European v South American football [Archive]

Goirre

23-11-2004, 22:18

Well, first of all there is something that needs to be clarified: are you asking which football is better at club team level? or rather at national team level? big difference!

At club team level, European football is the best hands down. Few South American players can resist an offer from a big team in one of the main European leagues (Italy, Spain, England, etc.), and many others would still fly to Europe even if the offer was from a small team in these leagues, or from a decent team from a "less popular" European league. So yes, most of the best players end up there (most, not all), and partly thanks to that, European football at club team level is simply the best.

Now the question should be: "why is this?" I mean, why do South American players want to go to Europe so badly? Well, it is not that hard to understand them really. You can list many reasons, but the main one is MONEY. As simple as that.

Lets try to put this in a simple way....

Point 1. European countries in general have much more money than South American countries (surprised? :D )

Point 2. Teams in Europe (especially the big ones, or those from more popular leagues) get a lot of money from selling their merchandise, from TV contracts, from advertising, from so many things that South America simply cannot match because of our economic situation.

Therefore:

Point 3. The average European team has MUCH more money to spend than the average South American team, and this allows the European teams to be able to attract almost any South American footballer by offering them contracts and benefits that their current South American teams can't even dream of matching.

Point 4. The fact that European teams in general are now allowed to sign more foreign players than before has only increased the "demand" for South American players. So now the European leagues can benefit from even more "South American talent".....but not only that......signing more great players from other countries also results in even more revenues for the clubs thanks to improved TV contracts and advertising and so on. As an example, Milan signed Cafu and Kaka.....well, I assure you that since then even more Brazilians (as well as people from all around the world) wanted to watch Milan. The European leagues and European networks know this, and of course they are "willing" to negotiate TV rights with South American networks, and thus making a heavy profit.....which ultimately goes to benefit the clubs too of course. Yes, there goes even more money for the European leagues and teams to invest on their next moves. In the meantime, South American teams can only continue to supply their talents.

Well, I could talk about this all night and go into further details and so on. But I think it should make perfect sense to everyone that European football at club level is better than South American football mainly because it is in Europe, and not South America, where the money is.

If the conditions in South America where the same as in Europe (organization-wise, economic-wise and so on), and therefore, if South American players were to stay in South America, then South American football would easily be at the very same level of European football. I would even venture to say that South American football would be more competitive than European football, but understandably, that would be debatable, and I see no point in debating something based on "ifs" and "woulds" that, unfortunately for South America, will never happen, at least not in the forseeable future.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Something similar happens at national team level. Although in this case I don't see a European superiority over South America. In South America, few national teams have the conditions to grow and prepare properly. This is a huge problem that few European countries have to endure. Once again, the reason for this lies mainly on the economic factor. I'll give just one example. In my country, Bolivia, football is the most popular sport. I have seen AMAZING players in action that don't even make it to local teams. Why? there is little logistic and economic support from the sports authorities. We don't have the resources to open and maintain football schools to search and develop football talents. A LOT of talent goes unseen. Big loss. Correct me if I am wrong, but very few European countries have to endure a similar problem. This of course, is just an example of one problem, out of possibly tons more, that we have to endure.....and all partly because of our economic situation that is nowhere near Europe's.

I would love to give more examples and go into more details. But for now what I wrote should be enough. If anyone disagrees with me with something I said I will gladly go into futher details to make my position more clear.

ALL South American countries face similar problems, some less than other of course. Those that have less of these problems (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay) are, not surprisingly, the most successful ones in the continent. Curiously, even with this "handicap", at national team level, South America is still at the same level as Europe. This leads me to think that if the conditions were the same in Europe and South America, South America would be a step ahead. No doubt.

Unfortunately the conditions will never be the same in both continents, at least not in the forseeable future. But, Giovanni, I will use your Argentinian friend's words and say that, in the "real and pure" meaning of the word, South American football IS the best.

Just my two cents......for anyone that reached this point of my post and didn't fall asleep: Thanks! :D :D

Josh

23-11-2004, 22:56

Goirre is absolutely correct about the "money" factor. In the 60's every kid in Brazil dreamt of playing for Santos or Flamengo or Cruzeiro. Today, they all dream of Spain, Italy, Germany, etc. No wonder their clubs are only "farms" for very young players, or last choice for those who cannot make it to Europe, Japan, or even Qatar. Economics and markets dictate the big migration out of Brazil, Argentina, and others.

