Inside: U.S. Soccer's March to Brazil
-
My above post is clearly wrong. I must have been thinking about the Olympics which are to be held for the first time in South America.
Here are the previous hosts and winners:
Year/Host/Winner
1930 Uruguay/Uruguay
1934 Italy/Italy
1938 France/Italy
1950 Brazil/Uruguay
1954 Switzerland/W. Germany
1958 Sweden/Brazil
1962 Chile/Brazil
1966 England/England
1970 Mexico/Brazil
1974 W. Germany/ W. Germany
1978 Argentina/Argentina
1982 Spain/Italy
1986 Mexico/Argentina
1990 Italy/W. Germany
1994 USA/Brazil
1998 France/France
2002 S. Korea-Japan/Brazil
2006 Germany/Italy
2010 S. Africa/Spain
2014 Brazil/tbd
2018 Russia/tbd
2022 Qatar/tbd
No team from outside Europe or S. America has ever won.
Of the 20 Cups contested so far it has only been hosted outside Europe/SA 5 times. 2 Mexico/1 USA/1 SK-Japan/S. Africa
To a certain extent "Russia" is still considered to be in Europe.
-
I have to say though that I think the ratio of teams being able to participate may be unfair. Here is the breakdown by continent of the teams allowed to compete this year:
Asia/Australia: 4: Australia/Iran/Japan/S. Korea
Africa: 5: Algeria/Cameroon/Ghana/Ivory Coast/Nigeria
N. America: 4: Costa Rica/Honduras/Mexico/USA
S. America: 6: Argentina/Brazil/Chile/Columbia/Ecuador/Uruguay
Europe: 13: Belgium/Bosnia/Croatia/England/France/Germany/Greece/Italy/Netherlands/Portugal/Russia/Spain/Switzerland/
I suggest that there are as many or more soccer playing countries in Asia and Africa as there are in Europe....and perhaps just as quality. So I see no reason why the FIFA group should be so biased in including European Countries.
-
The Asian football confederation has 46 members - Europe has 54. But that's besides the point, you're basically wrong when you say that there's as much quality in Asia/Africa as in Europe. Not saying there isn't the potential, but in those places you have a big obstacles. In poor countries, there's very little in the way of formal coaching. Then, the standard of the national leagues are pretty low, lower than the third or fourth tier of the top european nations - Spain, Italy, Germany, France, England. The fact is, if you did a sort of Ryder cup, pairing each country from Asia with a country from Europe, ranked by the quality, Europe would win hands down.
Not to mention there's the physical factor - people from Europe are, in general, bigger, stronger, faster, than those from asia (according to my not very scientific research) which obviously has an impact.
Traditionally, looking back 50-80 years, Europe and South America were the two big power blocks of international football. Pele, for example, played all his career in South America, I think, or at least the vast majority (not counting the Cosmos or whoever he played for in USA). But then there was a big economic disparity, so that the best South American players moved over to Europe for more money. And this all meant that the best players, and in turn the best coaches came to Europe. So the European leagues benefited massively, and subsequently the standard of the local players improved with greater coaching from an earlier age. Teams in Europe sign kids from about the age of 8 - which is ridiculous, by the way - and coach them until the they're ready for the first team.
-
The Asian football confederation has 46 members - Europe has 54. But that's besides the point, you're basically wrong when you say that there's as much quality in Asia/Africa as in Europe. Not saying there isn't the potential, but in those places you have a big obstacles. In poor countries, there's very little in the way of formal coaching. Then, the standard of the national leagues are pretty low, lower than the third or fourth tier of the top european nations - Spain, Italy, Germany, France, England. The fact is, if you did a sort of Ryder cup, pairing each country from Asia with a country from Europe, ranked by the quality, Europe would win hands down.
Not to mention there's the physical factor - people from Europe are, in general, bigger, stronger, faster, than those from asia (according to my not very scientific research) which obviously has an impact.
