[Archived] euro12 thread

[Rovermatt]

Personally I'm finding the minutiae being raked over in this thread to be pretty exhausting. Am I the only one?

[Salgado Is A Hero]

Same as the Champions League then?

Yes. Like when Chelsea won it and finished 6th in England, or Liverpool when they finished 5th. How can they be the best teams in Europe then? But similarly if you were to win the Champions League (and finish 1st domestically) after knocking out a few of Barca, Madrid, Bayern, Utd etc then you could have an argument for being the best in Europe.

[Audax]

Argentina last won the Copa in '93, in 2010, defeated Mexico and then out to Germany 4-0 in a game that seems a lot closer, 2006, out to Germany in that ill-tempered shootout in the quarters, not out of the group stage in 2002. http://en.wikipedia....i/Copa_América Runners up twice and beaten by Brazil twice.

http://www.elorating...t/Argentina.htm

Have not hit the semi-finals since 1990, so Argentina's record is better than England's.....

And of course, some great players.

[Exiled_Rover]

I do wish Pirlo would shut the (Please don't use that word again) up.

[Baz]

Tend to agree somewhat with SIAH on this, the world rankings are a bit of a joke, although I understand there's not much else Fifa could do.

To get a better reading you'd have to compare results between the top teams to get a more accurate result. It's fair to say some country's can get easy routes through cup competitions whilst others don't. Some qualifying groups are harder to get through than group games at the world cup for example.

A table of results between the top 50 sides on FIFAS rankings would probably give you a more accurate result.

[jim mk2]

Yes. Like when Chelsea won it and finished 6th in England, or Liverpool when they finished 5th. How can they be the best teams in Europe then? But similarly if you were to win the Champions League (and finish 1st domestically) after knocking out a few of Barca, Madrid, Bayern, Utd etc then you could have an argument for being the best in Europe.

Winning the European Champions League gives that club the right to be called the champion club of Europe - the clue is in the title. At present Chelsea are the champions of Europe, ie Europe's No 1 team. To say otherwise is to render the competition meaningless.

[HemelRover]

Like I said, "My list of 8 teams that I called the top tier also considered recent achievements over the past say 10 or so years in tournaments which is why I did not include Uruguay."

Uruguay:

2011 Copa: Winners

2010 WC: 4th

2007 Copa: 4th

2006 WC: Did not qualify

2004 Copa: 3rd

2002 WC: Group Stage

2001 Copa: 3rd

Holland:

2012 Euro: Group Stage

2010 WC: 2nd

2008 Euro: Quarter Final

2006 WC: 1st Knock Out

2004 Euro: Semi Final

2002 WC: Did not Qualify

2000 Euro: Semi Final

France

2012 Euro: Quarters

2010 WC: Group

2008 Euro: Group

2006 WC: 2nd

2004 Euro: Quarters

2002 WC: Group

2000 Euro: 1st

So, 7 tournaments

Uruguay - 1x 1st, 4x Semis(2x 3rds & 2x 4ths) 1 Group stage and 1 DNQ

Holland - 1x 2nd, 2x Semis, 1x Quarters, 1x 1st Knock out, 1x Group Stage and 1x DNQ

France - 1x 1st, 1x 2nd, 2x Quarters, 3x Group

Compare the 2. You still think Holland or France have been the better teams in the last 10/12 years?

[Salgado Is A Hero]

Winning the European Champions League gives that club the right to be called the champion club of Europe - the clue is in the title. At present Chelsea are the champions of Europe, ie Europe's No 1 team. To say otherwise is to render the competition meaningless.

It's true but it doesn't address the point I made. So Chelsea are the best team in the whole of Europe, but 6th in England. And that makes sense to you.

Uruguay - 1x 1st, 4x Semis(2x 3rds & 2x 4ths) 1 Group stage and 1 DNQ

Holland - 1x 2nd, 2x Semis, 1x Quarters, 1x 1st Knock out, 1x Group Stage and 1x DNQ

France - 1x 1st, 1x 2nd, 2x Quarters, 3x Group

Compare the 2. You still think Holland or France have been the better teams in the last 10/12 years?

