Several things to remember;
1) This game was organised many months ago
2) The Premiership season starts on Saturday
3) Qualifying for Euro 2008 starts in two weeks
4) Many would say that the European competition is harder to win than a World Cup
5) Redtrini girl knows nothing about English football or its supporters as witnessed by her ramblings on this site!
End of!
Warning! warning! Filho is about to swerve severely off topic 
Well Ocky...if you read my earlier post you will see where I come from on this topic. But you see that point you make there...#4. I hadda say something about that. Europeans go on about the European Cup being harder to win than the WC. Its is so boring. Sorry, but the WC is much harder to win....
1) The WC is a longer and therefore more physically strenuous tourney.
2) The European Cup has fewer 'weak' teams, so the average quality per game may be higher in the group stages and the first knockout stage, but once you get to the final stages (quarters, semis, etc) the weaker teams are usually gone. To actually win the WC you not only have to be better than the top European teams, but you throw in Brazil, Argentina and maybe one or 2 dark horses. Just as high quality..but added variety in playing style to deal with...oh and did I mention you might have to play against a nasty behemoth like Brazil or Argie after playing 6 games (your European Cup would have been done already)
3) European teams can often create a 'home-team' atmosphere at the European Cup even when playing away from home. On average, much harder to do so in the WC.
4) When was the last time a traditionally crap team hit form at the right time and won the WC? never really. In the WC, the cream rises to the top. Greece wasn't winning the WC, even with its Euro 2004 form ..or at least..not as likely. That extra game lessens the probability an upstart will win cuz it's one extra chance for Goliath to take on David
No offense, just the whole Euro being harder to win is a pet peeve of mine. European teams should win more WCs if that were true..instead I think its Europe 9 - South America 9.
Hi Filho,
So many points to respond to!! And I'm such a short poster as a rule! Therefore very briefly I'll just point out some of the flaws in your thinking!!
I wouldn't disagree with most of your thinking, however to call the World Cup a longer and physically more strenuous journey is false. How can it be more strenuous when the group games are relatively simple for most of the top seeded teams?? These are just warm up games for what follows in the knock out stages, you don't get that in the European Championship!! In Portugal 2004 we had in the first round France, Croatia and Switzerland to get past before any knock out stages. And the only difference in the length of the competition is one game!! Come on be realistic! Then to call the European competition easier to create a home atmosphere is false too. remember it works for both teams which it doesn't do in the WC!! Therefore this geographical argument is neutralised. In fact it's better for teams like us in the WC than it is in Europe!!
The argument you use for the cream rising to the top doesn't work either. This WC probably followed a bit of form but still didn't see the best teams reaching the final. No serious arguments about France or Italy but neither side has done very much in competition for some time. If you take the previous WC two very poor sides reached the Final, Brazil & Germany. In fact Germany getting that far was a real travesty when they failed to qualify for the WC automatically and had to play off against the Ukraine. Even teams like Korea managed far better performances than they realistically held hopes for. The WC generally throws up more wild-cards and lucky teams than the European ever does. Yes I will agree that Greece winning the last European was criminal but it generally doesn't work like that.
Finally, (this is a long post for me!!!) to count the number of World Cups won by various continents is again a false argument. Because of the time scales, every 4 years & on different Continents then some of the really old stuff can't count. In reality anything prior to 1966 is often considered to be irrelevant and for many reasons, i.e. the qualifying format, the size of the competition, the teams declining to enter etc. The South American sides won many of the earlier WC's when European teams didnt (wouldn't) enter. Just check the stats for recent WC's and see how many European teams get to the quarter final and semi final stage!! I would agree with Argentina and Brazil being classified as real WC contenders, but you tell me who else can rightly claim to be serious contenders from anywhere else but Europe!!
Finally, finally, just check out how many really good European teams do not get into the WC finals despite holding very high World rankings. Because of the qualifying format many good European sides are left by the wayside in order to give the WC a more balanced global look. Some countries qualify for the WC but would never get past the qualifying games for a European competition.
Sorry for the long post!!!
Show Posts