Traditionally, looking back 50-80 years, Europe and South America were the two big power blocks of international football. Pele, for example, played all his career in South America, I think, or at least the vast majority (not counting the Cosmos or whoever he played for in USA). But then there was a big economic disparity, so that the best South American players moved over to Europe for more money. And this all meant that the best players, and in turn the best coaches came to Europe. So the European leagues benefited massively, and subsequently the standard of the local players improved with greater coaching from an earlier age. Teams in Europe sign kids from about the age of 8 - which is ridiculous, by the way - and coach them until the they're ready for the first team.
The Asian football confederation has 46 members - Europe has 54.
Where the hell do you get 54 countries in Europe?
But that's besides the point, you're basically wrong when you say that there's as much quality in Asia/Africa as in Europe. Not saying there isn't the potential, but in those places you have a big obstacles. In poor countries, there's very little in the way of formal coaching. Then, the standard of the national leagues are pretty low, lower than the third or fourth tier of the top european nations - Spain, Italy, Germany, France, England. The fact is, if you did a sort of Ryder cup, pairing each country from Asia with a country from Europe, ranked by the quality, Europe would win hands down.
Not to mention there's the physical factor - people from Europe are, in general, bigger, stronger, faster, than those from asia (according to my not very scientific research) which obviously has an impact.
OH, the old "Master race" argument. How then did Japan win the Gold Medal then?
Traditionally, looking back 50-80 years, Europe and South America were the two big power blocks of international football. Pele, for example, played all his career in South America, I think, or at least the vast majority (not counting the Cosmos or whoever he played for in USA). But then there was a big economic disparity, so that the best South American players moved over to Europe for more money. And this all meant that the best players, and in turn the best coaches came to Europe. So the European leagues benefited massively, and subsequently the standard of the local players improved with greater coaching from an earlier age. Teams in Europe sign kids from about the age of 8 - which is ridiculous, by the way - and coach them until the they're ready for the first team.
Sorry, but being so Eurocentric somewhat delegitimizes the whole affair in my eyes.
These European nations didn't have to beat those nations from Africa/Asia to get into the field...they were granted slots in the field...unfairly imo. .....and for all I know those African/Asian nations may have well defeated those Euro nations.
Hell, have a real world cup. Let all nations compete in this thing on an equal basis. You cannot necessarily tell me that the 13th best Euro soccer program is better than the 5th best North American or Asian program. I think Panama would kick hell out of Switzerland or Bosnia.
And honestly, I personally would prefer to see my country win an Olympic Gold Medal in the sport than a World Cup.
-
Fortunately we'll get to see your prediction for Panama play out, almost. Sunday, they're playing Serbia, and I suspect (can't check betting at work) Serbia are heavy favourites. Switzerland are playing Jamaica.
There are several african countries with a chance of doing well - Ivory Coast is clinging on to its golden generation of Drogba & the Toure brothers, along with others, while teams like south africa and egypt are no pushovers.
And I'm sorry, but quite frankly you don't know what you''re talking about when it comes to which countries are better than others. Costa Rica are 5th best in north america - they're in the world cup group with England, Italy and Uruguay. Lets see how it goes.
-
Yea, can't wait for all those 0-0 ties decided by bogus shootouts.
-
Yep, you're right, it's a terrible boring sport. The rest of the world is wrong.
-
Well the rest of the world still likes disco dance music so I'm not buying in just because they like it.
-
Yea, can't wait for all those 0-0 ties decided by bogus shootouts.
Yea, can't wait for all those 0-0 ties decided by bogus shootouts.
0-0 draws suck, but Landon's goal against Algeria last WC was nothing short of magical.
-
Yea, can't wait for all those 0-0 ties decided by bogus shootouts.
0-0 draws suck, but Landon's goal against Algeria last WC was nothing short of magical.
0-0 draws suck, but Landon's goal against Algeria last WC was nothing short of magical.
0-0 draws can be very entertaining, either with a load of missed chances/great saves, or from being an extremely engaging tactical affair - though I'm aware that the latter is not everybody's cup of tea, and some people won't be happy unless it ends up 5-4.
-
You mean 54-45
-
-
0-0 draws suck, but Landon's goal against Algeria last WC was nothing short of magical.
0-0 draws can be very entertaining, either with a load of missed chances/great saves, or from being an extremely engaging tactical affair - though I'm aware that the latter is not everybody's cup of tea, and some people won't be happy unless it ends up 5-4.