It depends on whether you consider the Copa America to be as prestigious as the Euros. If you do then we should just agree to disagree right now. The level of South American teams, Mexico and USA should not be underestimated but I don't see it as prestigious as the Euros therefore not as valid to the discussion. Chile, for example, are another good side but Uruguay getting to the semi's of the Copa America would probably be the minimum requirement in that country as they would expect to get further than the likes of Mexico,Chile and Venezuela.

As for the World Cup, it is debatable whether it is harder for Holland and France or Uruguay to qualify......the former would normally be top seeds but can still get drawn with other very good sides........in the last 4 World Cups France have reached 2 finals then had a nightmare in the other 2........in 1998 when they hosted, they won all 3 group games, beat Italy in the knockout stages, on penalties admittedly, and then beat Brazil 3-0 in the final.......in 2006, they went undefeated in the group stage before beating Spain, Brazil and Portugal in the knockout stages before losing to Italy on penalties. Their problems were well reported in the last World Cup and I can't remember what happened in 2002.

Holland in the 1998 World Cup went undefeated in the group stages, beat Argentina in the quarters then lost to Brazil on penalties. I can remember them not qualifying for the next one because Ireland did ahead of them. In 2006, they went undefeated in their group but went out to Portugal in the Battle Of Nuremberg. In 2010, they won all three group games, beat Brazil in the quarters, Uruguay in the semi's and then lost to Spain in extra time.

Uruguay didn't qualify for the 1998 or 2006 World Cups. In 2002 they went out in the group stages, failing to win a game. In 2010 they got to the semi's after beating South Korea and Ghana in the knockout stages.

My main reason for choosing those 8 teams is that they all can beat one another. Something England, and Uruguay in the World Cups, can't seem to do.

[AndyNeil]

while you are all debating who is the better than who, is anybody collecting the Panini Euro 2012 stickers? My lad has a pile was ever growing swaps but nobody to actually swap with...

[T4E]

I was doing them with the kids FR, not bought any for a while. I'll go and get some and put together a swaps list by PM to you if that's cool with you?

[Rovermatt]

The semis can't arrive quickly enough at this rate.

[AndyNeil]

I was doing them with the kids FR, not bought any for a while. I'll go and get some and put together a swaps list by PM to you if that's cool with you?

Yeah thats good... probably got 50+ swaps so should have something for you.

[T4E]

Ok pal - we're behind with it so as I say I'll buy a few, get it up to speed and hopefully have something you need.

Wow, I sound like a crack dealer.

[AndyNeil]

Ok pal - we're behind with it so as I say I'll buy a few, get it up to speed and hopefully have something you need.

Wow, I sound like a crack dealer.

haha - I'll PM a list of swaps in the morning...

[T4E]

Ok buddy, let me know what you need too.

[Rovermatt]

T4E and FR get down to business.

"I'll give ya 2 Baroses, a Salpingidis, all my Moutinhos and this here Mata for your Lewandowski and Isaksson..."

[jim mk2]

It's true but it doesn't address the point I made. So Chelsea are the best team in the whole of Europe, but 6th in England. And that makes sense to you.

Perfect sense. A team can only be the best in the competition it enters. Chelsea are the best club team in Europe until they lose their crown (or defend it successfully) next season. The fact they are not the English champions is irrelevant.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

Perfect sense. A team can only be the best in the competition it enters. Chelsea are the best club team in Europe until they lose their crown (or defend it successfully) next season. The fact they are not the English champions is irrelevant.

And the FA Cup? Are the winners the best team in England?

[Rovermatt]

And the FA Cup? Are the winners the best team in England?

What are you on about? The league is clearly the way to establish this.

[jim mk2]

And the FA Cup? Are the winners the best team in England?

The FA Cup winners are the best cup team in England.

What are you trying to prove ?

[Salgado Is A Hero]

The FA Cup winners are the best cup team in England.

What are you trying to prove ?

That winning 5/6/7 games doesn't make you the best team. Less perhaps with penalty shootouts. The only clear and fair way to establish who is the best team for me is something like a 38 game season. There is no way of determining who is the best team out of Barcelona and Chelsea for instance. Even if Chelsea beat them over 2 legs. As that is just 2 games.

Winning a cup competition whether it be the FA Cup, Champions League or the Euros, does not guarantee you are the best team out of those entered. You just win it.

