World Cup Rd. of 16: Belgium vs. USA (July 1st)

[Twinkie defense]

The only thing I have said so far is take a half a slot from Europe and give it to South America, so Uruguay qualified without the play-in and Portugal/Sweden didn't have the opportunity to play in. 13 slots written in stone is just too much historical deference to the European national teams. Most of the best players around the world play for the European club teams anyway, it's not like a Brit has some special advantage. If you want to make the last X spots in the entire WC floating that might be a good idea too - so if Europe has the best 15 teams in the world, they can put 15 national teams into the finals... and if there are only ten European teams that are better that the second-tier teams from the other regions they should only put 10 through.

Too much historical deference, where for example Italy somehow gets credit for losing to Spain in a rout, when Spain is crap now. And this also shows through in how Europeans piss on sides outside of their region because of the quality of their competition... only to see teams like Chile, Mexico, Costa Rica do well in the tournament like it's some fluke.

[Rasho Brezec]

Uruguay - 1.56 points per game in qualifications
Portugal - 2.1 points per game in qualifications
Sweden - 2 points per game in qualifications

[cgf]

The only thing I have said so far is take a half a slot from Europe and give it to South America, so Uruguay qualified without the play-in and Portugal/Sweden didn't have the opportunity to play in. 13 slots written in stone is just too much historical deference to the European national teams. Most of the best players around the world play for the European club teams anyway, it's not like a Brit has some special advantage. If you want to make the last X spots in the entire WC floating that might be a good idea too - so if Europe has the best 15 teams in the world, they can put 15 national teams into the finals... and if there are only ten European teams that are better that the second-tier teams from the other regions they should only put 10 through.

Too much historical deference, where for example Italy somehow gets credit for losing to Spain in a rout, when Spain is crap now. And this also shows through in how Europeans piss on sides outside of their region because of the quality of their competition... only to see teams like Chile, Mexico, Costa Rica do well in the tournament like it's some fluke.

And you've yet give a single reason as to why you think Venezuela or New Zealand are more deserving than Portugal, France or the other european teams that went through the playoff.

Present an alternative so this discussion can go somewhere or acknowledge that you ahven't thought this through and jsut wanted to **** on uefa because it hasn't completely dominated this one tournament.

[El Turco]

costa rica is a fluke, it has been 25 years since they got out their group. also has been 25 years since concacaf had not-so-crap team outside of mexico and us. if costa rica or even any other third concacaf team does well in upcoming world cups they'll get their due respect, until than this is an once in quarter century fluke. we know mexico's performance isn't fluke since they get bounced in second round in every world cup.

and taking half a spot from europe is not going to lower number of european teams, they'll just pummel an afc or ofc team and make it in.

[Twinkie defense]

costa rica is a fluke, it has been 25 years since they got out their group. also has been 25 years since concacaf had not-so-crap team outside of mexico and us. if costa rica or even any other third concacaf team does well in upcoming world cups they'll get their due respect, until than this is an once in quarter century fluke. we know mexico's performance isn't fluke since they get bounced in second round in every world cup.

and taking half a spot from europe is not going to lower number of european teams, they'll just pummel an afc or ofc team and make it in.

Costa Rica is not a fluke, they came in second in their qualifying group (ahead of Mexico), beat the US in Costa Rica in qualifying, and might have beaten the US in Colorado if it wasn't snowing. What happened 25 years ago should be irrelevant. And clearly they are better than #28 in the world.

For those who say "name all the teams that should have advanced instead of the dregs of Europe" - I don't have to. I'm not aware of every team in Africa, Asia, South America, just like I do not follow teams like Wales and Northern Ireland. But I know a couple stinky Euro teams advanced. And obviously there a lot of teams that have caught European fans by surprise - including Costa Rica, the US (who were not picked to advance out of group stage), probably Chile... similarly, there are likely some other overlooked teams around the world that WC fans would like to see on the world stage.

