Really poor football on display so far in this World Cup

[Midknight]

dont forget to add teams like Mexico, USA and South Korea (or whappen yuh fraid to mention them) to your list..or maybe adding those teams will refute everything you are saying..The Europeans teams are NOT dominating like before and the performances in this World Cup is enough to prove it and will continue to prove it in the near future, so no need for me to write a long paragraph to explain something that is very obvious.

How long Mexico playin World Cup football?

Dem appear in 13 World Cup finals.  That's more than any other nation barring Brazil, Italy, Germany, and Argentina.

Have they made a quarter final yet?

How about the USA?

Who have Mexico and the USA dominated?

Which Eurporean or South American teams have they BEATEN in World Cup Football?

I already mentioned South Korea.  Maybe yuh should read FIRST before commentin.



From Planet Football:

APPEARANCES IN THE FINAL ROUNDS

World cup appearances of these countries has nothing to do with the FACT that the European teams are less dominant than before..so basically you are reaching..(continue to reach and see if you can touch the stars  )..So let me get this straight, you are saying these teams that help close the gap of European dominance is based on the fact that they have appeared in WC finals numerous times ?..Then should I assume that you agree that the gap has been narrowed ?..and dont bother ask who they dominate because i never said they dominated..maybe that is how you choose to understand...Hmm dont confuse yourself

If the gap close so much...

Name the European or South American teams that EITHER Mexico OR USA have beaten in the World Cup.  In any World Cup.

Remember, Mexico playin since 1930.

I will give you a chance to edit your question than i will delete this post..they both have beaten Europen teams in World Cups..

However if they have never beaten any Euro team it would not have made much difference because the standard of football they play today is considered better than the average Euro team ..the same average Euro team (like Turkey, Slovak Rep or Belgium) who would have dominated a USA or South Korea 15 years ago

The proof is in the pudding.

What gap has closed?  When have they beaten a European or South American team in the World Cup?

Has USA ever done do?  If so, how many times?

How many times has Mexico done it? 

2010:
Mexico 2-0 France

2006:
Mexico 1-0 Croatia
Mexico 2-1 Ecuador

2002
USA 3-2 Portugal
USA made quarterfinals that year

1994
Mexico 2-1 Ireland
USA 1-0 Colombia

1986
Mexico 2-1 Belgium
Mexico 2-0 Bulgaria

Mexico made quarterfinals that year

since the 32 team format was introduced, Mexico's record against Europe/S. America = 3 W, 3 D, 2 L
since the 32 team format was introduced, USA's record against Europe/S. America = 1 W, 3 D, 5 L

[palos]

but teams like T&T and Honduras going to the WC and not collecting 10 like El Salvador did in WC 1982 are signs that the gap is closing.

The mere fact that we're even having this discussion speaks volumes.   

North Korea went World Cup in 1966 and beat Italy 3-1

They come to the World Cup in 2010 and lorse to Portugal 7-0

Seems to me like non traditional football powerhouse teams still colleckin copious amount a licks nearly 5 decades later

So much for closing of gaps.

[Marcos]

exception, rather than the rule

[palos]

2010:
Mexico 2-0 France

2006:
Mexico 1-0 Croatia
Mexico 2-1 Ecuador

2002
USA 3-2 Portugal
USA made quarterfinals that year

1994
Mexico 2-1 Ireland
USA 1-0 Colombia

1986
Mexico 2-1 Belgium
Mexico 2-0 Bulgaria

Mexico made quarterfinals that year

So in 13 World Cup appearances.....AT LEAST 40 World Cup matches....Mexico has beatean European opposition 5 times and South American opposition once

Amongst those 6 victories against European & South American opposition, 4 were against traditional football powerhouses Belgium, Bulgaria, Ecuador, & Ireland.

USA has beaten ONE...yes...1 Eurpoean team...and 1 South American team since their re-entry into World Cup football in 1990.  That's 6 world cups....MINIMUM 15 matches.