0-0 draws can be very entertaining, either with a load of missed chances/great saves, or from being an extremely engaging tactical affair - though I'm aware that the latter is not everybody's cup of tea, and some people won't be happy unless it ends up 5-4.
Here is the deal......hockey and soccer are really the exact same sport more or less. They are both played on a rectangular playing field with a "goal" at each end being guarded by a goalie. One is ice, the other grass, but the purpose is the same, put a ball/puck into that goal. Essentially the same tactics are used. Except in hockey those tactics are employed constantly....trying to get into a good position to have the object put into the goal.....whereas in soccer it seems that the teams are almost completely passive at attaining what the purpose of the game is: attack that goal. They twiddle about in the huge surface until finally someone gets an idea in their head that the object of the game is to score, not just possess the ball. Too many times they fail to be aggressive.
It is like back when the NCAA did not have a shot clock and teams would go into the 4 corners offense. All they did was pass the ball around the perimeter, and sometimes they would hold the ball for like 5 minutes at a time. It became so awful that they had to put stop to it and install the shot clock. Maybe soccer needs a shot clock.
-
As Chris said earlier, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. They aren't going to change the rules so the teams are "more aggressive" just so the score is higher. Strategy is constantly being used on the pitch. Damn near every pass and every run has a purpose, whether you see it or not.
I also agree with Chris that Europe has the most countries because they deserve to have the most. They clearly have the mist talent, and more importantly it is developed at an early age.
I hope we see another boom in support for soccer in the US over the next few years. With the World Cup (men's and women's), Olympics and Copa America Tourney (hosted in the US)
-
As Chris said earlier, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. They aren't going to change the rules so the teams are "more aggressive" just so the score is higher. Strategy is constantly being used on the pitch. Damn near every pass and every run has a purpose, whether you see it or not.
I also agree with Chris that Europe has the most countries because they deserve to have the most. They clearly have the mist talent, and more importantly it is developed at an early age.
I hope we see another boom in support for soccer in the US over the next few years. With the World Cup (men's and women's), Olympics and Copa America Tourney (hosted in the US)
As Chris said earlier, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. They aren't going to change the rules so the teams are "more aggressive" just so the score is higher. Strategy is constantly being used on the pitch. Damn near every pass and every run has a purpose, whether you see it or not.
A grandma doing knitting has purpose with every move. That doesn't make watching her exciting.
I also agree with Chris that Europe has the most countries because they deserve to have the most. They clearly have the mist talent, and more importantly it is developed at an early age.
I hope we see another boom in support for soccer in the US over the next few years. With the World Cup (men's and women's), Olympics and Copa America Tourney (hosted in the US)
Why do we need a boom in support for soccer? We have plenty enough to keep us entertained with sports we like, baseball, football...college and pro, basketball...college and pro...hockey, golf, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, etc. etc. etc.
That said, I would be all in favor of an MLS team to come here to NEO.
In fact, I have a couple of people in mind to be owners of a new franchise....and a possible place to put them for one of those guys. Let me know if you are interested.
-
I can't make you think its exciting. My comment was in response to yours saying they aren't trying to achieve the goal. The goal is winning BTW, not necessarily scoring. Each pass, run, etc serves a purpose towards the goal. They aren't just doing whatever they feel like. Comments like that really kill your credibility and any opinion you may have about the sport. For example, the number of WC teams from each region.
We don't need a boom, I'm just hoping for one. Increased support will also make us better on the world stage. Plus, if it happens to replace the airtime of another sport, say baseball, I'm OK with that.
-
I can't make you think its exciting. My comment was in response to yours saying they aren't trying to achieve the goal. The goal is winning BTW, not necessarily scoring. Each pass, run, etc serves a purpose towards the goal. They aren't just doing whatever they feel like. Comments like that really kill your credibility and any opinion you may have about the sport. For example, the number of WC teams from each region.
We don't need a boom, I'm just hoping for one. Increased support will also make us better on the world stage. Plus, if it happens to replace the airtime of another sport, say baseball, I'm OK with that.
