Are you remembering that failed conference league team Villa are now in the CL? And failed everything team Spurs are in the EL?
Added to this you have a Kloppless Liverpool. A declining and ageing City with the cheating hanging over them next season?
We lose to any half decent European side we meet and Arsenal who I believe have just been confirmed as being eliminated by Bayern next season?
That leaves you Chelsea in the conference league who will pretend they aren't taking it seriously when they go out.
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
Are you remembering that failed conference league team Villa are now in the CL? And failed everything team Spurs are in the EL?
Added to this you have a Kloppless Liverpool. A declining and ageing City with the cheating hanging over them next season?
We lose to any half decent European side we meet and Arsenal who I believe have just been confirmed as being eliminated by Bayern next season?
That leaves you Chelsea in the conference league who will pretend they aren't taking it seriously when they go out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will be happy to take the bet then?
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaa... (U18109)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
USA won’t be competing seriously any time soon, it’s how the youth football is set up is that it doesn’t really contribute to success. There aren’t really academies - using MD as an example it has a population bigger than that of Scotland but until very recently only had two academies (Baltimore Christos and DC Utd).
Meaning that the top level ‘soccer’ setups for young people to succeed cost a load of money and the highest level requires lots of travel - thus eliminating a large % of the population from being able to take part in high quality training. It’s got better but only marginally (the college system is also bizarre).
There is a reason why a lot of the better US players - Musah, Reyna, Mckennie, Pulisic, Weah etc all played academy football elsewhere (usually in Europe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree this is holding them back. The women’s team was so good because the money was forced into the women’s game under equality laws. European counterparts could only compete once clubs started being bankrolled by the Prem, Bundesliga, la liga, etc
If Soccarrr keeps gaining in popularity over there though then it’s a matter of time - it’s irrefutable that the game is growing in the US
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s growing but it’s not really growing the right way. Look at how we used to train footballers until the massive overhaul in the late 00s - we were far behind the successful European nations and that was with footballing pedigree/infrastructure/finances
Really? It’s easily proven - the women’s team
———
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
Are you remembering that failed conference league team Villa are now in the CL? And failed everything team Spurs are in the EL?
Added to this you have a Kloppless Liverpool. A declining and ageing City with the cheating hanging over them next season?
We lose to any half decent European side we meet and Arsenal who I believe have just been confirmed as being eliminated by Bayern next season?
That leaves you Chelsea in the conference league who will pretend they aren't taking it seriously when they go out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will be happy to take the bet then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not too sure about this new format so will need to see how it works out. With teams already through after a few games I am not sure how all of these dead rubbers are going to affect rankings.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 41 minutes ago
That doesn’t mean much, America needs to compete for sporting culture with much more popular sports.
Outside of South America and Europe, Africa has long produced the best talent in football. Their best players are all born on the continent, not being poached. They’re also benefiting a lot from players with immigrant backgrounds that are being trained in European academies. This will only increase in the coming years.
None of those countries get as far as African teams usually do at world cups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah sorry, I’ve been hearing the African argument for 30 years and they’ve not made a final. I think the USA will be the ones to crack it as the sport is getting more and. More popular over there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Been hearing the American argument for 30 years as well. Yet they’ve not come as close as African teams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? It’s easily proven - the women’s team was the best in the world for donkeys years. The reason for this is because of an equality law in America that meant women’s soccer had to receive equal funding at college level. Surprise surprise the Americans with their superior athleticism dominated and are still top 3 in the world.
The men’s game is creeping up over there - they are buying our clubs, watching it more regularly and bringing players like Messi to their league.
It will be them that does it - I am absolutely sure of it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your absolute certainty about stuff prevents you from entertaining other scenarios. You stop at the first thing that seems reasonable to you, and fail to compare it against other scenarios.
You make a case for the USA being the first non-European and non-South American team to win the World Cup, but where do you get the absolute certainty from?
I don't think it's far fetched They would certainly be in with a shout in view of infrastructures and how the game is developing over there, but that doesn't preclude any other emergent footballing nation producing a golden generation of talent. By your logic, Hungary should never have been a world power in football, neither should the Netherlands. Portugal wouldn't have produced the wealth of top footballers it does. And what's to say the next Maradona won't be Japanese or Korean or Moroccan or Ghanaian, and coupled with a solid enough base, proves the determining factor to lead one of those to a World Cup?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hungary, Portugal, Holland have never won the World Cup and that’s what we are talking about here. You can throw Croatia into that mix as well. 2 trophies between them, both being Euros and Portugal were unbelievably lucky to win theirs.
