:::[Official]World Cup South Africa 2010 Thread:::

[Trey Bantz]

The final is going to be a very interesting game, if you go by history then the Dutch deserve it more based on the fact that this is their third final and still no title for them. If you go by actual talent then the Spaniards deserve it more because their team is absolutely stacked and they were the favorites coming into the Cup.

 

[persiafly]

This is all going to sound somewhat whiny, but looking back at the tournament, I don't think Holland and Spain have done a whole lot to get here. Spain seems to be on cruise control, whether by choice or not, and Holland has arguably played one elite team.

I don't think anyone at this tournament really deserves the trophy, at least in an ideal soccer world. You want teams to assert their influence, play good, honest soccer, look to be at their best and come through in big moments. I don't think you can say that about any team. Holland came out of an easy group, had an easy Round of 16 opponent and a relatively easy semifinal opponent. You could say their only impressive feat has been beating Brazil, and that was in part due to an own goal. Spain hasn't looked dominant in any of their games. They've dominated the ball, but not the game itself. At first I thought it was just rust, but it does in fact seem to be a result of the predictability of their offense. They've beaten good teams to get here, but it's a far cry from Euro 2008.

I don't mean to take anything away from the finalists, especially since I don't think any other team necessarily deserves to be here, but I can't help but be a little underwhelmed by the paths they took to get here.

 

[carlos tevez]

Originally Posted by PersiaFly

This is all going to sound somewhat whiny, but looking back at the tournament, I don't think Holland and Spain have done a whole lot to get here. Spain seems to be on cruise control, whether by choice or not, and Holland has arguably played one elite team.

I don't think anyone at this tournament really deserves the trophy, at least in an ideal soccer world. You want teams to assert their influence, play good, honest soccer, look to be at their best and come through in big moments. I don't think you can say that about any team. Holland came out of an easy group, had an easy Round of 16 opponent and a relatively easy semifinal opponent. You could say their only impressive feat has been beating Brazil, and that was in part due to an own goal. Spain hasn't looked dominant in any of their games. They've dominated the ball, but not the game itself. At first I thought it was just rust, but it does in fact seem to be a result of the predictability of their offense. They've beaten good teams to get here, but it's a far cry from Euro 2008.

I don't mean to take anything away from the finalists, especially since I don't think any other team necessarily deserves to be here, but I can't help but be a little underwhelmed by the paths they took to get here.

But the WC has usually been like this.

In 2006, the only elite team Italy beat en route to the finals was Germany.

In 2002, the only elite team Brazil beat en route to the finals was England.

In 1998, the only elite team France beat en route to the finals was Italy on PKs.

In 1994, Brazil's only elite opponent en route to the finals was the Netherlands.

All of them had easy groups too.

Come Sunday, it wont be the first time a team goes through an easy group and stumbles their way en route to becoming a WC winner. At the end of the day, both the Netherlands and Spain won their matches up to this point with relative comfort, without much controversy and without the lottery known as penalty kicks. Whats really different about the last 4-years in international soccer compared to previous points in soccer history is that we have a few elite teams who are not clearly better from one another. I think Spain are on another level followed by Brazil, Netherlands and Germany who are very evenly matched at this point. In 2006, Italy and France were on another level followed by Brazil, England, Portugal, Netherlands and Argentina who were pretty evenly matched.

It seems like we aren't being overwhelmed anymore by cup winners, be it in the WC or Champions League. We just had a UCL finals of Bayern vs. Inter where Bayern were not much better than the other contenders in the competition and Inter were on the whole, not as good as Barcelona.

 

[persiafly]

Yeah, all of that is true. That's part of the reason I mentioned "at least in an ideal soccer world," but even as I was typing I couldn't think of a team that had really stormed through a tournament.

It's unfortunate in a way, because sometimes it feels that one single event can alter the entire course of a World Cup when there are no dominant teams and almost all knockout goals are close. Melo jumps into Cesar and Brazil is done. Figo misses a wide open header at the end of the France semifinal and Portugal is out. Germany doesn't mark Pirlo at the end of the 06 semifinal and they're out. You could probably go all the way back to 1994. This might be a good thing, or it might not, depending wholly on your perspective.

I admit that my desire to see a team run through a tournament is based more on idealism than past experience, but I can't shake the frustration of watching Spain squeak out these 1-0 wins. But it's definitely true that they wouldn't be here with more open tactics.

 

[joe camel smooth]

There aren't that many "elite" teams in the world at any given time to begin with.

