[WC] World Cup 2010 - General Talk Thread (54 Viewers)
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
Let these teams make the world cup semis first, and then we will think about accepting them.
Here is a 1 million vcash question (If Bianconero gives the correct answer I will give him 5m vcash):
How many Barcelona players won the World Cup?
- What I'm asking is how many players were Barcelona players when they won the World Cup with their National team.
Here is a 1 million vcash question (If Bianconero gives the correct answer I will give him 5m vcash):
How many Barcelona players won the World Cup?
- What I'm asking is how many players were Barcelona players when they won the World Cup with their National team.
Except that Croatia got 3rd place in 98 and that was not a fluke. Bulgaria in 94. Not to mention Sweden has a WC history. Every once in a while there is a "small" team that goes far. It'd be really sad to have a competition with only the "favorites" without a chance for surprises from outside that group.
And what the f is up with Egypt that they can't ever qualify??
And what the f is up with Egypt that they can't ever qualify??
Which is better, reaching the semi's once and then either going out of the first round or not qualifying at all for the rest of the times, or reaching the quarters, the second round consistently. I think the latter is better, because the former is more of a fluke.
A team like USA has reached the quarter finals before, and has reached the second round a number of times, plus they did very well in the Confederations Cup last summer and reached the final there beating European champions Spain in the process. Then you have a team like Croatia who did not even qualify for this last WC and lost 4-0 to England in the process, they also lost the second spot to Ukraine who we all know is a shit team. I think its pretty obvious that USA >>>> Croatia.
True, i was commenting on Alens idea of an elitist competition where not all teams are allowed to qualify. I think its a silly idea altogether, but if we were to take only the best teams, we wouldn't allow teams like Ukraine, Croatia and Sweden in, it would be better to have teams like Ghana, USA and Mexico.
Croatia is a fluke team. They beat England at Wembley a few years ago, then lost 4-0 last year at Croatia.
Croatia is a fluke team. They beat England at Wembley a few years ago, then lost 4-0 last year at Croatia.
Better how? Croatia and Sweden have been in semi finals in the past 15 years. What the hell has Ghana or USA ever done?
Right, that's a good example.
I bet you could find almost the same case for every team at some point.
Right, that's a good example.
I bet you could find almost the same case for every team at some point.
Europeans have money, good facilities, a lot of immigrants and decades and decades to build their leagues, National teams etc.
We never lost 4:0 to England 
European teams can at least make a great generation from time to time. As can the South Americans. The others- NEVER!
European teams can at least make a great generation from time to time. As can the South Americans. The others- NEVER!
Give them time, most of them are relatively new to football.
I don't agree that the latter is better. Also, its like i said, you guys have the advantage of time, most of the other teams are either new to football, or have poor football federations, poor leagues, no money, no facilities etc.
Look at the African players who grow up in Europe and use European facilities and benefit from all the spoiling European players get. Look at Zidane, Desailly, Eto'o, Drogba, Weah etc. They are all better than any Croatian, Swedish or Bulgarian player out there.
Oh and South Americans are genuinely good at football. I have no objections there.