No country with a population of under 45m have ever won the World Cup - it’s too big an ask. The Dutch have come close on 3 occasions but can’t get over the line.
We’re just ignoring the very valid points I made about the American women’s team then are we ?
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Really? It’s easily proven - the women’s team
———
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What not is not factual?
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaa... (U18109)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
USA won’t be competing seriously any time soon, it’s how the youth football is set up is that it doesn’t really contribute to success. There aren’t really academies - using MD as an example it has a population bigger than that of Scotland but until very recently only had two academies (Baltimore Christos and DC Utd).
Meaning that the top level ‘soccer’ setups for young people to succeed cost a load of money and the highest level requires lots of travel - thus eliminating a large % of the population from being able to take part in high quality training. It’s got better but only marginally (the college system is also bizarre).
There is a reason why a lot of the better US players - Musah, Reyna, Mckennie, Pulisic, Weah etc all played academy football elsewhere (usually in Europe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree this is holding them back. The women’s team was so good because the money was forced into the women’s game under equality laws. European counterparts could only compete once clubs started being bankrolled by the Prem, Bundesliga, la liga, etc
If Soccarrr keeps gaining in popularity over there though then it’s a matter of time - it’s irrefutable that the game is growing in the US
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s growing but it’s not really growing the right way. Look at how we used to train footballers until the massive overhaul in the late 00s - we were far behind the successful European nations and that was with footballing pedigree/infrastructure/finances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again I agree, they train athletes first and foremost and then convert to specific sports later on. The best Basketball players are all street players, they are the exception.
The NFL is all about your vital stats.
Because it’s an utter facking irrelevance to comparing men’s football in America and Africa. That you think it proves anything is hilarious. Especially when you tried to dismiss the argument based on what you’ve been hearing about African football for 30 years, because the exact same thing applies to football in America.
What’s relevant is that Africa as a continent outperforms all of the other federations at the world cup. I don’t see any outside of Europe and SA reaching a final, let alone winning one, any time soon. But Africa is clearly best placed to do so.
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
Are you remembering that failed conference league team Villa are now in the CL? And failed everything team Spurs are in the EL?
Added to this you have a Kloppless Liverpool. A declining and ageing City with the cheating hanging over them next season?
We lose to any half decent European side we meet and Arsenal who I believe have just been confirmed as being eliminated by Bayern next season?
That leaves you Chelsea in the conference league who will pretend they aren't taking it seriously when they go out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will be happy to take the bet then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not too sure about this new format so will need to see how it works out. With teams already through after a few games I am not sure how all of these dead rubbers are going to affect rankings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With 24 teams from 36 in the group stage - I don’t think we will have a Man U and Newcastle shambles again.
Pep and City will be trying to win the CL. Liverpool won’t let Slot do anything other than take it seriously. Arsenal will whomp the cannon fodder then capitulate to the first serious outfit they meet in the knock outs.
Villa is an unknown but Emery has very decent Euro pedigree.
United and the new manager might fancy trying to win the Europa - you will likely start that comp as favourites.
Spurs - we will get through the group and then lose to someone average after resting all our players for a prem match the next weekend
Chelsea - they’ll win the conference, finish 13th, sack the manager again, sell the stadium, team coach and club mascot to stay afloat and then still inexplicably spend £1billion that summer
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 42 seconds ago
Because it’s an utter facking irrelevance to comparing men’s football in America and Africa. That you think it proves anything is hilarious. Especially when you tried to dismiss the argument based on what you’ve been hearing about African football for 30 years, because the exact same thing applies to football in America.
What’s relevant is that Africa as a continent outperforms all of the other federations at the world cup. I don’t see any outside of Europe and SA reaching a final, let alone winning one, any time soon. But Africa is clearly best placed to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless the American pour money into the men’s game like they did the Women’s - in which case it will be America.
How many times has the same African nation made multiple World Cup semi finals = never
Quarter finals = none
Africa has had 4 nations reach the quarters once
The US has reached the semi final in 1930 and the quarter final in 2002
These are just facts
Yeah Germany having 5th place get top 4 means that they now have Dortmund in the CL who finished 5th. This is likely to improve how the Germans do in Europe in terms of 5th place getting top 4. Not disimprove.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue it does.
