Less European representation

[vcs]

I think Europe have been producing much better technical midfielders than the SA teams for a while now, and it is starting to show. Since '94, Brazil have been trying to get away with playing water-carriers and spoilers in midfield and Argentina haven't had a great one since the Aimar/Riquelme days, and they couldn't get over the line with those guys. All the top European teams are pretty well stocked with good central midfielders who can dictate games.

 

[sledger]

South America produces better forwards than Europe on the whole though, so maybe that's the quid pro quo.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I would suspect the bulk of tournaments held outside the Americas have seen all European finals?

Obviously on the flipside there’s only been one European winner in the Americas but plenty of finalists

Argentina in 90, Brazil in 98 made finals in Europe. Other than that it is going back before I was born. Brazil won in Sweden in 58 didn't they as Pele was only 17.

 

[andruid]

I reckon that it is a vicious cycle. Traditionally UEFA has always had a Lion's share (relative to actual membership) of World Cup slots and hosting rights. This has given its members a higher probability of outperforming other confederations and therefore justifying having more slots than other confederations which leads to outperforming other confederations...you get what I am driving at right?

Case in point. Sweden 1958, a 16 team tournament with how many participants from outside Europe? Pretty steep odds for a non European nation, to win the whole thing right? Not that I have exact numbers is but I understand that that up until the 1970s and the explosion of newly independent African and Asian Nations the World Cup was pretty much mostly Europe plus a handful of Western hemisphere footballing powerhouses. When you factor that in the analysis of performance it is almost a certainty that European Nations win the bulk of early world cups and establish a performance based case to always have the biggest share of World Cup slots.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The other confederations have had decent numbers in since the world cup was expanded and it is a rare event for them to actually have a good team involved. Can't blame european sides for being better after so long can we.

 

[Furball]

I reckon that it is a vicious cycle. Traditionally UEFA has always had a Lion's share (relative to actual membership) of World Cup slots and hosting rights. This has given its members a higher probability of outperforming other confederations and therefore justifying having more slots than other confederations which leads to outperforming other confederations...you get what I am driving at right?

Nope.

Europe outperforms other confederations because Europe is better.

Most of the African teams that are successful tend to piggy back on Europe (specifically France) as well.

 

[Furball]

I would suspect the bulk of tournaments held outside the Americas have seen all European finals?

Obviously on the flipside there’s only been one European winner in the Americas but plenty of finalists

From memory:

1934 Italy beat Czechoslovakia
1938 Italy beat Hungary
1954 West Germany beat Hungary
1958 Brazil beat Sweden
1966 England beat West Germany
1974 West Germany beat Netherlands
1982 Italy beat West Germany
1990 West Germany beat Argentina
1998 France beat Brazil
2006 Italy beat France
2018 France/Belgium v England/Sweden/Russia/Croatia

Americas

1930 Uruguay beat Argentina
1950 Uruguay beat Brazil (technically not a final)
1962 Brazil beat Czechoslovakia
1970 Brazil beat Italy
1978 Argentina beat Netherlands
1986 Argentina beat West Germany
1994 Brazil beat Italy
2014 Germany beat Argentina

2002 Brazil beat Germany (Asia)
2010 Spain beat Netherlands (Africa)

 

[S.Kennedy]

1994 was a snoozer. Most boring football match I've ever seen.

 

[andruid]

Nope.

Europe outperforms other confederations because Europe is better.

Most of the African teams that are successful tend to piggy back on Europe (specifically France) as well.

1. Instead of simply blowing off my argument how about without any kind of consideration, how about you actually calculate the odds of a European team winning, each world cup based on proportion of competitors and show me whether or not I have a case.

2. I could also make a case that by controlling the economic resources of the third world for so long, actively attracting immigrants from other Nation to participate in the post WW2 economy reconstruction, and then having extensive scouting networks to poach talent from all over the world that can be naturalized if they are good enough it's actually Europe piggy backing on others.

It would be a massive digression though.

 

[marc71178]

Odds based on number of competitors from a region presupposes that each team has an equal chance of winning, something that is quite unquestionably false so your whole argument is flawed.

