Scherp what do you think about the European group B. Was it a strong or a weak group.
Behind Italy there were 4 teams which were very pretty close for rank 2, which means that the one who in the end made the 2nd rank had no chance for the European play offs. As all 4 had lost too much points against each other, and for that must inevitably miss out on the chance to qualify. This was already clear 2 or 3 matches before the group phase ended.
It was of course a strong group, too strong in comparison to some others. In the Holland group it was also close for Rumania, Hungary and Turkey; they were alll three candidates for the second place and all took point from each other. To compare groups with each other, is basically unfair because some groups are much stronger than others. It’s impossible to play the South-American system (all teams play in one group, a true competition), but they should at least have given the second bests from the European groups a chance to qualify through play offs: Danemark could’ve played Uruguay, Jordan or Mexico in a playoff for a place in the tournament.
The first play-offs coming up on wednesday, in both cases the first leg:
Mexico - New Zealand
Jordan - Uruguay
Mexico and Uruguay are likely to qualify, even though we still remember how New-Zealand managed to get three points in their group games during the last world Cup, even getting a draw from their game against (then) reigning world champions Italy (admittedly not in best form): 1-1.
However, my sympathy is with the outsiders, because I think Mexico and Uruguay simply don’t deserve to qualify. If Mexico does not finish in the top three of their rather weak qualification Zone (Concacaf) they should be ashamed and have the decency to stay in Mexico City. Uruguay ending only fifth in this South-American group is a laughable result, knowing the contingent of players they have. Their attacking force looks like a Dream Team line up: Forlan - Suarez - Cavani.
We then get a lot of games during the weekend followed by mid-week games: first and second legs in Europe, second legs in Africa.
What was bound to happen, is happening: even after the first leg we can say that Uruguay and mexico will qualify foir the World Cup:
Jordan - Uruguay 0-5
Mexico - New Zealand 5-1
The returns are a pure formality
It’s probably not a bad thing for the tournament that Uruguay and Mexico qualify - they have more to offer than their opponents - but it’s not fair: these pairings were a bonus for the teams from the American continent. The tournament is held there, so I guess the Uefa and Mr. Blatter wanted to see as many ‘American’ (South/North/Middle) teams represented as possible.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:44, topic:3252”]What was bound to happen, is happening: even after the first leg we can say that Uruguay and mexico will qualify foir the World Cup:
Jordan - Uruguay 0-5
Mexico - New Zealand 5-1[/quote]
Yes, he he, big surprise …
The tournament is held there, so I guess the [i][b]Uefa[/b][/i] and Mr. Blatter wanted to see as many 'American' (South/North/Middle) teams represented as possible.
You mean Fifa.
I thought about this too, but I don’t know if nowadays this is still an argument. And then all the other Fifa members form the other continents have to agree.
First legs of the European Play-offs were played last night. Biggest upset no doubt the 2-0 victory of Ukraïne over hot favorites France. I watched another game (the one everybody seemed focussed on) so only saw a few highlights. France had a lot of ball posession, but Ukraïne were a constant threat with their fast counters. They really play well on the break and I that’s exactly what they’ll be trying to do next tuesday in Paris. France has a mountain to climb.
The game I watched, was of course Portugal - Sweden (1-0). It was a good game, but not really a spectacular one. The Swedes were slightly better during the first half, and also had the better chances, but Portugal clearly dominated after the break. Ronaldo scored the only goal, with a teriffic header. He could have scored a second shortly afterwards, but also could’ve received a red card.
The full results:
Iceland - Croatia 0-0
Ukraïne - France 2-0
Portugal - Sweden 1-0
Greece - Rumania 3-1
The result of the last game may be a surprise to some, but Rumania played in the Holland group, and Oranje beat them 4-1 in Bucarest, 4-0 at home. They were absolutely hopeless, so the result is not a complete surprise to me.
I’ll be cheering for the US, but I’ll be disappointed if the usual suspects are not there at the end… Germany, Holland, Spain, I wanna say Brazil as host-country… Portugal’s gonna be way tough. My fave upsetter was Paraguay, but they’re adrift.