Dat gap tighter dan a unmarried somalian nanny.

[Midknight]

2010:
Mexico 2-0 France

2006:
Mexico 1-0 Croatia
Mexico 2-1 Ecuador

2002
USA 3-2 Portugal
USA made quarterfinals that year

1994
Mexico 2-1 Ireland
USA 1-0 Colombia

1986
Mexico 2-1 Belgium
Mexico 2-0 Bulgaria

Mexico made quarterfinals that year

So in 13 World Cup appearances.....AT LEAST 40 World Cup matches....Mexico has beatean European opposition 5 times and South American opposition once

Amongst those 6 victories against European & South American opposition, 4 were against traditional football powerhouses Belgium, Bulgaria, Ecuador, & Ireland.

USA has beaten ONE...yes...1 Eurpoean team...and 1 South American team since their re-entry into World Cup football in 1990.  That's 6 world cups....MINIMUM 15 matches.

Dat gap tighter dan a unmarried somalian nanny.

I not particularly disagreeing with your overall argument, but if you want to make a point, clean it up somewhat and do it properly. I stopped in 1986, but if you want to count all of Mexico's 13 World Cup appearances, you need to count the victories prior to 1986. (is not plenty, one against czechosolvakia in 62 and belgium in 1970) Same way, the USA has three - one against Belgium,and Paraguay in 1930 and England in 1958) Also, you have to minus all the matches they played against non european, non south american opposition during that time. I'm not going to do all that work for the simple reason that i don't think any of that is relevant to any discussion on today's football.

I think it's safe to say that the modern world cup (no 2nd group stage, a fairly representative spread of teams, started in 1986), and the World Cup as we know it (no third placed teams advancing, even more representative spread), started in 1998.

Also there is a strong bias if you refuse to count drawn matches in your "gap closing formula" If I can't beat a team that I would previously be expected to win easily over, I'm sure that can also be construed as the gap closing. Notice no one talked about a "pendulum shift"

[kicker]

North Korea went World Cup in 1966 and beat Italy 3-1

They come to the World Cup in 2010 and lorse to Portugal 7-0

Seems to me like non traditional football powerhouse teams still colleckin copious amount a licks nearly 5 decades later

So much for closing of gaps.

So one example of one of the all time biggest upsets ever, and one example of one of the all time biggest blowouts today is what you're using to make a point? lol...You discount the use of S. Korea in WC 2002 as a one-off example of a closing gap, then tuh make your point, yuh use a one-off example of North Korea...yuh eh playin' yuh good oui....Hungary a so called power house in the 1950's hold a 6-0 cutarse from Russia in the 1986 World Cup, and yuh never hear from them since... Point is, anybody could get a blowout- so that example eh saying nutten by itself plus the score in that 1966 game was 1-0.

In addition, nobody eh saying that non traditional football powerhouses ent getting blow out from the beginning of time to the present day.  People are saying that the degree of competitiveness of the smaller teams has improved over time on average.  

I suppose a comprehensive study is what it would take to make a compelling argument either way...until someone produces it, I think general consensus is that despite a somewhat unchanged status quo of football giants through time, there is a wider global breadth of competitive teams today (than "yesterday") who are capable of giving a traditional giant a good run for their money on the field...  I imagine that this perception was born out of something reasonable.  

[palos]

So one example of one of the all time biggest upsets ever, and one example of one of the all time biggest blowouts today is what you're using to make a point? lol...You discount the use of S. Korea in WC 2002 as a one-off example of a closing gap, then tuh make your point, yuh use a one-off example of North Korea...yuh eh playin' yuh good oui....Hungary a so called power house in the 1950's hold a 6-0 cutarse from Russia in the 1986 World Cup, and yuh never hear from them since... Point is, anybody could get a blowout- so that example eh saying nutten by itself plus the score in that 1966 game was 1-0.