The South Americans kids start to practice football at the age of 5, and often skip school (or drop out alltogether) to devote themselves to the game. No wonder they are so talented and have such ball control. Pele started his professional career at 12 or 13, when most European kids were still in grammar school. In a recent trip to Brazil, I saw with my own eyes tiny (8 or 9 year old) children playing in a neighborhood field with such movement and ball control you could swear they were born with the football. They also seem to have more joy in attacking, dribbling and knowing where the teammate is almost instinctively. They could pass the ball with their eyes closed.

The European game is much more disciplined and the defenses are more effective.

I predict that in 10 or 15 years from now, African countries will reach the next level in quality, and become truely competitive with Europe and South America. In 40 years the Chinese will catch up and will buy all the talented players with the money they are making now (by selling us cheap goods).

The British, however, will always have cricket and badminton, because no one else is interested in those....

Goirre

29-11-2004, 03:15

well, well, from the lack of responses I assume that we do agree that South American football is indeed the "better one" ;) :D

XZeRo3003

29-11-2004, 03:20

well, well, from the lack of responses I assume that we do agree that South American football is indeed the "better one" ;) :D

I agree with everything you said Carlos, but I was actually been wanting to tell you about Joaquin Botero.

Just Curious, did you watch Pumas Match on Wednesday?

Anyways, Joaquin scored the second goal, then he had the tightest celebration EVER. I don't know why I thought it was so tight, but his pose was SO majestic. and he took off his shirt, so they gave him a yellow card. But anyways, simply my favorite celebration ever, I want to recorde so I can put it on my avatar or whatever, simply the BEST CELEBRATION EVER I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY!

Goirre

29-11-2004, 04:32

I did know Botero scored twice in that match to help Pumas to a 3-0 victory...but I didn't watch his goals, and therefore neither his celebrations. Though I did know he received that yellow card, plus a second one (very unfair) to get a red. He seems to doing much better this season, I mean, he is Pumas top scorer :cool:

anyway, let me know if you get a video or pictures of those goals and/or celebrations :)

ACMILAN1983

29-11-2004, 09:39

I predict that in 10 or 15 years from now, African countries will reach the next level in quality, and become truely competitive with Europe and South America. In 40 years the Chinese will catch up and will buy all the talented players with the money they are making now (by selling us cheap goods).

The British, however, will always have cricket and badminton, because no one else is interested in those....

I think Asian football may develop faster than African.

As for the British having cricket and badminton. In cricket, Australia (ok, they're descendants of the British) and other countries (e.g. India and Pakistan) have probably got a better history than Britain and Australia are near unstoppable right now if I'm correct (I'm not a cricket fan, so feel free to correct me). As for Badminton, Asian countries (particularly China) are much better than Britain.

Stezagud

29-11-2004, 14:00

In cricket, Australia (ok, they're descendants of the British) and other countries (e.g. India and Pakistan) have probably got a better history than Britain and Australia are near unstoppable right now if I'm correct (I'm not a cricket fan, so feel free to correct me).

sounds right to me :D

Australia is by far the best team and everyone else plays for 2nd place. England can possibly claim to be 2nd at the moment (i think they officially are in the rankings) but in reality SOuth Africa, India and Pakistan are all roughly equal to England and the young Windies side is catching up too....You're right about Badminton too :)

We do still have Darts though :cool:

Anyway, back to the subject, I agree with Goirre and he has pretty much covered al the major arguments in that post :respect:

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 14:06

This is a silly subject to even debate. All facts prove that South American football has always been, and still is the BEST.

The only reason top football players go to Europe is for the money, and NOT because the football "is better" LOL.

I will debate and crush anyone who tries to say otherwise.

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 14:09

To even have a discussion that European football is better then South American football is foolish. The numbers prove that South American football has always been, and still is the BEST.

The only reason top football players go to Europe is for the money, and NOT because the football "is better" LOL.

I will debate and crush anyone who tries to say otherwise.

Jim_UK

18-03-2007, 14:15

As for Badminton, Asian countries (particularly China) are much better than Britain.

Maybe on the whole they are, however Robertson and Emms are pretty much top of the tree in Badminton doubles and aren't too far off the best pair in the world. They're certainly the best in Europe.

South American football is just like football from any other part of the world, they have their good games/players and their rubbish games/players.

Plus the games are so stop start because of all the fouls/dives.

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 14:17

South American football is just like football from any other part of the world, they have their good games/players and their rubbish games/players.