Who would you rank as "elite" right now.......Spain, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands? Would Argentina be up there, or would their meltdown against Germany disqualify them? England was supposed to be good, look how they turned out. Italy too, yet they proved to be too old to compete. Portugal was #3 in the world according to FIFA yet they only scored (albeit 7 times) against North Korea. France was a disaster. Russia didn't qualify. etc. etc.

 

[TheGift23]

Fat Ronaldinho at the beach

 

[carlos tevez]

I'm surprised Podolski hasnt gotten much criticism for his f**k up yesterday. Dude was leaning on the post on Puyols' goal instead of being properly positioned along the goal line. Had he been positioned properly he likely would've headed the ball off of the line. Although Germany did not create many chances and Spain controlled possession, I think better positioning by Podolski would've given Germany the chance to play in extra time.

As for past WC champions, I dont think we've ever had a team just run through the competition. I guess thats what makes soccer more interesting than basketball

What are y'all predictions for the 3rd/4th match and the finals?

I'm thinking Germany will field a mixed team with guys like Mueller and Klose definitely starting (they have a chance of winning the Golden Boot), and Uruguay going with their best XI (3rd place will mean much more to them than Germany). I think Germany will still end up winning...Uruguay have never beaten Germany in 8 previous encounters.

As for the finals, Spain are probably the best team in the world IMO (although I would've loved to see them play Brazil). I did not expect them to win this competition due to their predictable attacking nature but they're a much different team than the one we saw back in 2008 and 2009. Not only are they a possession team but they've beefed up their defence with 2 holding midfielders instead of just 1. I think they'll have too much of the ball and De Jong and Van Bommel will be left chasing shadows all night while Robben, RvP, Sneijder will be left isolated up front and will be suffocated by 6 Spanish defenders (including the holding midfielders). My guess is that Spain win this match comfortably by 2-goals.

 

[joe camel smooth]

lol that site called him "extremely fat?"

try maybe 10 lb overweight. it's the offseason, not everyone stays in perfect shape. not a big deal.

 

[scuse7]

I would say the Spanish did dominant the Germans though. They should have won 2-0 if Pedro wasn't selfish.

They controlled the whole game and the Germans had 1 good look at goal all game. If that wasn't dominating the game I'm not sure what is.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

In 1994, Brazil's only elite opponent en route to the finals was the Netherlands.


They also had to beat Sweden that World Cup and Sweden was definitely an elite team at that point. Sweden was better than the Netherlands that World Cup and that's a fact. I know that World Cup like the back of my hand and Sweden Vs Brazil should've been the true final. They met Brazil twice, tied 1-1 in the group stage and in the semi-final they matched Brazil almost the entire game until Romario took over. And I know that third place match scores don't matter, but I remember watching that game with Sweden trashing Bulgaria 4-0 and Bulgaria had a very good team then.

Also, Croatia that France had to go through in 1998 was far from a non-elite team at that time. They trashed Germany 3-0 in the quarter final and actually had one leg in the final when they took the lead against France in the semi-final, a lead that they couldn't keep and eventually lost 2-1. Another third place winner BTW, as they won 2-1 against the Netherlands in the 3rd place match.

I don't know if you meant elite as in "traditionally elite" though. All I know is that 1994 Sweden > 1994 Netherlands and 1998 Croatia > 1998 Italy, and that 1994 Sweden and 1998 Croatia are light years ahead of 2010 Slovakia, Uruguay and Paraguay.

 

[spsfinest212]

Sky Sports News just said that Klose isn't playing in the 3rd Place game due to back problems.

 

[Trey Bantz]

Originally Posted by JOE CAMEL SMOOTH

There aren't that many "elite" teams in the world at any given time to begin with.

Who would you rank as "elite" right now.......Spain, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands? Would Argentina be up there, or would their meltdown against Germany disqualify them? England was supposed to be good, look how they turned out. Italy too, yet they proved to be too old to compete. Portugal was #3 in the world according to FIFA yet they only scored (albeit 7 times) against North Korea. France was a disaster. Russia didn't qualify. etc. etc.

Elite teams are the teams that are traditionally perennial contenders, these include former World Cup champions which with the exception of Uruguay are Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina, France, and England. A team that has always been considered elite despite never winning the Cup is Netherlands because of the history behind the team and the two finals appearances, not including this year's. And the newest addition to the list of elite teams has been Spain, I say that they are the newest because before the 2008 Euro Cup and the record winning streak they had recently they never accomplished anything to put them amongst the top. One bad match against another elite, or an early group exit from the World Cup doesn't disqualify you from the "elite group" because World Cup titles hold tremendous weight in this sport.