In addition, nobody eh saying that non traditional football powerhouses ent getting blow out from the beginning of time to the present day.  People are saying that the degree of competitiveness of the smaller teams has improved over time on average.  

I suppose a comprehensive study is what it would take to make a compelling argument either way...until someone produces it, I think general consensus is that despite a somewhat unchanged status quo of football giants through time, there is a wider global breadth of competitive teams today (than "yesterday") who are capable of giving a traditional giant a good run for their money on the field...  I imagine that this perception was born out of something reasonable.  

Seeing that you on the topic of blowouts....look at Midknight post below:

If you consider that a blowout is a win by 3 goals or more, since the WC expand to 32 teams:

1st Round
Germany Saudi Arabia 8-0
USA Czech 0-3
Spain Ukraine 4-0
Germany 4 Australia 0

2nd Round
Brazil Morocco 3-0
Italy Cameroon 3-0
France South Africa 3-0
Netherlands South Korea 5-0
Argentina Jamaica 5-0
Brazil China 4-0
Portugal Poland 4-0
Argentina Serbia 6-0
Ukraine Saudi Arabia 4-0
South Africa Uruguay 0-3
Argentina South Korea 4-1
Portugal North Korea 7-0

3rd Round
Morocco Scotland 3-0
France Saudi Arabia 4-0
Bulgaria Spain 1-6
Costa Rica  Brazil 2-5
Turkey China 3-0
Saudi Arabia Ireland 0-3
Ecuador Costa Rica 3-0

Of the 23 examples of blowouts provided (as defined as losses by 3 or more goals)

3 or 13% of those examples were suffered by "traditional footballing countries"  Bulgaria against Spain, Poland against Portugal, Ukraine against Spain.

The other 20 or 87% were suffered by non traditional footballing countries against "traditonal footballing countries".  The last one being TODAY.

I don't see this as the EXCEPTION.  This is consistent.

IMO, yes non traditional footballing countries have improved, but it's not like the traditional footballing countries have remained static.  They too have improved.  And so ther gap remains and the way to measure the gap is through results...not scores.  All over the world, it's tougher to score goals.  Teams play more defensively, similar tactics, technology plays a huge role, athletes are fitter, stronger, faster.

But traditonal teams still beating non traditional teams at every World Cup.  Very little headway has been made despite talk to the contrary.

When non tradtional teams start consistenty beating traditional teams, then you can say the gap has closed. 

[ribbit]

So one example of one of the all time biggest upsets ever, and one example of one of the all time biggest blowouts today is what you're using to make a point? lol...You discount the use of S. Korea in WC 2002 as a one-off example of a closing gap, then tuh make your point, yuh use a one-off example of North Korea...yuh eh playin' yuh good oui....Hungary a so called power house in the 1950's hold a 6-0 cutarse from Russia in the 1986 World Cup, and yuh never hear from them since... Point is, anybody could get a blowout- so that example eh saying nutten by itself plus the score in that 1966 game was 1-0.

In addition, nobody eh saying that non traditional football powerhouses ent getting blow out from the beginning of time to the present day.  People are saying that the degree of competitiveness of the smaller teams has improved over time on average.  

I suppose a comprehensive study is what it would take to make a compelling argument either way...until someone produces it, I think general consensus is that despite a somewhat unchanged status quo of football giants through time, there is a wider global breadth of competitive teams today (than "yesterday") who are capable of giving a traditional giant a good run for their money on the field...  I imagine that this perception was born out of something reasonable.  