Less English teams means English sides are less likely to draw each other in knockout rounds and thus eliminate each other.
Going back to the World Cup example with this - the longer France, Germany, Spain, Italy avoid each other the further they will advance in my opinion - meanwhile the African sides will have a greater chance of playing each other and eliminating each other.
Unless being the key word in your argument, that still doesn’t guarantee anything. And it really shouldn’t need explaining why the women’s game is not relevant to the men’s.
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yeah Germany having 5th place get top 4 means that they now have Dortmund in the CL who finished 5th. This is likely to improve how the Germans do in Europe in terms of 5th place getting top 4. Not disimprove.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will have a greater chance of drawing each other though which based on pure maths alone will diminish their chances.
Additionally Germany, Italy and Spain have an “unfancied” side in the CL next year - Stuttgart, Bologna, Girona
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue it does.
Less English teams means English sides are less likely to draw each other in knockout rounds and thus eliminate each other.
Going back to the World Cup example with this - the longer France, Germany, Spain, Italy avoid each other the further they will advance in my opinion - meanwhile the African sides will have a greater chance of playing each other and eliminating each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really haven't engaged your brain here.
Let me give you an extreme hypothetical example so you understand.
47 of the 48 World Cup teams are European. The only other team is Argentina.
The European pool is extremely diluted, and European teams are going to be knocking themselves out at every step of the way.
Does that mean it's less likely for a European team to win it?
Now make it less extreme. 46 and 2. Argentina and Brazil. More or less likely?
Spain had an overly diluted entry to European competitions this season, so much so that their average results in Europe ranked only 5th, behind Italy, Germany, England and France. Who won the Champions League this season?
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
Unless being the key word in your argument, that still doesn’t guarantee anything. And it really shouldn’t need explaining why the women’s game is not relevant to the men’s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The women’s game in America is the key point of my argument - it was money that made the US womens team dominant and if the biggest economy in the world which churns out world class athletes ten a penny ever turns the taps on for the men’s game we will see them win the World Cup.
What else can Africa do? Hope their best players don’t get nicked? Hire better coaches on low salaries? Improve their domestic leagues?
4 World Cup quarters and 1 semi from a whole continent when America has a semi and a quarter by itself
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue it does.
Less English teams means English sides are less likely to draw each other in knockout rounds and thus eliminate each other.
Going back to the World Cup example with this - the longer France, Germany, Spain, Italy avoid each other the further they will advance in my opinion - meanwhile the African sides will have a greater chance of playing each other and eliminating each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really haven't engaged your brain here.
Let me give you an extreme hypothetical example so you understand.
47 of the 48 World Cup teams are European. The only other team is Argentina.
The European pool is extremely diluted, and European teams are going to be knocking themselves out at every step of the way.
Does that mean it's less likely for a European team to win it?
Now make it less extreme. 46 and 2. Argentina and Brazil. More or less likely?
Spain had an overly diluted entry to European competitions this season, so much so that their average results in Europe ranked only 5th, behind Italy, Germany, England and France. Who won the Champions League this season?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would ask you to engage yours but can’t be certain of its existence.
Lets live in a more realistic world shall we, one with facts.
Last World Cup
Europe = 13 teams
South America = 4 teams
Asia = 6 teams
Africa = 5 teams
Winner Argentina
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue it does.
Less English teams means English sides are less likely to draw each other in knockout rounds and thus eliminate each other.
Going back to the World Cup example with this - the longer France, Germany, Spain, Italy avoid each other the further they will advance in my opinion - meanwhile the African sides will have a greater chance of playing each other and eliminating each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really haven't engaged your brain here.
Let me give you an extreme hypothetical example so you understand.
47 of the 48 World Cup teams are European. The only other team is Argentina.
The European pool is extremely diluted, and European teams are going to be knocking themselves out at every step of the way.
Does that mean it's less likely for a European team to win it?
Now make it less extreme. 46 and 2. Argentina and Brazil. More or less likely?
Spain had an overly diluted entry to European competitions this season, so much so that their average results in Europe ranked only 5th, behind Italy, Germany, England and France. Who won the Champions League this season?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would ask you to engage yours but can’t be certain of its existence.
Lets live in a more realistic world shall we, one with facts.
Last World Cup
Europe = 13 teams
South America = 4 teams
Asia = 6 teams
Africa = 5 teams
Winner Argentina
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ffs.
Let me give you a more realistic example then.