[jim mk2]

That winning 5/6/7 games doesn't make you the best team. Less perhaps with penalty shootouts. The only clear and fair way to establish who is the best team for me is something like a 38 game season. There is no way of determining who is the best team out of Barcelona and Chelsea for instance. Even if Chelsea beat them over 2 legs. As that is just 2 games.

Winning a cup competition whether it be the FA Cup, Champions League or the Euros, does not guarantee you are the best team out of those entered. You just win it.

A league establishes the best team over the course of a season while a cup competition can produce surprise results because a better team will sometimes have an off day and be beaten by a supposedly inferior team. However that does not make the cup competitions less valid because some teams have the ability to rise to the occasion in one-off matches but cannot sustain it over 38 or 40 matches. In the past Spurs and West Ham were often known as "cup" teams because they could play well on the day but could not do over the long haul like Liverpool. Cups and league are different competitions - horses for courses. Your argument that all cup competitions including the World Cup are not won by the best team because they are not 38-match leagues is nonsense.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

A league establishes the best team over the course of a season while a cup competition can produce surprise results because a better team will sometimes have an off day and be beaten by a supposedly inferior team. However that does not make the cup competitions less valid because some teams have the ability to rise to the occasion in one-off matches but cannot sustain it over 38 or 40 matches. In the past Spurs and West Ham were often known as "cup" teams because they could play well on the day but could not do over the long haul like Liverpool. Cups and league are different competitions - horses for courses. Your argument that all cup competitions including the World Cup are not won by the best team because they are not 38-match leagues is nonsense.

I'm not making the cup competitions less valid. I see them as extremely valid. Winning the Champions League is more prestigious than the Premier League. The World Cup, then the Euros are the two biggest things a footballer can win. My original argument was that winning a cup competition does not guarantee you are the best team.

After most Euros, people would say that the winners were the best country in Europe at that time. But I doubt many would have said that after Denmark and Greece won it. So how could that be. International football is different because there isn't a long league and it is mostly knockout, same as in the Champions League, but until countries or teams start retaining the trophy then I can't just see who won it and proclaim that they are the best team. Others might disagree with which I would understand, after all how else could you measure it, but I just don't see it like that.

[Miker]

Salgado

I'm not making the cup competitions less valid. I see them as extremely valid. Winning the Champions League is more prestigious than the Premier League. The World Cup, then the Euros are the two biggest things a footballer can win. My original argument was that winning a cup competition does not guarantee you are the best team.

I get what you are saying, but using this logic sets a really awful precedent that says that even if an inferior team (at the time) wins a tournament as massive as the Euro they should still not be considered the best team in Europe because they need to do it several times over a random period of time, or at least continue to sustain a challenge on the crown for that random period of time.

if you finish 1st, you are the best. You might not be the strongest team, you might even be one of the weakest teams in the competition, but the strength of your squad has no relevance on whether you are the best. Winning determines whether you are the best or not.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

Salgado

I get what you are saying, but using this logic sets a really awful precedent that says that even if an inferior team (at the time) wins a tournament as massive as the Euro they should still not be considered the best team in Europe because they need to do it several times over a random period of time, or at least continue to sustain a challenge on the crown for that random period of time.

if you finish 1st, you are the best. You might not be the strongest team, you might even be one of the weakest teams in the competition, but the strength of your squad has no relevance on whether you are the best. Winning determines whether you are the best or not.

Believe me when I say I get all of that. In a way, you are the best team of course. My argument I don't think massively does a disservice to any inferior team that wins a trophy. They would still be lauded for their efforts and recognised completely, just not in the way I'm arguing.

I suppose there are just differences in how you look at it. Using Greece winning Euro 2004 for example. They were the best team that entered because they won it and beat some tough opposition along the way. But after that, if the South Americans were saying their continent was the best at football and Europe disagreed. And then they were like, we'll send Brazil or Argentina to play the best you have to offer. Then I wouldn't send Greece as I still would not think they were the best team we would have to offer. That is just my point. I don't think it was worthy of a debate but if you say that whoever wins a competition is the best, then there can be no exceptions to that rule. But when a lesser team wins such a competition the general consensus isn't that they were the best team in that respect and it dampens the argument sort of.