Seeing that you on the topic of blowouts....look at Midknight post below:

If you consider that a blowout is a win by 3 goals or more, since the WC expand to 32 teams:

1st Round
Germany Saudi Arabia 8-0
USA Czech 0-3
Spain Ukraine 4-0
Germany 4 Australia 0

2nd Round
Brazil Morocco 3-0
Italy Cameroon 3-0
France South Africa 3-0
Netherlands South Korea 5-0
Argentina Jamaica 5-0
Brazil China 4-0
Portugal Poland 4-0
Argentina Serbia 6-0
Ukraine Saudi Arabia 4-0
South Africa Uruguay 0-3
Argentina South Korea 4-1
Portugal North Korea 7-0

3rd Round
Morocco Scotland 3-0
France Saudi Arabia 4-0
Bulgaria Spain 1-6
Costa Rica  Brazil 2-5
Turkey China 3-0
Saudi Arabia Ireland 0-3
Ecuador Costa Rica 3-0

Of the 23 examples of blowouts provided (as defined as losses by 3 or more goals)

3 or 13% of those examples were suffered by "traditional footballing countries"  Bulgaria against Spain, Poland against Portugal, Ukraine against Spain.

The other 20 or 87% were suffered by non traditional footballing countries against "traditonal footballing countries".   The last one being TODAY.

I don't see this as the EXCEPTION.  This is consistent.

IMO, yes non traditional footballing countries have improved, but it's not like the traditional footballing countries have remained static.  They too have improved.  And so ther gap remains and the way to measure the gap is through results...not scores.  All over the world, it's tougher to score goals.  Teams play more defensively, similar tactics, technology plays a huge role, athletes are fitter, stronger, faster.

But traditonal teams still beating non traditional teams at every World Cup.  Very little headway has been made despite talk to the contrary.

When non tradtional teams start consistenty beating traditional teams, then you can say the gap has closed. 

two points

- serbia (& montenegro) as part of the former yugoslavia ought to be part of the traditional footballing countries.
- morocco beat scotland 3-0   isn't this an example of a non-traditional "blowing out" a traditional?

[palos]

two points

- serbia (& montenegro) as part of the former yugoslavia ought to be part of the traditional footballing countries.
- morocco beat scotland 3-0   isn't this an example of a non-traditional "blowing out" a traditional?

Let's say those are right.

So it now becomes 4 out of 23 or 17% (up from 13%)

and 1 out of 23 when a minnow beat a "traditonal power"...although quite how Scotland is a traditional footballing power is beyond me...but say they are, how does it change what I'm saying?

[#4]

Fellas I play with a Jabulani today... is real pressure... de ball have a kinda sponginess that when yuh kick it, it flying off yuh foot into space...

doh talk for de flight of de ball... I send een two cross dat swing two ways and nearly end up in the goal, had de keeper scrambling... adidas hadda go back to de drawing board with that ball in my opinion...

I played with Jabulani in a tournament a couple weeks ago; I really didn't have a problem with it once I was able to warm up a little (then again, I'm not a striker or goalkeeper, lol). Honestly, Jabulani didn't seem too much different than many of the newer balls on the market today, especially when compared to the drastic difference between Teamgeist and the other balls that were out in 2006.

I would say that in any case, going for accuracy instead of power does a world of good with Jabulani, and that you had better trap Jabulani before it bounces, because even on a damp pitch, it bounces like a basketball off a blacktop. Just my two cents...

[mukumsplau]

So one example of one of the all time biggest upsets ever, and one example of one of the all time biggest blowouts today is what you're using to make a point? lol...You discount the use of S. Korea in WC 2002 as a one-off example of a closing gap, then tuh make your point, yuh use a one-off example of North Korea...yuh eh playin' yuh good oui....Hungary a so called power house in the 1950's hold a 6-0 cutarse from Russia in the 1986 World Cup, and yuh never hear from them since... Point is, anybody could get a blowout- so that example eh saying nutten by itself plus the score in that 1966 game was 1-0.

In addition, nobody eh saying that non traditional football powerhouses ent getting blow out from the beginning of time to the present day.  People are saying that the degree of competitiveness of the smaller teams has improved over time on average.  

I suppose a comprehensive study is what it would take to make a compelling argument either way...until someone produces it, I think general consensus is that despite a somewhat unchanged status quo of football giants through time, there is a wider global breadth of competitive teams today (than "yesterday") who are capable of giving a traditional giant a good run for their money on the field...  I imagine that this perception was born out of something reasonable.  