 

[jd214]

Originally Posted by TheGift23

Fat Ronaldinho at the beach

No wonder they didn't take him, I still think the Brazil team wasn't Brazil without him.

 

[joe camel smooth]

Originally Posted by trey ohh five

Originally Posted by JOE CAMEL SMOOTH

There aren't that many "elite" teams in the world at any given time to begin with.

Who would you rank as "elite" right now.......Spain, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands? Would Argentina be up there, or would their meltdown against Germany disqualify them? England was supposed to be good, look how they turned out. Italy too, yet they proved to be too old to compete. Portugal was #3 in the world according to FIFA yet they only scored (albeit 7 times) against North Korea. France was a disaster. Russia didn't qualify. etc. etc.

Elite teams are the teams that are traditionally perennial contenders, these include former World Cup champions which with the exception of Uruguay are Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina, France, and England. A team that has always been considered elite despite never winning the Cup is Netherlands because of the history behind the team and the two finals appearances, not including this year's. And the newest addition to the list of elite teams has been Spain, I say that they are the newest because before the 2008 Euro Cup and the record winning streak they had recently they never accomplished anything to put them amongst the top. One bad match against another elite, or an early group exit from the World Cup doesn't disqualify you from the "elite group" because World Cup titles hold tremendous weight in this sport.

In a historical context you're right, but not in the context of the discussion.

When discussing the 2010 World Cup, an "elite team" team means a top-tier team at the current moment, not a team that, in the 80 year history of the World Cup, has had a high level of success. A team like France, for example, is clearly not a top-tier, "elite" team right now. The fact that a whole different group of players foundsuccess in the past is irrelevant when discussing the current team.
 

 

[persiafly]

I think it's hard to define what elite is, but it's much easier to define what elite is NOT.

Look at Holland's run:

- Denmark: not an elite team right now.
- Cameroon: definitely not an elite team right now.
- Japan: good team, but not elite by any means.
- Slovakia: not close to being elite.
- Brazil: elite.
- Uruguay: not elite despite their 3rd/4th place finish. The best team they beat at this World Cup was either Mexico or Ghana. They really couldn't have scripted an easier path the semis.

Spain:

- Switzerland: lost, but it was a fluke result. Either way Swiss are not elite.
- Honduras: %@$@.
- Chile: would be a stretch to call them elite, but they're decent.
- Portugal: you could argue they're elite based on their defense, I guess.
- Paraguay: same as Chile.
- Germany: elite.

I guess I would have liked to see more superpower teams play against each other, but of course it's not Spain or Holland's fault that Italy and France and England and Argentina flamed out the way they did.

That is all.

 

[jjgrt5]

Im picking Germany 2-1... I really dont care for either team, I just want to see Ozil have a good game. Besides torres, silva and cesc, Ozil will be the only other player outside la liga ill keep a tab on.

 

[Trey Bantz]

Originally Posted by JOE CAMEL SMOOTH

Originally Posted by trey ohh five

Originally Posted by JOE CAMEL SMOOTH

There aren't that many "elite" teams in the world at any given time to begin with.

Who would you rank as "elite" right now.......Spain, Brazil, Germany, Netherlands? Would Argentina be up there, or would their meltdown against Germany disqualify them? England was supposed to be good, look how they turned out. Italy too, yet they proved to be too old to compete. Portugal was #3 in the world according to FIFA yet they only scored (albeit 7 times) against North Korea. France was a disaster. Russia didn't qualify. etc. etc.

Elite teams are the teams that are traditionally perennial contenders, these include former World Cup champions which with the exception of Uruguay are Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina, France, and England. A team that has always been considered elite despite never winning the Cup is Netherlands because of the history behind the team and the two finals appearances, not including this year's. And the newest addition to the list of elite teams has been Spain, I say that they are the newest because before the 2008 Euro Cup and the record winning streak they had recently they never accomplished anything to put them amongst the top. One bad match against another elite, or an early group exit from the World Cup doesn't disqualify you from the "elite group" because World Cup titles hold tremendous weight in this sport.

In a historical context you're right, but not in the context of the discussion.

When discussing the 2010 World Cup, an "elite team" team means a top-tier team at the current moment, not a team that, in the 80 year history of the World Cup, has had a high level of success. A team like France, for example, is clearly not a top-tier, "elite" team right now. The fact that a whole different group of players foundsuccess in the past is irrelevant when discussing the current team.
 

Oh well in that sense it's easy, there were only four; Spain, Germany, Netherlands, and Brazil. The rest, including my beloved Argentina, were either overrated, too old, and/or plagued by chemistry issues.

