xtapolapacetl
Banned
- 6,841
- 126
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
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.Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez
Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl
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.
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 in
1994 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?
Man, you're really desperate to prove a weak point if you're calling the HOST U.S. team "very poor" while Saudi friggin Arabia a "good" team. And by the way, Sweden beat that same Saudi Arabia 3-1 in the group of 16, while the Netherlands only beat them 2-1 in the group stage. Yet ANOTHER argument in favor of Sweden. And you have no argument when it comes to the two teams performances Vs Brazil. The fact is that Sweden handed Brazil their only non-win of the tournament when they drew 1-1 against them, so we know for a fact that they could get a point off Brazil, while all we know is that the Netherlands lost. So we have Sweden doing better against Saudi Arabia than the Netherlands, Sweden doing better against Brazil than the Netherlands, Sweden making it further in the tournament than the Netherlands and yet the Netherlands were somehow the better team.
And if citing results from 2 years earlier and 2 years after is relevant, then 2006 Italy really must've sucked #@$, since they didn't do %!%! in Euro 2004 and Euro 2008. Besides, these results are completely irrelevant. When you mention the strength of the teams Brazil had to go through in the 1994 tournament, then obviously you should look at the strength of those teams throughout that tournament. Brazil didn't have to play them in some pre or post tournament friendly. There's a reason why there's a World Cup, because that's where it counts. If a team barely qualifies for the World Cup and ends up winning the World Cup but doesn't win a single game two years after the World Cup, neither their qualification struggles nor post-World Cup struggles will be remembered, but their performance at the World Cup will.
And no, I don't consider any of those other teams elite, but Turkey in 2002 wasn't far off. I consider Sweden in 1994 as an elite team because they handed Brazil their only non-win of the tournament and were close to getting a draw again in the semi-final until a stroke of genius by Romario in the 80th minute. And I consider 1998 Croatia elite because they humiliated Germany 3-0. None of those other teams did anything like this.