Seeing that you on the topic of blowouts....look at Midknight post below:

If you consider that a blowout is a win by 3 goals or more, since the WC expand to 32 teams:

1st Round
Germany Saudi Arabia 8-0
USA Czech 0-3
Spain Ukraine 4-0
Germany 4 Australia 0

2nd Round
Brazil Morocco 3-0
Italy Cameroon 3-0
France South Africa 3-0
Netherlands South Korea 5-0
Argentina Jamaica 5-0
Brazil China 4-0
Portugal Poland 4-0
Argentina Serbia 6-0
Ukraine Saudi Arabia 4-0
South Africa Uruguay 0-3
Argentina South Korea 4-1
Portugal North Korea 7-0

3rd Round
Morocco Scotland 3-0
France Saudi Arabia 4-0
Bulgaria Spain 1-6
Costa Rica  Brazil 2-5
Turkey China 3-0
Saudi Arabia Ireland 0-3
Ecuador Costa Rica 3-0

Of the 23 examples of blowouts provided (as defined as losses by 3 or more goals)

3 or 13% of those examples were suffered by "traditional footballing countries"  Bulgaria against Spain, Poland against Portugal, Ukraine against Spain.

The other 20 or 87% were suffered by non traditional footballing countries against "traditonal footballing countries".   The last one being TODAY.

I don't see this as the EXCEPTION.  This is consistent.

IMO, yes non traditional footballing countries have improved, but it's not like the traditional footballing countries have remained static.  They too have improved.  And so ther gap remains and the way to measure the gap is through results...not scores.  All over the world, it's tougher to score goals.  Teams play more defensively, similar tactics, technology plays a huge role, athletes are fitter, stronger, faster.

But traditonal teams still beating non traditional teams at every World Cup.  Very little headway has been made despite talk to the contrary.

When non tradtional teams start consistenty beating traditional teams, then you can say the gap has closed. 

two points

- serbia (& montenegro) as part of the former yugoslavia ought to be part of the traditional footballing countries.
- morocco beat scotland 3-0   isn't this an example of a non-traditional "blowing out" a traditional?

ah man say serbia non-traditional? nnnnaaahh!! i had rel enjoyed yugoslavia back in d day and even after it get slice up..croatia bosnia(im a big dzeko fan) serbia montenegro..aint relly warm to kosovo and macedonia..but warmin to slovenia...

[ribbit]

two points

- serbia (& montenegro) as part of the former yugoslavia ought to be part of the traditional footballing countries.
- morocco beat scotland 3-0   isn't this an example of a non-traditional "blowing out" a traditional?

Let's say those are right.

So it now becomes 4 out of 23 or 17% (up from 13%)

and 1 out of 23 when a minnow beat a "traditonal power"...although quite how Scotland is a traditional footballing power is beyond me...but say they are, how does it change what I'm saying?

just trying to figure out how yuh arriving at what yuh saying from midnight's sample. i have no qualms that scotland might not be considered a "traditional power" but that throws your categories a little. you divided the 23 blowouts into (A) Traditional vs Traditional and (B) Traditional vs. Non-Traditional. Morocco vs. Scotland may be in category (C) Non-Traditional vs. Non-Traditional.

but yes, this doesn't really impact your argument much. ah mean, looking at the high water marks for results for conferences outside conmebol and uefa, the one that stand out is the usa coming 3rd in 1930. who but zeppo have the usa coming 3rd or better in this world cup? so, by this measure, things even get worse.

[willi]

Cmon
Speak up!

Told all a you seh Wirl Cup ALWAYS sweet.

Unno too impatient! LoL

[kicker]

USA tops their Group.... Germany and Ghana went down to the wire.......  England scored only 2 goals and scrape through an "easy" group..... Italy & France at the bottom of their groups and out..... Spain, Switzerland and Chile still wide open.... New Zealand eh loss a match... but according to Palos, the football landscape eh changing at all...Not even a lil bit...

