re: Ok, the Spain GOAT talk needs to stop IMMEDIATELY

Fatty Right back atcha

quote:

---

Yes. Yes I do. But even Bhoy wouldn't have the audacity to compare Ireland to Argentina

---

If you honestly think I was comparing the skill of Ireland to Argentina or Brazil at all, you missed the entire point. I was saying the OVERALL quality of the field.

Bringing back the non-sub-30 stats of World Cup 2010(11/32, 34.375%) and EURO 2012(2/16, 12.5%), let's see the numbers if the roles were shifted.

World Cup with 12.5% would have only 4/32 teams in it without sub-30 rankings. That means 2 teams would already have been out because all 30 spots would have been filled and 2 teams got in over two sub-30 squads.

Euro with 34.375% would have an astonishing 5.5/16 teams without sub-30 rankings, which is over 1/3 of the tournament and almost 3 times this years number.

I understand that you disagree, but your argument is not exactly as concrete as you think.

quote:

---

If you honestly think I was comparing the skill of Ireland to Argentina or Brazil at all, you missed the entire point. I was saying the OVERALL quality of the field.

Bringing back the non-sub-30 stats of World Cup 2010(11/32, 34.375%) and EURO 2012(2/16, 12.5%), let's see the numbers if the roles were shifted.

World Cup with 12.5% would have only 4/32 teams in it without sub-30 rankings. That means 2 teams would already have been out because all 30 spots would have been filled and 2 teams got in over two sub-30 squads.

Euro with 34.375% would have an astonishing 5.5/16 teams without sub-30 rankings, which is over 1/3 of the tournament and almost 3 times this years number.

I understand that you disagree, but your argument is not exactly as concrete as you think

---

Is it harder to win the SEC championship or the National Championship?

edit: Don't answer this one, LSU fans.

quote:

---

If you honestly think I was comparing the skill of Ireland to Argentina or Brazil at all, you missed the entire point. I was saying the OVERALL quality of the field.

Bringing back the non-sub-30 stats of World Cup 2010(11/32, 34.375%) and EURO 2012(2/16, 12.5%), let's see the numbers if the roles were shifted.

World Cup with 12.5% would have only 4/32 teams in it without sub-30 rankings. That means 2 teams would already have been out because all 30 spots would have been filled and 2 teams got in over two sub-30 squads.

Euro with 34.375% would have an astonishing 5.5/16 teams without sub-30 rankings, which is over 1/3 of the tournament and almost 3 times this years number.

I understand that you disagree, but your argument is not exactly as concrete as you think.

---

Again, if you're talking about making it to the knockout stage, I agree with what you're saying. But what matters is making deep runs and winning it all. That's simply harder to do at the World Cup. It always will be, too.

I give you full marks for sticking with this ridiculous assertion You are with this argument more Euro-centric than most Europeans

quote:

---

No it isn't. If it is tougher to win (and it could be), it is only marginal.

---

Of this was the case, the list of countries that have won the world cup would not be such a small group. You would have the Greece's of the world sneaking in.

You are hung up in the knockout round (which by the way over half of the European teams did not make it through in 2010 eventhough is was so much 'easier'). You still have a 16 team playoff to get through. The existence to T&T and New Zealand does not mitigate the need to get through the Brazils and Argentinas of the world in addition to the regular Euro powers.

If Europe dominated the wc, I would be more sympathetic to the argument, but historically it is basically a 50/50 split.

That is why Greece, Russia, Czechs, and Denmark have won the Euro yet have never remotely sniffed the world cup. It is a very very elite list that wins the wc.

quote:

---

If Europe dominated the wc, I would be more sympathetic to the argument, but historically it is basically a 50/50 split.

---

You are aware the WC moved to 32 teams in 1998, right (which is the essence of our argument)? And since then there have been 4 different winners (out of 4) and 8 different top 3 finishers (out of 12 - in other words...PARITY). And the Europeans have dominated. 3/4 winners and 10/12 top 3 finishes, with Brazil being the only South American team to finish top 3 (they did it twice). Both France and Spain won their first WCs since the field changed to 32.

quote:

---

I give you full marks for sticking with this ridiculous assertion. You are with this argument more Euro-centric than most Europeans.

---

It was a joke, but honestly, I could talk statistics all day over it. Also, I've accepted that I was wrong on the difficulty of winning it, but that's moreso because of how fickle results can be, including America beating the debatable GOAT. I'm not trying to win you over, but I'm surely trying to make you understand that it's not as ridiculous of an assertion as you think.

I mean, certain statistics make CONMEBOL look dominant. For example, 100% of the CONMEBOL teams with an average rank of 14.6 made it out of group stages at the World Cup. That being said, only one made it past the quarters, which was Uraguay who won because of a blatant, piece of shite handball from Suarez on a shot that was going straight to the back of the net.

Some make UEFA look less dominant, 6 of 13 UEFA teams made it out of group with 3 in the semis and 2 in the finals. That said, with almost triple the teams, UEFA brought an average team ranking of 14.15 into the World Cup and had 3 make into the the semis, and two to the finals.

Not that it truly matters, but Europe pretty much ran shite there too. But as for the tournaments, let's look stage by stage at team power rankings overall between WC 2010 and Euro 2012.

Group Stages:
World Cup 2010: 26.03
Euro 2012: 16.94

Here's where it gets tricky because there's an extra round in the World Cup so that can be said to play a part so there'll be two tables here. One with all rounds in consideration and one comparing the entire Euro 2012 competition to the World Cup's first knockout round, which should be fair since it's been said that just making it out of group isn't success.



Statistically, just between the last two cups, the Euro tournament had more "power" at every step of the way. The derivation between levels of teams at each round is much higher in the World Cup because you have teams ranked 105 getting into it, but outside of group of death situations or absolute crumbling in the locker room a la France in '10, we know who's going to make it. In Euro 2012, the average overall ranking was around 16 with a knockout ranking of around 6-8 the whole way through. That's a pretty intense field to play in for 3 rounds. Even if you compare the entirety of Euro 2012 with the group of 16 onwards in the 2010 World Cup's knockout rounds, it still statistically has more "difficulty" (based on pre-tournament ranking only) at every level until the final, which was two UEFA teams anyway.

Now, because the data set is only between those two, it's skewed and not representative overall, but the point was to show that as stupid as you think I am, it's not exactly as "full of shite" to any "real fan of the sport". There's a reason UEFA gets so many teams in the World Cup. It's because there are so many competitive countries in it.

Everyone gets to make up their own criteria.

"You are not the boss of me".

Perhaps the snapshot of this Euro12 season encourages people to think THIS team is the best ever.

Could it be true? Brazil may have been better over the long haul, but that is not the question. For one game:
Spain now
or Pele's best Brazil team.

in Kobe Japan in summer.

I will go with Pele's best Brazil team.

quote:

---

You are aware the WC moved to 32 teams in 1998, right (which is the essence of our argument)?

---

Yes, I am aware and that is far from the essence of my argument. The essence of my argument is a tournament that a game elimination format will always be more difficult if you have more of the best teams in the world. The fact this is debatable to some is perplexing. The 32 argument was simply to note that the easier WC opening rounds still managed to knock out over half the European teams (whom we are to believe when playing themselves creates higher difficulty).

So we had a more worldly final 16 which included non world teams sufficient to knock out over half the European field. They have to play a one game elimination. But that would not be more difficult then doing what: (1) Greece, (2) Denmark, (3) Czechs, and (4) Russians did playing within Europe?

Greece would have as easy a time winning the World Cup then the Euro? Same with Denmark? Cmon, that is a little silly.