 

[carlos tevez]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

In 1994, Brazil's only elite opponent en route to the finals was the Netherlands.

They also had to beat Sweden that World Cup and Sweden was definitely an elite team at that point. Sweden was better than the Netherlands that World Cup and that's a fact. I know that World Cup like the back of my hand and Sweden Vs Brazil should've been the true final. They met Brazil twice, tied 1-1 in the group stage and in the semi-final they matched Brazil almost the entire game until Romario took over. And I know that third place match scores don't matter, but I remember watching that game with Sweden trashing Bulgaria 4-0 and Bulgaria had a very good team then.

Also, Croatia that France had to go through in 1998 was far from a non-elite team at that time. They trashed Germany 3-0 in the quarter final and actually had one leg in the final when they took the lead against France in the semi-final, a lead that they couldn't keep and eventually lost 2-1. Another third place winner BTW, as they won 2-1 against the Netherlands in the 3rd place match.

I don't know if you meant elite as in "traditionally elite" though. All I know is that 1994 Sweden > 1994 Netherlands and 1998 Croatia > 1998 Italy, and that 1994 Sweden and 1998 Croatia are light years ahead of 2010 Slovakia, Uruguay and Paraguay.
I meant 'elite' at the time of the WC, not 'traditional elite'.

That Sweden team in 1994 was excellent but I believe you are making them out to be better than they actually were. Remember that they drew a very weak Cameroon in the group stage...a Cameroon side that got trashed 6-1 by Russia

. They did play Brazil VERY tough in 2 matches but that alone does not make them elite. In the 2nd round they beat a decent Saudi team and then beat Romania's golden generation on PKs. One thing that really prevented Sweden from being elite is that they could not defend for crap. They conceded goals in each of their first 6-matches of the tournament. Another thing I hold against them was that they hosted the Euros in 1992 but could not make the finals after poor defending let them down in a 3-2 loss to Germany in the semis (of an 8 team tournament).

Sweden in 1994 being better than Netherlands in 1994 is debatable to say the least. That Netherlands played Brazil tough and lost 3-2 in the QFs...they also had a respectable showing in Euro 92 where they lost to eventual champion Denmark on PKs in the semis. Its hard to say Sweden were better than Holland back then...Holland won 2/3 group stage matches (lost 1) compared to Sweden who only won 1 group stage match (drew 2). They both met 2 similar opponents...both of them beat Saudi Arabia and both of them lost to Brazil. Ultimately I think Sweden made it to the semis in part due to an easier bracket compared to Holland. Holland succumbed to Brazil in the QFs, while Sweden lost to the same Brazil team in the semis.

As for Croatia in 1998, they were also a damn good team but I wouldnt consider them elite either. They lost to Argentina in the group stage, got by a good Romania side and then spanked Germany in the QFs before losing to France. Beating Euro 96 champions Germany was a huge achievement but they couldnt beat any of the other 2 elite teams they met (Argentina or France). This Croatian team was too inconsistent and didnt beat enough strong teams to be elite...they made the QFs of Euro 96, semis of 98 WC but then couldnt even qualify for the 2000 Euro. Croatia in 98 may have been better than Italy though...Italy were really inconsistent back then however they did pose more of a challenge for France than Croatia did.

I think Uruguay right now would be very competitive with Croatia of 98 and Sweden of 94. The 3 teams have similarities in that they 3 of them had some excellent strikers. Of the 3 of them though, I'd pick Sweden of 1994 for sentimental reasons...that team was bad a.ss...Dahlin,  Andersson and Brolin (this fat mu****a who could score goals for days). I couldnt believe Sweden had 2 black players

What I really liked about the 1994 WC was how good the 2nd tier teams were...teams like Nigeria, Bulgaria, Romania, Sweden, Belgium were damn good. Compare that WC's 2nd tier to this WC and Uruguay are the only 2nd tier team that really stood out.

 

[joe camel smooth]

Originally Posted by PersiaFly

I think it's hard to define what elite is, but it's much easier to define what elite is NOT.

Look at Holland's run:

- Denmark: not an elite team right now.
- Cameroon: definitely not an elite team right now.
- Japan: good team, but not elite by any means.
- Slovakia: not close to being elite.
- Brazil: elite.
- Uruguay: not elite despite their 3rd/4th place finish. The best team they beat at this World Cup was either Mexico or Ghana. They really couldn't have scripted an easier path the semis.