CL next season.
Add Chelsea, Spurs and Newcastle.
Take out Atlético, Juventus and Bayern.
According to you, that makes it less like for an English team to win the CL.
Mmmmmokay.
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yeah Germany having 5th place get top 4 means that they now have Dortmund in the CL who finished 5th. This is likely to improve how the Germans do in Europe in terms of 5th place getting top 4. Not disimprove.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will have a greater chance of drawing each other though which based on pure maths alone will diminish their chances.
Additionally Germany, Italy and Spain have an “unfancied” side in the CL next year - Stuttgart, Bologna, Girona
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Villa
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
Unless being the key word in your argument, that still doesn’t guarantee anything. And it really shouldn’t need explaining why the women’s game is not relevant to the men’s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The women’s game in America is the key point of my argument - it was money that made the US womens team dominant and if the biggest economy in the world which churns out world class athletes ten a penny ever turns the taps on for the men’s game we will see them win the World Cup.
What else can Africa do? Hope their best players don’t get nicked? Hire better coaches on low salaries? Improve their domestic leagues?
4 World Cup quarters and 1 semi from a whole continent when America has a semi and a quarter by itself
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know it’s the key point of your argument, but it’s a facking stupid point.
America already had an established culture of football within the women’s game before international football was even a thing.
They had an advantage over everyone else that just doesn’t exist in the men’s game. And it’s far harder for the men’s game to compete when up against all the other major sports in America alone, in a way that just isn’t comparable to the women’s game.
Your argument just seems to be ‘if money is spent’ without considering any other factor.
If money is all that mattered then China would have overtaken 90% of football when they tried it. But they soon gave up that project when they realised the futility of it.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue it does.
Less English teams means English sides are less likely to draw each other in knockout rounds and thus eliminate each other.
Going back to the World Cup example with this - the longer France, Germany, Spain, Italy avoid each other the further they will advance in my opinion - meanwhile the African sides will have a greater chance of playing each other and eliminating each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really haven't engaged your brain here.
Let me give you an extreme hypothetical example so you understand.
47 of the 48 World Cup teams are European. The only other team is Argentina.
The European pool is extremely diluted, and European teams are going to be knocking themselves out at every step of the way.
Does that mean it's less likely for a European team to win it?
Now make it less extreme. 46 and 2. Argentina and Brazil. More or less likely?
Spain had an overly diluted entry to European competitions this season, so much so that their average results in Europe ranked only 5th, behind Italy, Germany, England and France. Who won the Champions League this season?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would ask you to engage yours but can’t be certain of its existence.
Lets live in a more realistic world shall we, one with facts.
Last World Cup
Europe = 13 teams
South America = 4 teams
Asia = 6 teams
Africa = 5 teams
Winner Argentina
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ffs.
Let me give you a more realistic example then.
CL next season.
Add Chelsea, Spurs and Newcastle.
Take out Atlético, Juventus and Bayern.
According to you, that makes it less like for an English team to win the CL.
Mmmmmokay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it will come down to Real Madrid and City again.
But I obliterated your point with the last argument - Africa had more sides than South America and Argentina won if <laughH
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yeah Germany having 5th place get top 4 means that they now have Dortmund in the CL who finished 5th. This is likely to improve how the Germans do in Europe in terms of 5th place getting top 4. Not disimprove.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will have a greater chance of drawing each other though which based on pure maths alone will diminish their chances.
Additionally Germany, Italy and Spain have an “unfancied” side in the CL next year - Stuttgart, Bologna, Girona
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Villa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous European cup winning Aston Villa?
Managed by multiple European silverware winner Sinai Emery.
They comfortably navigate this bloated group stage - I will offer odds of 3/1 of them getting knocked out in the group stage if you want it?
SerieA n EPL had saim number o teams in europe lassed season
Sign in if you want to comment
World Cup vs Euros
Page 4 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 11/6/24
Are you remembering that failed conference league team Villa are now in the CL? And failed everything team Spurs are in the EL?
Added to this you have a Kloppless Liverpool. A declining and ageing City with the cheating hanging over them next season?
We lose to any half decent European side we meet and Arsenal who I believe have just been confirmed as being eliminated by Bayern next season?
That leaves you Chelsea in the conference league who will pretend they aren't taking it seriously when they go out.
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
Are you remembering that failed conference league team Villa are now in the CL? And failed everything team Spurs are in the EL?