I can't make you think its exciting. My comment was in response to yours saying they aren't trying to achieve the goal. The goal is winning BTW, not necessarily scoring. Each pass, run, etc serves a purpose towards the goal. They aren't just doing whatever they feel like. Comments like that really kill your credibility and any opinion you may have about the sport. For example, the number of WC teams from each region.
OK, sure, every move is made in an attempt to try to score or get an advantage.....so is every move in chess, but that does not make chess a palatable spectator sport.
As to your comment about World Cup teams from each region....I think that it is MY position that serves the goal of having soccer become more popular on the total world stage. If you want it to have worldwide appeal, yet you have most of the field come from Europe or SA, then it is not acheiving that goal, now is it?
We don't need a boom, I'm just hoping for one. Increased support will also make us better on the world stage. Plus, if it happens to replace the airtime of another sport, say baseball, I'm OK with that.
I'm not. Baseball is by far a superior sport. It is only because baseball is not popular with the Eurofags was it taken out of the Olympics. Its a sport popular in NA, SA, and Asia.
-
0-0 draws can be very entertaining, either with a load of missed chances/great saves, or from being an extremely engaging tactical affair - though I'm aware that the latter is not everybody's cup of tea, and some people won't be happy unless it ends up 5-4.
Here is the deal......hockey and soccer are really the exact same sport more or less. They are both played on a rectangular playing field with a "goal" at each end being guarded by a goalie. One is ice, the other grass, but the purpose is the same, put a ball/puck into that goal. Essentially the same tactics are used. Except in hockey those tactics are employed constantly....trying to get into a good position to have the object put into the goal.....whereas in soccer it seems that the teams are almost completely passive at attaining what the purpose of the game is: attack that goal. They twiddle about in the huge surface until finally someone gets an idea in their head that the object of the game is to score, not just possess the ball. Too many times they fail to be aggressive.
It is like back when the NCAA did not have a shot clock and teams would go into the 4 corners offense. All they did was pass the ball around the perimeter, and sometimes they would hold the ball for like 5 minutes at a time. It became so awful that they had to put stop to it and install the shot clock. Maybe soccer needs a shot clock.
Here is the deal......hockey and soccer are really the exact same sport more or less. They are both played on a rectangular playing field with a "goal" at each end being guarded by a goalie. One is ice, the other grass, but the purpose is the same, put a ball/puck into that goal. Essentially the same tactics are used. Except in hockey those tactics are employed constantly....trying to get into a good position to have the object put into the goal.....whereas in soccer it seems that the teams are almost completely passive at attaining what the purpose of the game is: attack that goal. They twiddle about in the huge surface until finally someone gets an idea in their head that the object of the game is to score, not just possess the ball. Too many times they fail to be aggressive.
It is like back when the NCAA did not have a shot clock and teams would go into the 4 corners offense. All they did was pass the ball around the perimeter, and sometimes they would hold the ball for like 5 minutes at a time. It became so awful that they had to put stop to it and install the shot clock. Maybe soccer needs a shot clock.
While the main goal is the same in both sports, they are a lot farther apart then you think.
Hockey is go full blast for 45 seconds then change all 5 guys, do it again, then change all 5 guys and so on. Soccer the 11 guys are out there for 90+ minutes. They only get 3 subs the WHOLE game. And the subbed for players are not allowed back in the match.
They don't just twiddle around for no reason either. Every pass, run, play has a reason for it. If that's what you see,twiddling around, then you don't know the game.
Also I would much rather watch hockey or soccer before the NBA. Much more entertaining to me.
"And they don't really know even what they're talkin' about And I can't imagine what empty heads can achieve." -
Uh...Gipper... Idk where you've been but soccer has world wide appeal lol.
"Baseball is the far superior sport"... Haha haha haha haha. That's fucking funny man.
Alright... Now soccer is a shitty spectator sport... Lol OK. Just for the record I wasn't trying to convince you its great. You're probably too rooted in your decades old beliefs for me to change your mind about soccer. You seemed to think the players weren't trying to achieve their goal. You thought there wasn't a purpose behind their passes, movements and runs. Glad to you flip flopped on that quickly enough
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login