Except that South American football does it at a much higher level than all the rest.

Jim_UK

18-03-2007, 14:21

Not all the time it doesn't, it's definately not the highest standard of football in the world. Nice to watch at times, entertaining for sure, but it can be just as dire as watching some of the poorer teams from other countries battle it out.

Stezagud

18-03-2007, 14:22

The only reason top football players go to Europe is for the money, and NOT because the football "is better" LOL

At risk of being crushed :eek: lol, who are you? Conan? If you concede the top players in South America are in Europe, where naturally they mingle with the top players Europe has to offer, then how can you say South America is better?

Europe has the best coaches, the best facilities, the strongest leagues and the longest traditions. Maybe you believe South America is more entertaining but there is little doubt over where the quality is. South American football can be very entertaining but that doesnt make it better football, my local sunday league team averages 6 goals a game, this is great for the fans but it doesnt make us better than professional clubs ;)

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 14:24

Tell me something Jim, who has won the past three (and the only three) FIFA world club championships?

Tony29.

18-03-2007, 14:25

This is a silly subject to even debate. All facts prove that South American football has always been, and still is the BEST.

If you're talking about pure talent, then SA players are better. If you're talking about the success of SA and Eur. football, they're very close. If you're talking about tactics and improving the football then SA teams are way behind.

Debate and crush me !

Jim_UK

18-03-2007, 14:28

what does that prove?

All it says to me is that the South American teams that have won those games have been the better side in one off matches.

Tony29.

18-03-2007, 14:31

what does that prove?

All it says to me is that the South American teams that have won those games have been the better side in one off matches.
And those are matches European teams don't care much about. Matches in the middle of the season.
European top teams play hard matches twice a week and then they go to Japan to play some, more or less, meaningless games.

If current SA teams play with the best Eur. teams in a competition like the CL, which brings a lot of money, i don't think we'll be seeing more than 1 SA team in last 8.

Stezagud

18-03-2007, 14:31

It means more to South American sides too, European teams treat it like the European Super Cup, nice to win but not something that they'll be bothered about losing.

I remember when Utd won it in 99/2000, the players played it was the like the charity shield but still managed to win :eek:

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 14:39

Stezagud, I will now pick you apart point-by-point...

how can you say South America is better?

I can say South America is better because they have won the most FIFA World Cups while having hosted the event the fewest times. South America has hosted the World Cup only 4 times, yet they have won it 9 times. Europe has hosted the World Cup a record 10 times, while only being able to win it 9 times.

South America is the only continent to have won the World Cup outside its own continent. In fact, South America has won the World Cup on ALL FOUR continents that the FIFA World Cup has been held on (South America, North America, Europe, and Asia). Whereas Europe has never been able to win the FIFA World Cup outside of Europe.

I can also say South America is better because in head-to-head competiton between the champion of South America and Europe, the South American clubs have come out winning 28 times to Europe's 21.

And before the top South American players started going to play in Europe in 1994 because of the TV deal and Boseman ruling, the South American club champions won a whopping 23 times to Europe's 13 times.

I will continue destroying your argument in my next post...

Stezagud

18-03-2007, 14:43

Stezagud, I will now pick you apart point-by-point...

how kind of you :D

I wont be able to continue this now but maybe i will later, if not it'll have to wait until tommorow. From the look fo your response so far though its already clear you are using national achievements :rolleyes:

I have already made my view of the world club cup clear in the other thread and consdider it the equivelant of me arguing Utd are the best team in England based on charity shield wins :dielaugh:

I hope thats not the best you've got ;)

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 14:48

Europe has the best coaches, the best facilities, the strongest leagues and the longest traditions.

Wrong, wrong, and even more wrong. While there are some good coaches to be found in the upper echelon of the Latin leagues of Europe (Spain, Italy, Portugal) and the Netherlands and Germany, the truth is that the best coaches in the world are consistently found in Brazil and Argentina. The amount of times South America has won the World Cup, their dominance of the world club championship, as well as their consistent development of the world's greatest players throughout football history (Pele, DiStefano, Maradonna, Romario, Ronaldinho, etc, etc.) proves this.

The South American clubs also have the best youth academies and training facilities/systems in all of football. Any top scout from Europe will tell you this but it is a big "no-no" to say it publicly because UEFA must continue its propaganda for financial purposes.

As for longest traditions, you only display your ignorance with your statement. The legendary clubs of South America have just as long, if not longer, traditions then most of their European counterparts. Did you also know that the Copa America (South America championship for nations) is the oldest national teams competition in the world?

