European Dominance

[LilPlayaJosh]

But you may not necessarily face any of those three at the World Cup....Take Italy for example..survived the group of death and well, 11 on 11 they weren't extended in the next 2 games. And they have not faced and will not be facing any of those 3 teams. Had they qualified from their group at EURO 2004, they would have faced either the Czech Republic or the Netherlands....hardly teams that wouldn't extend them.

You probably know more than me so your probably right. But I just don't see how Greece can win the Euros but a team like Greece has never won the World Cup. Maybe the pressure to play in the World Cup makes it tougher? Or am I totally wrong here and the Euros are just flat out tougher.

 

[RUSI]

Would you really rather have it decided on a league basis?

No. Obviously.

Guess what...if your're not good enought to win a quarter final, then there is no way in hell that you are worthy of being called the best team in the world because 4 other teams got further than you!

I am not saying that we deserved better or are the best team, just that luck like Crus said is big in these tournaments. I would not call it dominance because none of the four teams have dominated anything.

The perfect example is Greece.

 

[gasper000]

It's just football

may be, but it's not just a game. lol

 

[Limberopoulos21]

No. Obviously.



I am not saying that we deserved better or are the best team, just that luck like Crus said is big in these tournaments. I would not call it dominance because none of the four teams have dominated anything.

The perfect example is Greece.

Well Greece didn't win with fluky goals or with questionable decisions. They won by playing like a whole. People did underestimate us, but when a team like Portugal can't beat Greece on 3 occasions at HOME (there was a friendly played in 2003, greece drew 1-1 with a man down) Scolara knew what Greece was about beofre euro 04. I think you can rule luck out of the picture. Greece did dominate in the build up of euro and in euro also, I think we lost only three times out of like 30 games... but no more than by 1 or 2 goals. Plus we hardly ever conceded. During euro, no one got the better of us in the back, unless if we ****ed up. The Greece now has somewhat fallen apart due to injuries and what not, Dellas was majorly missed in the back. Luck is more like Denmark back in 92, where they didn't qualify but they got spot because Yugoslavia backed out. Or Maradonna's hand of god, but I think we're all glad it counted. Ofcourse luck does play a part in anyones run to a championship, but not to a great degree. Its really about how the team performs... not the players.

As mentioned, yeah euro is harder. Each game is a tough game, can't take anyone lightly. There's no easy passage, only toughers ones. Ukraine made it to the quaters of the world cup simply by going through Saudi, Tunisia and Switzerland. Not excatly stacked against the odds. Switzerland are a good however.

 

[Lonestarr022]

I do think that EUROs is the biggest of the continental championships, even if we do get a Greece or a smaller nation winning it on occasion.

 

[El Diablo Rojo]

Portugal, Italy and Germany are better than Argentina and Brazil.





:fool:








Germany is questionable though.

The europeans never win outside of Europe so meh.

 

[Help?]

I am not worried about having 4 european teams in the semis in the WC, what i am worried about is HOW THE **** do asian teams get 4.5 WC spots and none of them even made it to second round?

 

[Num Lock]

The europeans never win outside of Europe so meh.

i could say argentina has never won it outside of america and it wouldn't invalidate your 2 stars. so?

 

[RUSI]

i could say argentina has never won it outside of america and it wouldn't invalidate your 2 stars. so?

Argentina is just one team compared to the many Europeans.

 

[Num Lock]

Argentina is just one team compared to the many Europeans.

ok dude the only american team that has actually won world cups outside of america is brazil, you gonna tell me you are a fan of 'em now?. what's your point?

 

[RUSI]

No. obviously not.

It proves the point, Europeans have never won a WC on a different continent, and Brasil and Argentina each have.
Brasil and we(Argentina) did in Mexico.

shut up now.

 

[Num Lock]

No. obviously not.

It proves the point, Europeans have never won a WC on a different continent, and Brasil and Argentina each have.
Brasil and we(Argentina) did in Mexico.

shut up now.

lol that is if you consider north america and south america different continents which i don't.

don't be so bitter now that your team was eliminated dude, it doesn't matter where you are playing you still have to win your matches to lift the cup.

 

[Axolote]

Only 4 WC had all-european semi...

Ivory Coast had bad luck in the group, Ghana facing Brazil and Australia got robbed against Italy...

There are issues to consider in a supposed european dominance...

 

[Num Lock]

you are correct i don't know where this whole "european dominace" comes from. football is football, i'd never root for another NT which wasn't my own, after our '02 fiasco i just didn't care about the wc. and now during wc06 im just enjoying every min of zidane being on the pitch.

 

[Dante_1901]

European dominance? Very questionable, let's consider that so far Argentina has shown the best display of football in this cup; besides in the last 4 we have Portugal, coached by a brazilian and having Deco as a very important player in the squad. Also France, who has a couple of players born in Africa; France has Trezeguet and Italia has Camoranesi.

In a World Cup you lose a single game in penalties and you're out, having the press saying everything was a fail. Sometimes this is more about physical condition, luck and experience.

 

[RUSI]

lol that is if you consider north america and south america different continents which i don't.

you should

don't be so bitter now that your team was eliminated dude, it doesn't matter where you are playing you still have to win your matches to lift the cup.

I am not bitter. I just wanted to prove you wrong.

you are correct i don't know where this whole "european dominace" comes from. football is football, i'd never root for another NT which wasn't my own, after our '02 fiasco i just didn't care about the wc. and now during wc06 im just enjoying every min of zidane being on the pitch.

I agree with you here

 

[panxoman]

mmmmh, USA geography class .... now the Earth has 6 continents?

anyway, I don't agree with your geography but you're right in the fact that Brazil has won in another continent. They won in Sweeden 1958

 

[TheGrimSweeper]

theres 7 on that map.

How arent North America and South America different continents?

 

[panxoman]

North and South America are the same continent. They are joined, not separated. (Panama Channel doesn't count as it is something artificial)

don't you consider it like this in america (north or south)?

 

[Tiago_10]

It's just a matter of interpretation.

The 7-continent model is usually taught in Western Europe, China, and most native English-speaking countries. The 6-continent combined-America model is taught in Latin America, Iberia and some other parts of Europe. The 6-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community, Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan. In all of these cases, the names Australasia or Oceania may be used in place of Australia; in Canada, the government-approved Atlas of Canada names 7 continents and indicates Oceania instead.

Historians may use the 5-continent model in which North Africa is separated from Sub-Saharan Africa and included in Eurasia (Jared Diamond) or the 4-continent Afro-Eurasian (Andre Gunder Frank).

From wikipedia.


This is really pointless though, the issue with this thread is just the inappropriate use of the word dominance here, there is no dominance whatsoever. That's a little extreme. Just because Brazil and Argentina didn't qualify for the semis, it's not like they were much inferior to their opponents.