And if Eurpopean sides get in by pummeling their way in through teams from other regions, well then at least they have earned it, instead of gotten it handed to them on a dusty silver platter.

[BUCKnation]

It's fine how it is. I don't think giving an extra spot to the americas will do anything. Sure, the top 3 in the Concacaf did well, but Honduras didn't do anything and do we really think adding Panama or Jamaica would do anything either? Same with Conmebol, would Venezuela or Paraguay be a better option than Zlatan and Sweden?

If anything, take a guaranteed spot away from Africa. That group rarely has one or two teams do anything spectacular.

[truth18]

It's fine how it is. I don't think giving an extra spot to the americas will do anything. Sure, the top 3 in the Concacaf did well, but Honduras didn't do anything and do we really think adding Panama or Jamaica would do anything either? Same with Conmebol, would Venezuela or Paraguay be a better option than Zlatan and Sweden?

If anything, take a guaranteed spot away from Africa. That group rarely has one or two teams do anything spectacular.

This.

[cgf]

lol so you can't name a single non-uefa team that didn't qualify but could've. Well that's the end of your argument right there. How about we take a spot away from the americas? Honduras were godawful and would've been massivley improved by being replaced by zlatan, or what about africa? The Ukraine would've done more than Ghana or the ivorians. Asia to, one of south korea or japan could certainly have been replaced by serbia, wales or poland.

[El Turco]

costa rica is a fluke, it has been 25 years since they got out their group. also has been 25 years since concacaf had not-so-crap team outside of mexico and us. if costa rica or even any other third concacaf team does well in upcoming world cups they'll get their due respect, until than this is an once in quarter century fluke. we know mexico's performance isn't fluke since they get bounced in second round in every world cup.

and taking half a spot from europe is not going to lower number of european teams, they'll just pummel an afc or ofc team and make it in.

Costa Rica is not a fluke, they came in second in their qualifying group (ahead of Mexico), beat the US in Costa Rica in qualifying, and might have beaten the US in Colorado if it wasn't snowing. What happened 25 years ago should be irrelevant. And clearly they are better than #28 in the world.

For those who say "name all the teams that should have advanced instead of the dregs of Europe" - I don't have to. I'm not aware of every team in Africa, Asia, South America, just like I do not follow teams like Wales and Northern Ireland. But I know a couple stinky Euro teams advanced. And obviously there a lot of teams that have caught European fans by surprise - including Costa Rica, the US (who were not picked to advance out of group stage), probably Chile... similarly, there are likely some other overlooked teams around the world that WC fans would like to see on the world stage.

And if Eurpopean sides get in by pummeling their way in through teams from other regions, well then at least they have earned it, instead of gotten it handed to them on a dusty silver platter.

that's the point, 25 years ago IS irrelevant, as costa rica hasn't done anything relevant in 25 years. you don't prove your consistency on the world stage by beating up couple of mediocre regional teams. if they make some noise next world cup, heck make it to semis in copa america, i' ll be convinced. until then costa rica is nothing more than another senegal.

berth would be handed on a silver platter, i am sure portugal would much rather go through jordan than sweden. but you obviously havent thought this through and even confused yourself as you went from taking a spot away from uefa to taking half a spot and from claiming that there is certainly more deserving non-european teams to admitting that you don't have a clue about any of those non-euro teams.

[magik9113]

Costa Rica making the quarters is a fluke just like USA in 2002...let's be real

[El Turco]

usa had bit more prominence coming into 2002 than costa rica did here

[Doormatt]

His argument that Costa Rica is not a fluke is that they went even with the US in qualifying and finished ahead of Mexico. That should tell you everything you need to know.

[Doormatt]

If the World Cup were truly a test of the best teams in the world then Europe would get more spots. As is it's just a representation of world football, not the best teams. More strict seeding would help Europe.

[AttackTheRack]

Yanks just ran into a buzzsaw, that's all. Belgium can create chances, that's for sure. If their defense holds, and the goalie lives up to the moment, they can win this tournament. But the US had the chances to tie it up, then penalties and who knows? Just lacked finish. The Belgian studs don't have that problem. Gonna' need a Tim Howard-esque performance from your goalie to beat them.

