spend the requisite amount of money to advance the quality of the sport. And as a consequence, the quality of competition will suffer, as any gains they make over time will dwarf the leaps and bounds that teams in North America will make.


I want to argue this from the other side - what people don't see (but was discussed during the Olympics) is that the Cdn program is helping other countries by bringing them over for camps and training and so forth.. Finland was recently given an award for the country to grow their game most in the past few years - they have an equivalent of Hockey Day in Canada going there now to get more girls exposed to the game, give them a chance to play, and it's grown something like 30% in the last year or two.

Another thing that people are missing when they talk about women's hockey (aside from forgetting that the men's side was like for years and years too, and no one talked about pulling the plug on them *:silent: before she can get on a soapbox about sexism*) is that the women in other countries have to fight for ice time so much more than women do here, fight for funding, for training, equipment... Some of the women's teams are already starting to catch up, and if the *several deleted swear words* will look past their pants and pay attention they'll see that 2014 is going to be really exciting in women's hockey! (But again, not getting on that sexism soapbox about the 'old boys club' that the IOC seems to be...)

In the first game Canada played all most people saw was the shellacking (goal differential tiebreakers are a whole other discussion) - I saw a goalie that despite being overmatched, never quit, held her head high (and so did her team), and with some more experience will be a force to reckoned with in future years. The Scandanavian teams are starting to come on too, I'm looking forward to seeing them really make the jump soon :)


Getting back to soccer, saying some of these smaller countries shouldn't be there because they can't compete with the "big boys" is like saying warm weather countries like Pakistan, India and Mexico shouldn't have teams in the Winter Olympics because they don't have a winter and can't possibly compete - you can't improve if you don't have something to strive for, and being on the world stage is that something :)

(Sorry about the sidetracking, but the whole "women's sports should be pulled because only a couple teams are powers despite the fact that we'd NEVER do that to men" pisses me off to NO FUCKING END.)
 
You know what, since Federer and Nadal have basically won everything over the past 5-6 years, maybe we should skip the first 6 rounds and have them play the final of ever major tournament directly. Why bother with all those bad players that will end up losing anyways?

Edit: I really don't understand how a football fan cannot marvel at the little surprises that always turn the World Cup upside down. Like when North Korea beat, yes, Italy in 1966 (or for that matter South Korea in 2002), when Cameroon beat World Champion Argentina in the opening of the 1990 World Cup (has anyone forgotten about Roger Milla's little dance?), Senegal beating defending champion France in 2002, the US beating England in 1950.... and I could go on and on. That's what makes the World Cup so great to watch.
 
Leave continental allocations as they are for 2014. African teams aren't getting smashed, that is the key thing here. They're just not finding a way to get the three points and secure progression.

They should be assessed on how competitive they are, not whether they are progressing or not. It's a world cup, progression from the group stage is always most difficult.

I agree with this. The tournament is, I think, a very good representation of the best football countries in the world. Some say that this is the most competitive tournament in the world as the qualification stages started with 204 of the 208 countries associated with the FIFA.

There are no weak countries at the World Cup tournament. Yes, I'll say this even after yesterday's smashing of North-Korea by Portugal. :) I mean, it was quite close in their match against Brazil.

It may be that not many countries outside of the traditional continents (Europe and South-America) will progress to the knockout stages this year. But that does not mean that those other countries do not belong in the tournament.
 
The teams who are at the World Cup deserve to be their (unlike Belgium :sad:). They might not all be as good but that's normal. The thing I like about it is that every country has a football team and that it's a big sport (almost) everywhere.
 
The teams who are at the World Cup deserve to be their (unlike Belgium :sad:).

I'd put money on Belgium being at the next world cup. They've got some top players coming through. Defour, Fellaini, Vermaelen, Kompany, Hazard, Lukaku. The future is bright for Belgium :up:

As for France :lol:
 
goal for urugray

and everybody at the restaurant i passed on the way to work lets out a collective groan...
 
I'd put money on Belgium being at the next world cup. They've got some top players coming through. Defour, Fellaini, Vermaelen, Kompany, Hazard, Lukaku. The future is bright for Belgium :up:

As for France :lol:
Yes but they still need to learn to play well together.



I hope Sa makes it to the next round. They need to score one more goal if the score in the other match stays the same, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom