-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
no matter if u find it stupid or not...fifa's statement about corinthians world title
- Thread starter tinytim
- Start date
pasion1 said:
so the worth of the championship depends on its champion. ridiculous.
the world championship happened in january 2000, so palmeiras was the libertadores champion (99), not boca. they should have been placed over vasco. corinthians was there because he was the national champion of the host country.
i consider that championship as worthless as the other.
El Diablo Rojo
Starting XI
pasion1 said:
Well, to be exact, after Boca won over Real Madrid, they lost 3-0 with Independiente the next match for the Apertura 2000/2001.
pasion1 said:
Yeah, and no one even saw the all S. Am. final in the 1930 and 1950. Therefore Uruguay are not World Cup champions.
pasion1 said:
Boca was the official intercontinental champ, and Corinthians was the official World Club championship champions. There, not difficult, is it?
pasion1 said:
If they beat the "better sides", they deserve to be champions, correct? just checking to see if we're on the same page here.
If we are, then weren't Uruguay invited in 1930?
pasion1 said:
Yeah, like England won in 1966 just because it was played at Wembley. That's why the English here don't think their side has ever won a tournament. I'd mention Uruguay '30 again, but I think you get my point by now.
pasion1 said:Forgot to mention when we won Brazil 1950
Or how about Argentina 87? Brazil in 83 (last leg atleast)? I could go on all day
I didn't. But you did a good job at dodging the points I threw at you. I reckon some of them may have gone over your head.Kibe Kru said:
Anyway, it looks like it still wouldn't matter in 1950 would it? if Brazil won it, then "I think Corinthians of the 50's could have won that tournament if it was played in Pacaembu" anyway.
It's got to start somewhere. If the World Cup is what it is now, it's because it had invitees in the earlier tournaments, it's got sh!tty rules (like the 1950 one, the final match could be worth nothing if Spain had beaten Uruguay earlier, as it'd be already decided when the teams met. Yeah, it was a group.)
Ruben Sosa
El Jovato
I think his point was that Uruguay has won several noteworthy titles away from home whereas Corinthians has not, therefore killing your comparison.
Also, for the 1930 world cup, Uruguay was not drawn out of a hat and chosen as its host, we were chosen in part due to our performance in the Olympics of 1924 and 28. These two tournaments might have made a better example of winning the title while being invited, or since back then all competitions were organized via invitations, Denmark's 1992 Euro Cup win when they replaced Yugoslavia due to the situation in the Balkans would have been an even better example, although none of them actually fit your argument, as neither teams were hosts when they won those titles.
Through the 70's several European champions declined to participate in the Intercontinental Cup. Atlético de Madrid, replacing Bayern Munich, won it in 1974 beating Independiente 2-0 in Madrid, after losing 0-1 in Argentina. That's probably the closest similarity to Corinthian's WCC win.
In any case, I don't understand this discussion. What does it matter what we think? FIFA says it was an official tournament and that the champion was Corinthians, end of story. Why persist in looking for the approval of the forum?
Also, for the 1930 world cup, Uruguay was not drawn out of a hat and chosen as its host, we were chosen in part due to our performance in the Olympics of 1924 and 28. These two tournaments might have made a better example of winning the title while being invited, or since back then all competitions were organized via invitations, Denmark's 1992 Euro Cup win when they replaced Yugoslavia due to the situation in the Balkans would have been an even better example, although none of them actually fit your argument, as neither teams were hosts when they won those titles.
Through the 70's several European champions declined to participate in the Intercontinental Cup. Atlético de Madrid, replacing Bayern Munich, won it in 1974 beating Independiente 2-0 in Madrid, after losing 0-1 in Argentina. That's probably the closest similarity to Corinthian's WCC win.
In any case, I don't understand this discussion. What does it matter what we think? FIFA says it was an official tournament and that the champion was Corinthians, end of story. Why persist in looking for the approval of the forum?
El Diablo Rojo
Starting XI
Ruben Sosa said:
And like i said before, Independiente is still reclaiming the Intercontinental of '75 to be played, because Bayern declined on playing it, it was never played but then they did accept playing it in '76.:boohoo:
Well, England hasn't really won anything away have they? are they not world champions? To make it better, are they less of World Champions than the ones that won the title away?Ruben Sosa said:
Just like Uruguay weren't drawn out of a hat, Corinthians was chosen because they were the national champions for the 2 previous years.
Unfair? maybe. but those were the rules. and the invited team won. Which, it seems, makes people think it wasn't a tournament at all.
Like I've said before, this isn't going anywhere (look at my reply to tinytim). But I enjoy arguing with pasion1. It's funny.
I think the south american football isn't as exciting as the european one because the native players of there play the same football the think much as the same, very good technique, knowledge of the game and that's why i think they rule this game. When they come in Europe they bring that spark that every team needs, the brain to make the game and they play exactly like they used to play in SA but the others aren't the same. If you look around the globe, you can find at least 1 brazilian in every good team and Brazil will win again the WC and that means they make this game...
Ruben Sosa
El Jovato
Kibe Kru said:
I think they won some Olympic medals around the early 1900's... I don't disagree with what you wrote, I was just clarifying a comparison which I felt was erroneous.
Kibe Kru said:
Yes, I read something about that.
Kibe Kru said:
Not really. They played their games and won them.
Kibe Kru said:
I wouldn't go to that extreme, but I confess a disinterest in the tournament from my part, both the 2000 edition and the one recently played in Japan.
Pogba4Now
Team Captain
I don't think so. People in Europe do not really consider that as grandiose as in south America. Champions League is more important for them than world cup championships. the CL is more challenging and hard to achieve rather than a 6 team tournament. I know that people from south America regard this as an ultimate achievement, but in Europe its different.tinytim;2607506 said:
pasion1;2046823 said:
Gotta agree with that.
whatever happened to them? agitators like me got killed?
and i just can't get european guys. I mean, don't they think important to fight against the other clubs of the world? where that comes from? the strucuture and organization of european leagues and championships is so remarkable, so irresistible that no other match or competition gets any interesting?
we hear around that's actually...hmmm...fear.
and i just can't get european guys. I mean, don't they think important to fight against the other clubs of the world? where that comes from? the strucuture and organization of european leagues and championships is so remarkable, so irresistible that no other match or competition gets any interesting?
we hear around that's actually...hmmm...fear.