Spain:

- Switzerland: lost, but it was a fluke result. Either way Swiss are not elite.
- Honduras: %@$@.
- Chile: would be a stretch to call them elite, but they're decent.
- Portugal: you could argue they're elite based on their defense, I guess.
- Paraguay: same as Chile.
- Germany: elite.

I guess I would have liked to see more superpower teams play against each other, but of course it's not Spain or Holland's fault that Italy and France and England and Argentina flamed out the way they did.

That is all.

I totally agree. But the way trey oh five was taking, Uruguay was an elite team due to their WC wins forever ago.

I'm talking current squads. Right now, in this WC.

Only elite teams I see are Spain, Holland, Germany, and Brazil. Others are debatable maybe. But yeah..........every WC there are a few teams a cut above the rest. Most are not capable of playing at the level of the best teams.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

In 1994, Brazil's only elite opponent en route to the finals was the Netherlands.

They also had to beat Sweden that World Cup and Sweden was definitely an elite team at that point. Sweden was better than the Netherlands that World Cup and that's a fact. I know that World Cup like the back of my hand and Sweden Vs Brazil should've been the true final. They met Brazil twice, tied 1-1 in the group stage and in the semi-final they matched Brazil almost the entire game until Romario took over. And I know that third place match scores don't matter, but I remember watching that game with Sweden trashing Bulgaria 4-0 and Bulgaria had a very good team then.



Also, Croatia that France had to go through in 1998 was far from a non-elite team at that time. They trashed Germany 3-0 in the quarter final and actually had one leg in the final when they took the lead against France in the semi-final, a lead that they couldn't keep and eventually lost 2-1. Another third place winner BTW, as they won 2-1 against the Netherlands in the 3rd place match.



I don't know if you meant elite as in "traditionally elite" though. All I know is that 1994 Sweden > 1994 Netherlands and 1998 Croatia > 1998 Italy, and that 1994 Sweden and 1998 Croatia are light years ahead of 2010 Slovakia, Uruguay and Paraguay.

I meant 'elite' at the time of the WC, not 'traditional elite'.

That Sweden team in 1994 was excellent but I believe you are making them out to be better than they actually were. Remember that they drew a very weak Cameroon in the group stage...a Cameroon side that got trashed 6-1 by Russia

. They did play Brazil VERY tough in 2 matches but that alone does not make them elite. In the 2nd round they beat a decent Saudi team and then beat Romania's golden generation on PKs. One thing that really prevented Sweden from being elite is that they could not defend for crap. They conceded goals in each of their first 6-matches of the tournament. Another thing I hold against them was that they hosted the Euros in 1992 but could not make the finals after poor defending let them down in a 3-2 loss to Germany in the semis (of an 8 team tournament).

Sweden in 1994 being better than Netherlands in 1994 is debatable to say the least. That Netherlands played Brazil tough and lost 3-2 in the QFs...they also had a respectable showing in Euro 92 where they lost to eventual champion Denmark on PKs in the semis. Its hard to say Sweden were better than Holland back then...Holland won 2/3 group stage matches (lost 1) compared to Sweden who only won 1 group stage match (drew 2). They both met 2 similar opponents...both of them beat Saudi Arabia and both of them lost to Brazil. Ultimately I think Sweden made it to the semis in part due to an easier bracket compared to Holland. Holland succumbed to Brazil in the QFs, while Sweden lost to the same Brazil team in the semis.

As for Croatia in 1998, they were also a damn good team but I wouldnt consider them elite either. They lost to Argentina in the group stage, got by a good Romania side and then spanked Germany in the QFs before losing to France. Beating Euro 96 champions Germany was a huge achievement but they couldnt beat any of the other 2 elite teams they met (Argentina or France). This Croatian team was too inconsistent and didnt beat enough strong teams to be elite...they made the QFs of Euro 96, semis of 98 WC but then couldnt even qualify for the 2000 Euro. Croatia in 98 may have been better than Italy though...Italy were really inconsistent back then however they did pose more of a challenge for France than Croatia did.

I think Uruguay right now would be very competitive with Croatia of 98 and Sweden of 94. The 3 teams have similarities in that they 3 of them had some excellent strikers. Of the 3 of them though, I'd pick Sweden of 1994 for sentimental reasons...that team was bad a.ss...Dahlin,  Andersson and Brolin (this fat mu****a who could score goals for days). I couldnt believe Sweden had 2 black players

What I really liked about the 1994 WC was how good the 2nd tier teams were...teams like Nigeria, Bulgaria, Romania, Sweden, Belgium were damn good. Compare that WC's 2nd tier to this WC and Uruguay are the only 2nd tier team that really stood out.