Added to this you have a Kloppless Liverpool. A declining and ageing City with the cheating hanging over them next season?
We lose to any half decent European side we meet and Arsenal who I believe have just been confirmed as being eliminated by Bayern next season?
That leaves you Chelsea in the conference league who will pretend they aren't taking it seriously when they go out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will be happy to take the bet then?
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaa... (U18109)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
USA won’t be competing seriously any time soon, it’s how the youth football is set up is that it doesn’t really contribute to success. There aren’t really academies - using MD as an example it has a population bigger than that of Scotland but until very recently only had two academies (Baltimore Christos and DC Utd).
Meaning that the top level ‘soccer’ setups for young people to succeed cost a load of money and the highest level requires lots of travel - thus eliminating a large % of the population from being able to take part in high quality training. It’s got better but only marginally (the college system is also bizarre).
There is a reason why a lot of the better US players - Musah, Reyna, Mckennie, Pulisic, Weah etc all played academy football elsewhere (usually in Europe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree this is holding them back. The women’s team was so good because the money was forced into the women’s game under equality laws. European counterparts could only compete once clubs started being bankrolled by the Prem, Bundesliga, la liga, etc
If Soccarrr keeps gaining in popularity over there though then it’s a matter of time - it’s irrefutable that the game is growing in the US
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s growing but it’s not really growing the right way. Look at how we used to train footballers until the massive overhaul in the late 00s - we were far behind the successful European nations and that was with footballing pedigree/infrastructure/finances
posted on 11/6/24
Really? It’s easily proven - the women’s team
———
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
Are you remembering that failed conference league team Villa are now in the CL? And failed everything team Spurs are in the EL?
Added to this you have a Kloppless Liverpool. A declining and ageing City with the cheating hanging over them next season?
We lose to any half decent European side we meet and Arsenal who I believe have just been confirmed as being eliminated by Bayern next season?
That leaves you Chelsea in the conference league who will pretend they aren't taking it seriously when they go out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will be happy to take the bet then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not too sure about this new format so will need to see how it works out. With teams already through after a few games I am not sure how all of these dead rubbers are going to affect rankings.
posted on 11/6/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 41 minutes ago
That doesn’t mean much, America needs to compete for sporting culture with much more popular sports.
Outside of South America and Europe, Africa has long produced the best talent in football. Their best players are all born on the continent, not being poached. They’re also benefiting a lot from players with immigrant backgrounds that are being trained in European academies. This will only increase in the coming years.
None of those countries get as far as African teams usually do at world cups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah sorry, I’ve been hearing the African argument for 30 years and they’ve not made a final. I think the USA will be the ones to crack it as the sport is getting more and. More popular over there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Been hearing the American argument for 30 years as well. Yet they’ve not come as close as African teams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? It’s easily proven - the women’s team was the best in the world for donkeys years. The reason for this is because of an equality law in America that meant women’s soccer had to receive equal funding at college level. Surprise surprise the Americans with their superior athleticism dominated and are still top 3 in the world.
The men’s game is creeping up over there - they are buying our clubs, watching it more regularly and bringing players like Messi to their league.
It will be them that does it - I am absolutely sure of it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your absolute certainty about stuff prevents you from entertaining other scenarios. You stop at the first thing that seems reasonable to you, and fail to compare it against other scenarios.
You make a case for the USA being the first non-European and non-South American team to win the World Cup, but where do you get the absolute certainty from?
I don't think it's far fetched They would certainly be in with a shout in view of infrastructures and how the game is developing over there, but that doesn't preclude any other emergent footballing nation producing a golden generation of talent. By your logic, Hungary should never have been a world power in football, neither should the Netherlands. Portugal wouldn't have produced the wealth of top footballers it does. And what's to say the next Maradona won't be Japanese or Korean or Moroccan or Ghanaian, and coupled with a solid enough base, proves the determining factor to lead one of those to a World Cup?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hungary, Portugal, Holland have never won the World Cup and that’s what we are talking about here. You can throw Croatia into that mix as well. 2 trophies between them, both being Euros and Portugal were unbelievably lucky to win theirs.
No country with a population of under 45m have ever won the World Cup - it’s too big an ask. The Dutch have come close on 3 occasions but can’t get over the line.
We’re just ignoring the very valid points I made about the American women’s team then are we ?
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Really? It’s easily proven - the women’s team
———
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What not is not factual?