 

[andruid]

Odds based on number of competitors from a region presupposes that each team has an equal chance of winning, something that is quite unquestionably false so your whole argument is flawed.

I am not saying that the individual teams have equal chance of winning the World Cup, I am saying that I because they have had the largest proportion of place at a World Cup there is a greater probability that UEFA as a region will have the best team at the World Cup than other regions

 

[marc71178]

I am not saying that the individual teams have equal chance of winning the World Cup, I am saying that I because they have had the largest proportion of place at a World Cup there is a greater probability that UEFA as a region will have the best team at the World Cup than other regions

If the best teams are European then there’s a greater probability that a European side will win the World Cup. Guess what?

 

[Furball]

I am not saying that the individual teams have equal chance of winning the World Cup, I am saying that I because they have had the largest proportion of place at a World Cup there is a greater probability that UEFA as a region will have the best team at the World Cup than other regions

South America has better teams than Africa or Asia despite similar representation.

 

[cpr]

Pretty much every team defended like that at the time. That was football. And the South Americans were known for being the dirtiest at it.

 

[S.Kennedy]

If this was some conspiracy against the Brazilians of 1966, then the culprits to emerge from that group (Portugal) didn't gain anything ultimately considering England knocked them out in the semi-finals and went on to win the entire thing.

 

[wpdavid]

Pretty much every team defended like that at the time. That was football. And the South Americans were known for being the dirtiest at it.

Not so much Brazil, tbf. But there's a lot of truth in your comment. Argentina and Uruguay weren't renowned for taking many prisoners, ditto Chile in the previous WC. And then there were the notorious world club championship matches between the winners of the European Cup and the South American Championship in the late 1960s. What Celtic and Man Utd had to take in those matches was unbelievable.

England played a mini-tournament over in South America a year or two before the 1966 WC. Pele ran riot against our boys; it may have finished 5-1, or something along those lines. When Brazil played Argentina, Pele was taking so much physical abuse that he ended up rearranging the nasal features of one of the Argentina defenders and being sent off. Typical refereeing of the time, of course; the defenders could do whatever they wanted and the attacking players just had to put up with it.

 

[Furball]

That's why I don't think retaliation should be a red card unless the retaliation is uneccesarily violent. If a defender clatters a forward late then I think retaliating with a kick or 'accidentally' standing on your opponent is fair game.

 

[Uppercut]

I think Europe have been producing much better technical midfielders than the SA teams for a while now, and it is starting to show. Since '94, Brazil have been trying to get away with playing water-carriers and spoilers in midfield and Argentina haven't had a great one since the Aimar/Riquelme days, and they couldn't get over the line with those guys. All the top European teams are pretty well stocked with good central midfielders who can dictate games.

Brazil went out to a Fellaini-Witsel midfield.

I think you’re overfitting. Argentina had an unusually weak side but reached the final last time, and Brazil didn’t get the rub of the green against another strong team. The only other major historical South American power is Uruguay, who are still massively overperforming given their size etc. I don’t think much has changed.

 

[Furball]

Brazil went out to a Fellaini-Witsel midfield.

I think you’re overfitting. Argentina had an unusually weak side but reached the final last time, and Brazil didn’t get the rub of the green against another strong team. The only other major historical South American power is Uruguay, who are still massively overperforming given their size etc. I don’t think much has changed.

Nah he's got a point about midfielders. For years Brazil have either produced good defensive mids or number 10s. I can't remember the last great Brazilian midfielder who I'd compare style wise to a Xavi, Iniesta, Kroos, Pirlo, Scholes from Europe, or even Riquelme or Redondo from Argentina.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Nah he's got a point about midfielders. For years Brazil have either produced good defensive mids or number 10s. I can't remember the last great Brazilian midfielder who I'd compare style wise to a Xavi, Iniesta, Kroos, Pirlo, Scholes from Europe, or even Riquelme or Redondo from Argentina.

Probably have to go back to Socrates to find a great midfielder from Brazil who wasn't a holding one.