I like how you're eager to point out Sweden's weakest performance of the tournament, their first game where they were still trying to settle in and drew 2-2 against Cameroon as if that's some completely horrible result. But yet you still mention 1994 Netherlands as an "elite" team despite the fact that they barely squeezed out of the weakest group on goal difference, where they had juggernauts such as Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Belgium, who they lost to BTW. And you're also eager to point out how that Cameroon team lost 6-1 to Russia, but yet you conveniently leave out how Sweden beat that same Russia 3-1 in their game against them. And funny you should mention Sweden's defense and say they're crap when they held eventual champions Brazil to fewer goals in two games they played against them than Netherlands, who you consider elite, did in their one game against Brazil.

It's a weak argument to attempt to say that 1994 Sweden were bad because of a previous or prior Euro championship performance. Germany won in Euro 96, but yet in both 94 and 98 World Cups they went out in quarter finals. Czech Republic were in the Euro 96 finals, but they haven't even qualified for either the 94 or 96 World Cup. Denmark won Euro 92, but they haven't even qualified for the 1994 World Cup. And don't even get me started on all the stuff I could mention about 2004 winners Greece and their World Cup failures. There are still two years before and after a European cup to a World Cup. And two years is a lot of time where plenty can change, hell even one year can have a drastic effect on a team, if you look at some of the European clubs who did well two years ago and who were crap last season. I didn't say that Sweden were elite in 1992 or 1996, but they were definitely an elite team in 1994.

Croatia trashing Germany 3-0 alone made them an elite team that year. If Germany lose in a tournament's knockout stage, they lose by 1, and sometimes maybe 2 goals. I don't get what's so "inconsistent" about Croatia. They lost to eventual champions whom they had a lead against and who dominated Brazil 3-0 in the final. They lost to Argentina 1-0 in the group stage as if that's a shame and even if you consider 98 Argentina better than 98 Croatia, there would still be enough space left to consider Croatia as an elite team.

I don't think that 2010 Uruguay, who although are the best of the 2nd tier teams this World Cup's finalists had to go through would have a chance against 1994 Sweden or 1998 Croatia.

 

[Trey Bantz]

Originally Posted by JOE CAMEL SMOOTH

I totally agree. But the way trey oh five was taking, Uruguay was an elite team due to their WC wins forever ago.

I'm talking current squads. Right now, in this WC.

Only elite teams I see are Spain, Holland, Germany, and Brazil. Others are debatable maybe. But yeah..........every WC there are a few teams a cut above the rest. Most are not capable of playing at the level of the best teams.

No, you didn't read my post correctly I wrote "Elite teams are the teams that are traditionally perennial contenders, these include former World Cup champions which with the exception of Uruguay are Brazil, Italy, Germany..." Uruguay is not considered elite anymore because their last World Cup win sixty years ago is basically considered ancient history. I thought you were asking which teams are traditionally elite, not which teams were elite based on current play. In that case I agree with you Joe, it's only those four teams.

 

[TheGift23]

THE OCTOPUS, PAUL, MAKES THE REAL "DECISION"...

 

[omgitswes]

Originally Posted by JD214

Originally Posted by TheGift23

Fat Ronaldinho at the beach

No wonder they didn't take him, I still think the Brazil team wasn't Brazil without him.

really though, why didn't they take him? I keep seeing the NIKE commercial and it just doesn't feel right lol

  

 

[spsfinest212]

Originally Posted by omgitswes

Originally Posted by JD214

Originally Posted by TheGift23

Fat Ronaldinho at the beach

No wonder they didn't take him, I still think the Brazil team wasn't Brazil without him.

really though, why didn't they take him? I keep seeing the NIKE commercial and it just doesn't feel right lol

Dunga was trying to get the team to play more of a European style of football, which is why he didn't take him or Ronaldo.

Thank God they fired his #%+ though

 

[carlos tevez]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

In 1994, Brazil's only elite opponent en route to the finals was the Netherlands.

They also had to beat Sweden that World Cup and Sweden was definitely an elite team at that point. Sweden was better than the Netherlands that World Cup and that's a fact. I know that World Cup like the back of my hand and Sweden Vs Brazil should've been the true final. They met Brazil twice, tied 1-1 in the group stage and in the semi-final they matched Brazil almost the entire game until Romario took over. And I know that third place match scores don't matter, but I remember watching that game with Sweden trashing Bulgaria 4-0 and Bulgaria had a very good team then.