[bbms]

lol so you can't name a single non-uefa team that didn't qualify but could've. Well that's the end of your argument right there. How about we take a spot away from the americas? Honduras were godawful and would've been massivley improved by being replaced by zlatan, or what about africa? The Ukraine would've done more than Ghana or the ivorians. Asia to, one of south korea or japan could certainly have been replaced by serbia, wales or poland.

Ok let's take a look at the past.

2006:
Poland dropped out in a group with Equador and Costa Rica.
Servia won 0 points.
Czech side was dropped out for Ghana.
Croatia dropped out for Australia.

2010:
France dropped out for Mexico and Uruguay.
Danmark dropped out for Japan.
Greece was owned by South Korea.
Italy lol.
USA won the group over England and Slovenia.
Servia lol, what a boring team.
Switzerland was dropped for Chile.

This WC the European teams are lucky that Chile, Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay went against each other in the round of 16.

This is not a Glorified Euro. This is the WORLD CUP. We don't need the Servias, Slovenias, Slovakias, Ukraines and Greeces of the world to bore us to death. We do need, though, more Portugals, Italies, England and Frances to make us laugh, though.

[cgf]

I'd rather watch serbia, ukraine, sweden or poland than venezuela, new zealand, panama and jordan, wouldn't you?

The euros have a higher level of play than the WC for a reason, and that reason is that europe has a lot more quality teams than the rest of the world.

[bbms]

I'd rather watch serbia, ukraine, sweden or poland than venezuela, new zealand, panama and jordan, wouldn't you?

The euros have a higher level of play than the WC for a reason, and that reason is that europe has a lot more quality teams than the rest of the world.

You can argue upon UCL, but not Euro. Serbia and Ukraine are goddamn awful, I watched Serbia a lot because it was on Belgium's group in qualifying. They were terrible, and were terrible four years ago with the best generation they had all in their primes, and were even worse 8 years ago. Ukraine was Greece like in past Euro.

Equador is much better. And so is Australia. They put up great fights agains Switzerland, France, Chile and Holland. And so is Ghana, Argelia and Cote D'Ivoire. Poland and Sweden are only fun to watch because of their stars (and so Portugal should be, right?), but they're not by any means competitive club. It's better to keep the premise of accessibility than fool ourselves at thinking this mediocre teams would add anything to the WC except some names.

Costa Rica in 2014 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Poland and Sweden ever did for WC. Ibrahimovic never did **** on WCs.

Euro is good because it has less teams, and is shorter. If you argue Euro 2012 was better than this WC, then it's impossible to discuss this subject.

[El Turco]

sweden did better than costa rica, 2 decades before them.

spain, germany, netherlands, ukraine, italy, portugal, england, france, turkey, denmark, croatia, sweden, romania, bulgaria, yugoslavia, ireland, czechslovakia. that's 17 different european teams that made it to quarter finals and further since 1990.

some may underperform for various reasons but every european team that qualifies is a threat to make deep run, no confederation even comes close in terms of depth.

[bbms]

sweden did better than costa rica, 2 decades before them.

spain, germany, netherlands, ukraine, italy, portugal, england, france, turkey, denmark, croatia, sweden, romania, bulgaria, yugoslavia, ireland, czechslovakia. that's 17 different european teams that made it to quarter finals and further since 1990.

some may underperform for various reasons but every european team that qualifies is a threat to make deep run, no confederation even comes close in terms of depth.

Costa rica has wins over Italy and Uruguay. Sweden had one win in the group stages then Saudi Arabia and Romania. I thought you would say 1958. At least they had the win over West German.

From these 17 Nations, how many of them were consistantly better than Paraguay, USA, or Chile?

[cgf]

I like how the anti-UEFA guys keep trying to compare non-WC UEFA teams to WC non-UEFA teams. No false equivalency there for this discussion, no sir...