Uhh ooh France is in trouble. Big trouble.
Well, I think the 4 best teams play against each other. Good for the underdogs.
It would be a real shame if France wouldn’t make it, in the first place for themselves.
What on earth happened to this football nation, World Champions in '98, European Champions in '00, World Cup finalists in '06 … ever since then it has been nothing but trouble.
They just had a bit of a golden age at the turn of the century, that’s all. 2002 was an unmitigated disaster admittedly, the likes of which only the French seem capable, but by 2004 the squad was ageing and 2006 was really a last hurrah. It wasn’t a fluke exactly - they beat Spain, Brazil and Portugal en route to the final - but they weren’t generally expected to get as far as they did. The record books will show that they qualified from their opening group undefeated but the truth is they made hard work of a fairly straightforward group and after two games and two draws (Switzerland and S.Korea) it looked as though time had caught up with them. A win against footballing titans Togo was all that kept them in that tournament.
France have always felt to me like the Mike Tyson of international football. Everything looks devastating and effortless and purring like a Bentley Continental when it’s going their way. But as soon as they’re required to dig deep, their default position is to hit the self-destruct button. The Italians, the Germans, they don’t know they’re beaten. They don’t panic. But the French… the word “Team” seems to be a relative term to them, applicable only when they’re a goal up.
Of course, at least the Frenchies have the decency to wait until they’re up against it before declaring civil war in the middle of a tournament. The Dutch seem to favour hitting their self-destruct button entirely at random. Looking at as many Euros/World Cups as you can recall, how many times have Holland been the best side in the competition? Ten times, maybe? And yet they INSIST on playing Russian Roulette in between rounds. " Are we the best side here?" (click) “Are we still the best side here?” (click) “Are we STILL the be-”(BLAM!). ;D
Still, it must be nice to at least have grounds for belief that your nation might win the World Cup, or the Euros. As an Englishman, I have no idea how it feels to believe that this year, it’s our year. Never felt it (well, maybe a bit, in Euro 96). Oh, I know how it feels to maintain and uphold a nationwide gutterpress-led delusion that we are a leading footballing nation and THE team to fear, every tournament (even the ones for which we fail to qualify). I know how THAT feels. ;D But to actually be represented by a squad that excites and inspires and leaves other nations cooing in envy and awe? Yeah right, that’ll happen.
But all in all France was only sometimes a great football nation. Only when they had some exceptional players, which was not that often. Fontaine and Kopa in the late 50s, Platini in the first half of the 80s and then of course the Zidane era from 1996 to 2006.
Of course France has a different (a better) reputation in the last 30 years compared to the time before.
France is not on the same level as Brazil, Germany or Italy, the three giants (probably in that order) of World Cup History. (I know Italy has more titles, but Germany has been more consistent over the years; moreover two Italian titles date from the 1930s), but they had several strong periods. Their team from the 80s, which never won the world title, is one of the strongest in history, with that incredible midfield Platini-Tigana-Fernandez-Giresse.
I think more teams that reached the final had a bad first round, not only France (it was a last Hurrah for a generation though). Germany in 1974 were struggling in the first round (they lost the game against their fellow Germans from the other side of the wall!) and in 1982 they lost their first game against Algeria and also ‘scored’ this scandalous draw against Austria. World Champion Italy, in 1982, had three draws in their first round, and in 2006, when they became World Champion again, they weren’t fabulous in the opening stages of the tournament.
Finally: I’m Dutch and like the classical Dutch football style (dominating the opponent), but if you hardly ever win (they won only 1 title) there might be something wrong with this style. I don’t think, by the way, that they had the best team of the tournament on 10 occasions. In 1974 maybe, but the Germans were close and showed more discipline in the course of the tournament, and most certainly during the finale. In 1990 Holland had the best players (even Lothar Mattheus said this a while ago), but not the best team.
For '74 see:
http://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Why_we_didn't_win_in_'74
Let’s not forget that in 2010 Spain played often pretty weak before they reached the half finals. They were even close to lose the quarter final in a curious game against Paraguay.
Platini has said that if there had been 3 WCs between 1982 and 1986 they would have won it 3 times.