Also, Croatia that France had to go through in 1998 was far from a non-elite team at that time. They trashed Germany 3-0 in the quarter final and actually had one leg in the final when they took the lead against France in the semi-final, a lead that they couldn't keep and eventually lost 2-1. Another third place winner BTW, as they won 2-1 against the Netherlands in the 3rd place match.



I don't know if you meant elite as in "traditionally elite" though. All I know is that 1994 Sweden > 1994 Netherlands and 1998 Croatia > 1998 Italy, and that 1994 Sweden and 1998 Croatia are light years ahead of 2010 Slovakia, Uruguay and Paraguay.

I meant 'elite' at the time of the WC, not 'traditional elite'.

That Sweden team in 1994 was excellent but I believe you are making them out to be better than they actually were. Remember that they drew a very weak Cameroon in the group stage...a Cameroon side that got trashed 6-1 by Russia

. They did play Brazil VERY tough in 2 matches but that alone does not make them elite. In the 2nd round they beat a decent Saudi team and then beat Romania's golden generation on PKs. One thing that really prevented Sweden from being elite is that they could not defend for crap. They conceded goals in each of their first 6-matches of the tournament. Another thing I hold against them was that they hosted the Euros in 1992 but could not make the finals after poor defending let them down in a 3-2 loss to Germany in the semis (of an 8 team tournament).

Sweden in 1994 being better than Netherlands in 1994 is debatable to say the least. That Netherlands played Brazil tough and lost 3-2 in the QFs...they also had a respectable showing in Euro 92 where they lost to eventual champion Denmark on PKs in the semis. Its hard to say Sweden were better than Holland back then...Holland won 2/3 group stage matches (lost 1) compared to Sweden who only won 1 group stage match (drew 2). They both met 2 similar opponents...both of them beat Saudi Arabia and both of them lost to Brazil. Ultimately I think Sweden made it to the semis in part due to an easier bracket compared to Holland. Holland succumbed to Brazil in the QFs, while Sweden lost to the same Brazil team in the semis.

As for Croatia in 1998, they were also a damn good team but I wouldnt consider them elite either. They lost to Argentina in the group stage, got by a good Romania side and then spanked Germany in the QFs before losing to France. Beating Euro 96 champions Germany was a huge achievement but they couldnt beat any of the other 2 elite teams they met (Argentina or France). This Croatian team was too inconsistent and didnt beat enough strong teams to be elite...they made the QFs of Euro 96, semis of 98 WC but then couldnt even qualify for the 2000 Euro. Croatia in 98 may have been better than Italy though...Italy were really inconsistent back then however they did pose more of a challenge for France than Croatia did.

I think Uruguay right now would be very competitive with Croatia of 98 and Sweden of 94. The 3 teams have similarities in that they 3 of them had some excellent strikers. Of the 3 of them though, I'd pick Sweden of 1994 for sentimental reasons...that team was bad a.ss...Dahlin,  Andersson and Brolin (this fat mu****a who could score goals for days). I couldnt believe Sweden had 2 black players

What I really liked about the 1994 WC was how good the 2nd tier teams were...teams like Nigeria, Bulgaria, Romania, Sweden, Belgium were damn good. Compare that WC's 2nd tier to this WC and Uruguay are the only 2nd tier team that really stood out.

I like how you're eager to point out Sweden's weakest performance of the tournament, their first game where they were still trying to settle in and drew 2-2 against Cameroon as if that's some completely horrible result. But yet you still mention 1994 Netherlands as an "elite" team despite the fact that they barely squeezed out of the weakest group on goal difference, where they had juggernauts such as Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Belgium, who they lost to BTW. And you're also eager to point out how that Cameroon team lost 6-1 to Russia, but yet you conveniently leave out how Sweden beat that same Russia 3-1 in their game against them. And funny you should mention Sweden's defense and say they're crap when they held eventual champions Brazil to fewer goals in two games they played against them than Netherlands, who you consider elite, did in their one game against Brazil.

It's a weak argument to attempt to say that 1994 Sweden were bad because of a previous or prior Euro championship performance. Germany won in Euro 96, but yet in both 94 and 98 World Cups they went out in quarter finals. Czech Republic were in the Euro 96 finals, but they haven't even qualified for either the 94 or 96 World Cup. Denmark won Euro 92, but they haven't even qualified for the 1994 World Cup. And don't even get me started on all the stuff I could mention about 2004 winners Greece and their World Cup failures. There are still two years before and after a European cup to a World Cup. And two years is a lot of time where plenty can change, hell even one year can have a drastic effect on a team, if you look at some of the European clubs who did well two years ago and who were crap last season. I didn't say that Sweden were elite in 1992 or 1996, but they were definitely an elite team in 1994.