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaa... (U18109)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 1 minute ago
USA won’t be competing seriously any time soon, it’s how the youth football is set up is that it doesn’t really contribute to success. There aren’t really academies - using MD as an example it has a population bigger than that of Scotland but until very recently only had two academies (Baltimore Christos and DC Utd).
Meaning that the top level ‘soccer’ setups for young people to succeed cost a load of money and the highest level requires lots of travel - thus eliminating a large % of the population from being able to take part in high quality training. It’s got better but only marginally (the college system is also bizarre).
There is a reason why a lot of the better US players - Musah, Reyna, Mckennie, Pulisic, Weah etc all played academy football elsewhere (usually in Europe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree this is holding them back. The women’s team was so good because the money was forced into the women’s game under equality laws. European counterparts could only compete once clubs started being bankrolled by the Prem, Bundesliga, la liga, etc
If Soccarrr keeps gaining in popularity over there though then it’s a matter of time - it’s irrefutable that the game is growing in the US
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s growing but it’s not really growing the right way. Look at how we used to train footballers until the massive overhaul in the late 00s - we were far behind the successful European nations and that was with footballing pedigree/infrastructure/finances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again I agree, they train athletes first and foremost and then convert to specific sports later on. The best Basketball players are all street players, they are the exception.
The NFL is all about your vital stats.
posted on 11/6/24
Because it’s an utter facking irrelevance to comparing men’s football in America and Africa. That you think it proves anything is hilarious. Especially when you tried to dismiss the argument based on what you’ve been hearing about African football for 30 years, because the exact same thing applies to football in America.
What’s relevant is that Africa as a continent outperforms all of the other federations at the world cup. I don’t see any outside of Europe and SA reaching a final, let alone winning one, any time soon. But Africa is clearly best placed to do so.
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 2 minutes ago
Are you remembering that failed conference league team Villa are now in the CL? And failed everything team Spurs are in the EL?
Added to this you have a Kloppless Liverpool. A declining and ageing City with the cheating hanging over them next season?
We lose to any half decent European side we meet and Arsenal who I believe have just been confirmed as being eliminated by Bayern next season?
That leaves you Chelsea in the conference league who will pretend they aren't taking it seriously when they go out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You will be happy to take the bet then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not too sure about this new format so will need to see how it works out. With teams already through after a few games I am not sure how all of these dead rubbers are going to affect rankings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With 24 teams from 36 in the group stage - I don’t think we will have a Man U and Newcastle shambles again.
Pep and City will be trying to win the CL. Liverpool won’t let Slot do anything other than take it seriously. Arsenal will whomp the cannon fodder then capitulate to the first serious outfit they meet in the knock outs.
Villa is an unknown but Emery has very decent Euro pedigree.
United and the new manager might fancy trying to win the Europa - you will likely start that comp as favourites.
Spurs - we will get through the group and then lose to someone average after resting all our players for a prem match the next weekend
Chelsea - they’ll win the conference, finish 13th, sack the manager again, sell the stadium, team coach and club mascot to stay afloat and then still inexplicably spend £1billion that summer
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 42 seconds ago
Because it’s an utter facking irrelevance to comparing men’s football in America and Africa. That you think it proves anything is hilarious. Especially when you tried to dismiss the argument based on what you’ve been hearing about African football for 30 years, because the exact same thing applies to football in America.
What’s relevant is that Africa as a continent outperforms all of the other federations at the world cup. I don’t see any outside of Europe and SA reaching a final, let alone winning one, any time soon. But Africa is clearly best placed to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless the American pour money into the men’s game like they did the Women’s - in which case it will be America.
How many times has the same African nation made multiple World Cup semi finals = never
Quarter finals = none
Africa has had 4 nations reach the quarters once
The US has reached the semi final in 1930 and the quarter final in 2002
These are just facts
posted on 11/6/24
Yeah Germany having 5th place get top 4 means that they now have Dortmund in the CL who finished 5th. This is likely to improve how the Germans do in Europe in terms of 5th place getting top 4. Not disimprove.
posted on 11/6/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue it does.
Less English teams means English sides are less likely to draw each other in knockout rounds and thus eliminate each other.
Going back to the World Cup example with this - the longer France, Germany, Spain, Italy avoid each other the further they will advance in my opinion - meanwhile the African sides will have a greater chance of playing each other and eliminating each other.
posted on 11/6/24
Unless being the key word in your argument, that still doesn’t guarantee anything. And it really shouldn’t need explaining why the women’s game is not relevant to the men’s.