[DeSoWa]

 

Big Up!

[100% Barataria]

USA tops their Group.... Germany and Ghana went down to the wire.......  England scored only 2 goals and scrape through an "easy" group..... Italy & France at the bottom of their groups and out..... Spain, Switzerland and Chile still wide open.... New Zealand eh loss a match... but according to Palos, the football landscape eh changing at all...Not even a lil bit...

 

[giggsy11]

It is so nice to be able to watch football every day that I am already dreadin when the world cup ends.

[100% Barataria]

It is so nice to be able to watch football every day that I am already dreadin when the world cup ends.

Ent

[Tallman]

It is so nice to be able to watch football every day that I am already dreadin when the world cup ends.

World Cup runneth overtime
By BC Pires (bcraw.com)

The World Cup enters the final matches of the first round this week, with simultaneous matches today featuring Mexico v Uruguay and France v South Africa and then Argentina v Greece and Nigeria v South Korea. The games are played simultaneously to avoid teams knowing they’ve already qualified because of someone else’s failure or success and, consequently, playing it safe – and boring.

And I find myself already beginning to sense the end of it; after this week, it’s just the round of 16, and then the quarters and semis, and then the glorious final itself – and then there’s nothing for three years until the qualifiers start to matter.
 
And then I realise I feel about the World Cup the way I used to feel about Carnival. At the height of my Jouvert, even if I was drifting-sideways drunk, it would strike me that there was only Monday mas and then night mas and then Tuesday and then Las’ Lap and then it was over for a whole year!

The difference between the World Cup and what passes for Trinidad Carnival now is that, for another four years, you can’t see Brasil v Portugal and Mexico v France no matter what distances you go but, if you just drove up to Maracas any Sunday, and dangled a string of beads and a feather off your sunglasses, you could see next year’s Tribe costumes all along the beach.

[Jah Gol]

We should add "- Myth Busted" to the title of this thread. I really can't complain about the quality and entertainment value in the 2nd and 3rd round of group stage matches. Knockout action will be even better I feel.

[willi]

It is so nice to be able to watch football every day that I am already dreadin when the world cup ends.

Though I am tired everyday...wirl cup SWEEEEET!

[Brownsugar]

Why the hell the teams was playing so cagey for the first round of games is beyond me....yuh come to play, play....oh shit man!!...

[kicker]

Why the hell the teams was playing so cagey for the first round of games is beyond me....yuh come to play, play....oh shit man!!...

Nerves

[Bakes]

Why the hell the teams was playing so cagey for the first round of games is beyond me....yuh come to play, play....oh shit man!!...

Nerves

And the fact that nobody wants to dig themselves into a hole too fast with a loss... very difficult to recover and advance from an opening game loss.

[Observer]

The games were better when teams were placed in a must win situation. The super defensive teams, did not seem to have a plan B and as a consequence were knocked out (thank the football gods).
Not holding my breath for round of 16 excitement, because from this point history shows games get even more cautious.
yesterday talking with two 12 year olds I ask them how they enjoying the WC, they said predictably "boring." Not surprised my own children have given up on the WC. I think we forget why children watch football, they don't care about
the tactical intricacies, they want to watch individuals that they hear so much about, and see on every commercial. Sadly, far to may of them have been off form, or shackled, showing no inspiration.
Lets hope the football gods step in, for the sake of the future 

[giggsy11]

For me it will continue to be about the bad/poor goal keeping.

[Mango Chow!]

For me it will continue to be about the bad/poor goal keeping.

 ....especially after what the South Korean 'keeper do this morning.  Rel shakin' meh head. 

[Pointman]

It is so nice to be able to watch football every day that I am already dreadin when the world cup ends.

ALWAYS live in the moment dread!!

[giggsy11]

It is so nice to be able to watch football every day that I am already dreadin when the world cup ends.

ALWAYS live in the moment dread!!

Thanks Eckhert Tolle