Croatia trashing Germany 3-0 alone made them an elite team that year. If Germany lose in a tournament's knockout stage, they lose by 1, and sometimes maybe 2 goals. I don't get what's so "inconsistent" about Croatia. They lost to eventual champions whom they had a lead against and who dominated Brazil 3-0 in the final. They lost to Argentina 1-0 in the group stage as if that's a shame and even if you consider 98 Argentina better than 98 Croatia, there would still be enough space left to consider Croatia as an elite team.

I don't think that 2010 Uruguay, who although are the best of the 2nd tier teams this World Cup's finalists had to go through would have a chance against 1994 Sweden or 1998 Croatia.
I like how you use Sweden 'trying to settle in' as an excuse for them not beating a Cameroon team that was one of the worst teams in the tournament. The Netherlands won 2/3 group stage matches (Saudi Arabia and Belgium were good teams at the time so I dont see how you can call that group  weak) as opposed to Sweden's group which had a strong Brazil team followed by a weak Russian team who slaughtered an even weaker Cameroon team 6-1 (the same team that got slaughtered by Brazil but 'elite' Sweden couldnt even beat). For the record, the Netherlands' group wasnt even the weakest in the tournament because you had 3 teams in that group that won 2 matches each compared to other groups where 1 win was enough to get you into the 2nd round.

And the fact that Sweden 'held' Brazil and only lost by 1 doesnt mean much IMO. To me, losing 3-2 (like the Netherlands did to Brazil) is more impressive because it showed that they were not afraid to go forward and open up a bit compared to a 1-0 loss where a losing team can just sit back and try to defend for 90 minutes. You say Sweden conceded less goals in 2 matches than the Netherlands did in 1 match against Brazil, the argument can go the other way. I can say the Netherlands scored more goals against Brazil in 90 minutes than Sweden did in 180 minutes against Brazil. For what its worth, the U.S. only lost to Brazil by 1-goal in that WC and that U.S. team was very very poor so I dont see how Sweden's 1-0 semi-final loss was that great of an accomplishment.

If we're going to call a team elite based on the quality of opponents they beat then why not evaluate who Sweden beat in the tournament. They only beat 3 teams in 6 matches before getting eliminated...they beat Russia (very weak at the time), Saudi Arabia (good team at the time), barely beat Romania on PKs (very good 2nd tier team at the time that Sweden drew 1 month earlier in a pre-tournament friendly). They did not beat any great teams.

So you want to a call a team that beat 1 weak team, 1 good team, and another very good team (on PKs) elite? Look at their 1994 results and tell me which excellent teams they beat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ional_football_team_1994

To be elite you not only have to win a high percentage of your matches,but you also have to consistently beat other very good teams. Sweden in1994 do not qualify.

That Sweden team was good and one of the best Swedish teams ever but they were not elite due to their inconsistency and poor defence. They did not consistently beat weaker teams like 'elite' teams should and they struggled to keep the ball out of their net, conceding in 8 consecutive matches before their convincing victory over Bulgaria in the 3rd place match.

Citing results from 2 years earlier and 2 years after is significant for several reasons. First, it gives you a bigger sample size to evaluate and it gives you a better sense of how a team fared against other opponents. Face it, the WC is a great tournament but its limited in that each team has a different level of difficulty of opponents. Looking at Sweden's results from Euro 92 gives us some sense of the level of the team as they went up against some of the best teams in Europe. The fact that Sweden could not get to the finals on home soil gives us some sense that this team was not at a high enough level to be elite. Secondly, a team's reputation as 'elite' is not developed overnight but it is developed over a long period of time. The WC is only a 1 month tournament in which any team can make a decent run and find themselves in the QFs or semis. We can not judge a team elite based on their performances over such a short period of time. A team can only be considered elite after a good string of performances over a longer period where they win a great majority of their matches. If you look at Sweden's results in the years prior to the 94 WC, during 1994, and after 1994, you will find a team that was simply too inconsistent to be elite.

Take a look at their results in 1995:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ional_football_team_1995

I do not believe we can judge a team to be elite just based on a good WC run. Hypothetically speaking, a team can have a nice run and be a flash in the pan and make it all the way to the semis or the finals (South Korea in 2002, Greece in Euro 2004). We do not consider either of those teams to be elite. Why should we consider Sweden to be elite when they did not beat the great majority of their opponents in the years surrounding 1994?

BTW, do you consider Turkey in 2002 to be elite as well?