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yeah Germany having 5th place get top 4 means that they now have Dortmund in the CL who finished 5th. This is likely to improve how the Germans do in Europe in terms of 5th place getting top 4. Not disimprove.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will have a greater chance of drawing each other though which based on pure maths alone will diminish their chances.
Additionally Germany, Italy and Spain have an “unfancied” side in the CL next year - Stuttgart, Bologna, Girona
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue it does.
Less English teams means English sides are less likely to draw each other in knockout rounds and thus eliminate each other.
Going back to the World Cup example with this - the longer France, Germany, Spain, Italy avoid each other the further they will advance in my opinion - meanwhile the African sides will have a greater chance of playing each other and eliminating each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really haven't engaged your brain here.
Let me give you an extreme hypothetical example so you understand.
47 of the 48 World Cup teams are European. The only other team is Argentina.
The European pool is extremely diluted, and European teams are going to be knocking themselves out at every step of the way.
Does that mean it's less likely for a European team to win it?
Now make it less extreme. 46 and 2. Argentina and Brazil. More or less likely?
Spain had an overly diluted entry to European competitions this season, so much so that their average results in Europe ranked only 5th, behind Italy, Germany, England and France. Who won the Champions League this season?
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
Unless being the key word in your argument, that still doesn’t guarantee anything. And it really shouldn’t need explaining why the women’s game is not relevant to the men’s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The women’s game in America is the key point of my argument - it was money that made the US womens team dominant and if the biggest economy in the world which churns out world class athletes ten a penny ever turns the taps on for the men’s game we will see them win the World Cup.
What else can Africa do? Hope their best players don’t get nicked? Hire better coaches on low salaries? Improve their domestic leagues?
4 World Cup quarters and 1 semi from a whole continent when America has a semi and a quarter by itself
posted on 11/6/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue it does.
Less English teams means English sides are less likely to draw each other in knockout rounds and thus eliminate each other.
Going back to the World Cup example with this - the longer France, Germany, Spain, Italy avoid each other the further they will advance in my opinion - meanwhile the African sides will have a greater chance of playing each other and eliminating each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really haven't engaged your brain here.
Let me give you an extreme hypothetical example so you understand.
47 of the 48 World Cup teams are European. The only other team is Argentina.
The European pool is extremely diluted, and European teams are going to be knocking themselves out at every step of the way.
Does that mean it's less likely for a European team to win it?
Now make it less extreme. 46 and 2. Argentina and Brazil. More or less likely?
Spain had an overly diluted entry to European competitions this season, so much so that their average results in Europe ranked only 5th, behind Italy, Germany, England and France. Who won the Champions League this season?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would ask you to engage yours but can’t be certain of its existence.
Lets live in a more realistic world shall we, one with facts.
Last World Cup
Europe = 13 teams
South America = 4 teams
Asia = 6 teams
Africa = 5 teams
Winner Argentina
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue it does.
Less English teams means English sides are less likely to draw each other in knockout rounds and thus eliminate each other.
Going back to the World Cup example with this - the longer France, Germany, Spain, Italy avoid each other the further they will advance in my opinion - meanwhile the African sides will have a greater chance of playing each other and eliminating each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really haven't engaged your brain here.
Let me give you an extreme hypothetical example so you understand.
47 of the 48 World Cup teams are European. The only other team is Argentina.
The European pool is extremely diluted, and European teams are going to be knocking themselves out at every step of the way.
Does that mean it's less likely for a European team to win it?
Now make it less extreme. 46 and 2. Argentina and Brazil. More or less likely?
Spain had an overly diluted entry to European competitions this season, so much so that their average results in Europe ranked only 5th, behind Italy, Germany, England and France. Who won the Champions League this season?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would ask you to engage yours but can’t be certain of its existence.
Lets live in a more realistic world shall we, one with facts.
Last World Cup
Europe = 13 teams
South America = 4 teams
Asia = 6 teams
Africa = 5 teams
Winner Argentina
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ffs.
Let me give you a more realistic example then.
CL next season.
Add Chelsea, Spurs and Newcastle.
Take out Atlético, Juventus and Bayern.
According to you, that makes it less like for an English team to win the CL.
Mmmmmokay.