Bad timing.
This kind of critic is uttered more and more in Germany against the Löw team. That they are able to play beautiful football, but they don’t have the bite to win a tournament.
While Germany in former times often was a tournament team. And often derived more than deserved. Often won their games by fighting and not by playing.
This kind of critic is uttered more and more in Germany against the Löw team. That they are able to play beautiful football, but they don't have the bite to win a tournament. While Germany in former times often was a tournament team. And often derived more than deserved. Often won their games by fighting and not by playing.
Many of the key players are still young, so they still have two or three tournaments they can possibly win, 2014, 2016 or 2018. Maybe the tournament in Brazil is the most difficult one to win for them, or any other European team. Usually the World Champion comes from the continent where the tournament is held. Playing the tournament on ‘your’ continent seems to be a real home advantage. I somehow think Germany has (along with Spain) the best team, but Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, maybe even Uruguay will also be strong contenders now.
IMHO there’s at least a case to be made for The Netherlands as arguably the best side or thereabouts (by which I mean undoubtedly one of the top two or maybe three sides at any of those tournaments with no clear, obvious stronger opposition) in 74, 78, 98 and 2010 (WC), and in 76, 88, 92, 2000, 2004 and despite only making the quarters, 2008 too (Euros). IMHO. Easy to counter of course since, 88 aside, all of those pots went to [INSERT SOMEONE ELSE HERE]. But teams aren’t that awesome for the better part of forty years because of a golden generation like the Frenchies or, more recently, the Spaniards. Holland SHOULD be as revered and decorated as Brazil, Germany or Italy. But… I dunno, there’s a glitch somewhere.
I’m not knocking them, I’m envious. I’d like to see England in genuine contention for just ONE World Cup in my lifetime, one day. They haven’t got to win it, just be the side about which the rest of the world say,“F*ck, did you see England last night? Devastating! We can’t draw them whatever happens, or we’re out!” 
Ok then, which title wins were deserved, and which not?
I never watch Handball, but I assume, with the amount of goals per game, a team which wants to win by luck would have to have a lot of luck. Why in Football too often not necessarily the dominating team wins a game. In the liga football the luck will not be important over ca 34 games over one year, but in a tournament in which after the group phase every game is a final game, and in which one not regular goal can decide a game, not every time the best team will triumph.
2010 - Spain - deserved
2006 - Italy - hmm … not sure, at least definitely not undeserved
2002 - Brazil - deserved, but only due to a weak tournament
1998 - France - deserved
1994 - Brazil - deserved, but uhh, I’m not too sure
1990 - Germany - deserved
1986 - Argentina - deserved
1982 - Italy - deserved, but Brazil and France had maybe the better teams
1978 - Argentina - not deserved
1974 - Germany - deserved, but it’s a shame that The Netherlands did not win a title either
1970 - Brazil - deserved
1966 - England - deserved
1962 - Brazil - deserved
1958 - Brazil - deserved
1954 - Germany - phew, that’s tricky, not undeserved, but Hungary should have made it
The first 4 WCs do not really deserve the name cause too much of the probable best teams did not participate, but still:
1950 - Uruguay - undeserved cause Brzil was the best team (actually the best teams at that time were maybe Argentina and Hungary, which both did not participate)
1938 - Italy - deserved - but it was closer to a EC without the British teams, but now with a good team from Brazil, and without Uruguay and Argentina
1934 - Italy - undeserved - and anyway it also was closer to a EC without the British teams, and the champion of 1930 did not participate, and Argentina played only with an amateur team
1930 - Uruguay - deserved - despite being some kind of America cup with all the best teams from Europe missing, but Uruguay won the Olympic games in 1924 and in 1928, which were much closer to a WC than any of the 1st 4 WCs
Well, all in all not bad. But there were surely some more teams which would have deserved to win one or another tournament.
Interesting list.
Some comments later.
In the meantime NIGERIA, IVORY COAST and CAMEROON have qualified.
If Ghana and Algeria qualify (Ghana almost certainly will) the continent will be represented by the same 5 countries as in 2010.