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yeah Germany having 5th place get top 4 means that they now have Dortmund in the CL who finished 5th. This is likely to improve how the Germans do in Europe in terms of 5th place getting top 4. Not disimprove.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will have a greater chance of drawing each other though which based on pure maths alone will diminish their chances.
Additionally Germany, Italy and Spain have an “unfancied” side in the CL next year - Stuttgart, Bologna, Girona
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Villa
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
Unless being the key word in your argument, that still doesn’t guarantee anything. And it really shouldn’t need explaining why the women’s game is not relevant to the men’s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The women’s game in America is the key point of my argument - it was money that made the US womens team dominant and if the biggest economy in the world which churns out world class athletes ten a penny ever turns the taps on for the men’s game we will see them win the World Cup.
What else can Africa do? Hope their best players don’t get nicked? Hire better coaches on low salaries? Improve their domestic leagues?
4 World Cup quarters and 1 semi from a whole continent when America has a semi and a quarter by itself
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know it’s the key point of your argument, but it’s a facking stupid point.
America already had an established culture of football within the women’s game before international football was even a thing.
They had an advantage over everyone else that just doesn’t exist in the men’s game. And it’s far harder for the men’s game to compete when up against all the other major sports in America alone, in a way that just isn’t comparable to the women’s game.
Your argument just seems to be ‘if money is spent’ without considering any other factor.
If money is all that mattered then China would have overtaken 90% of football when they tried it. But they soon gave up that project when they realised the futility of it.
posted on 11/6/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
The Premier league had more club sides in Europe this year than the Italians and Germans and yet performed worse.
I would heavily wager Prem sides will perform better in Europe next season than our German and Italian counter parts despite less participants
Let that sink in and take the bet if you want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're using the argument of dilution on the principle that more teams will lead to worse overall results, which as an overall rule makes complete sense, but what it doesn't mean is that there's a greater chance of a European side actually winning the World Cup. Fewer entrants means fewer opportunities.
You'd wager Italy and Germany will fare worse next season than England. It may well be true. But does having more teams make it less likely that an Italian or German side will win one of the competitions? No, it doesn't. Does England having fewer teams increase the likelihood of one of them winning the CL? No it doesn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would argue it does.
Less English teams means English sides are less likely to draw each other in knockout rounds and thus eliminate each other.
Going back to the World Cup example with this - the longer France, Germany, Spain, Italy avoid each other the further they will advance in my opinion - meanwhile the African sides will have a greater chance of playing each other and eliminating each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You really haven't engaged your brain here.
Let me give you an extreme hypothetical example so you understand.
47 of the 48 World Cup teams are European. The only other team is Argentina.
The European pool is extremely diluted, and European teams are going to be knocking themselves out at every step of the way.
Does that mean it's less likely for a European team to win it?
Now make it less extreme. 46 and 2. Argentina and Brazil. More or less likely?
Spain had an overly diluted entry to European competitions this season, so much so that their average results in Europe ranked only 5th, behind Italy, Germany, England and France. Who won the Champions League this season?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would ask you to engage yours but can’t be certain of its existence.
Lets live in a more realistic world shall we, one with facts.
Last World Cup
Europe = 13 teams
South America = 4 teams
Asia = 6 teams
Africa = 5 teams
Winner Argentina
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ffs.
Let me give you a more realistic example then.
CL next season.
Add Chelsea, Spurs and Newcastle.
Take out Atlético, Juventus and Bayern.
According to you, that makes it less like for an English team to win the CL.
Mmmmmokay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it will come down to Real Madrid and City again.
But I obliterated your point with the last argument - Africa had more sides than South America and Argentina won if <laughH
posted on 11/6/24
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - Laughing at Arsenals nearly slaaaags (U18109)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Alan Gilzean (U1734)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yeah Germany having 5th place get top 4 means that they now have Dortmund in the CL who finished 5th. This is likely to improve how the Germans do in Europe in terms of 5th place getting top 4. Not disimprove.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They will have a greater chance of drawing each other though which based on pure maths alone will diminish their chances.
Additionally Germany, Italy and Spain have an “unfancied” side in the CL next year - Stuttgart, Bologna, Girona
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Villa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous European cup winning Aston Villa?
Managed by multiple European silverware winner Sinai Emery.
They comfortably navigate this bloated group stage - I will offer odds of 3/1 of them getting knocked out in the group stage if you want it?
posted on 11/6/24
SerieA n EPL had saim number o teams in europe lassed season
Page 4 of 7
6 | 7