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 14:52

Maybe you believe South America is more entertaining but there is little doubt over where the quality is. South American football can be very entertaining but that doesnt make it better football

No, the fact South America has the most entertaining football is just one of the results of it being the best and highest quality football in the world. It IS the BEST football in the world and the statistics prove it in each and every way.

Tony29.

18-03-2007, 14:54

Stezagud, I will now pick you apart point-by-point...

I can say South America is better because they have won the most FIFA World Cups while having hosted the event the fewest times. South America has hosted the World Cup only 4 times, yet they have won it 9 times. Europe has hosted the World Cup a record 10 times, while only being able to win it 9 times.

South America is the only continent to have won the World Cup outside its own continent. In fact, South America has won the World Cup on ALL FOUR continents that the FIFA World Cup has been held on (South America, North America, Europe, and Asia). Whereas Europe has never been able to win the FIFA World Cup outside of Europe.
What's the difference between a south American Brazil and European Portugal if the World Cup is held in European Russia ?
Where do you see the advantage for Portugal ?

Even more, i'd say it's the South American teams that are being privileged here.
Most of them play in Europe so it makes absolutely no difference to them if a WC is held in Chile or Spain. They are used to both climates.
If a tournament is being held in N/S America then the SA teams have a clear advantage over the Europeans, but if it's held in Europe than Europeans have 0% advantage over the South Americans.
With equal chances ( when the tournament is being held in Europe), South Americans are the traditional losers.

The only real argument you have here is the WC held in Japan/Korea , nothing else.
Ok, maybe USA also. Although winning the WC on penalties doesn't imply SA teams were better than the Europeans.

I can also say South America is better because in head-to-head competiton between the champion of South America and Europe, the South American clubs have come out winning 28 times to Europe's 21.

And before the top South American players started going to play in Europe in 1994 because of the TV deal and Boseman ruling, the South American club champions won a whopping 23 times to Europe's 13 times.

I will continue destroying your argument in my next post...
We already told you why is this.
European teams don't care at all about this matches.
Now even less than in the past.

Kaka1899

18-03-2007, 14:55

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 14:58

From the look fo your response so far though its already clear you are using national achievements

No, in addition to South America's national acheivements, I have also posted club achievements and the consistent production of best players in the world.

If proving South America's superiority at national level, club level, and individual level doesn't prove the continent's superiority, then what does I ask you?

I have already made my view of the world club cup clear in the other thread and consdider it the equivelant of me arguing Utd are the best team in England based on charity shield wins. hope thats not the best you've got

How you equate a world club championship between two teams at full strength and in form to a silly charity shield is beyond me. If that's the best YOU'VE got, then your argument is already in shambles my friend :)

Kaka1899

18-03-2007, 15:01

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 15:22

Tony 29, I will now pick you apart point-by-point...

What's the difference between a south American Brazil and European Portugal if the World Cup is held in European Russia ? Where do you see the advantage for Portugal ?

First of all, there has never been a Brazil-Portugal final for this point to even be relevant, but the advantage would clearly go to Portugal. This is because the time change and traveling time is not as bad for Portugal as it is for Brazil. Portugal has also played in Russia and the rest of the European countries far more times then Brazil has and this is another advantage. In the end, there is an inherent feeling of comfort for Portugal because they are playing in Europe.

Even more, i'd say it's the South American teams that are being privileged here. Most of them play in Europe so it makes absolutely no difference to them if a WC is held in Chile or Spain. They are used to both climates.

No, if anything it has proven to be a disadvantage because many of South America's top European-based players end up getting the same "celebrity lifestyle disease" that affects so many of the top European players, and sometimes end up not playing with the same hunger as before they arrived in Europe.

As for the younger, more hungry, South American-based stars on the South American teams, they are at a disadvantage playing most of the World Cups outside their own continent. Yet they still win the most World Cups outside of home.

If a tournament is being held in N/S America then the SA teams have a clear advantage over the Europeans

Exactly, which is why FIFA has only held 4 World Cups in South America.

but if it's held in Europe than Europeans have 0% advantage over the South Americans.

This is not correct. Europe has a very real home advantage, which is why FIFA has held no less then 10 World Cups there! Even with having hosted 10 World Cups, Europe has only been able to win 9 of them in Europe. If they were so superior, it stands to reason they would have won all 10, PLUS at least 5 World Cups outside of Europe the way South America has done, no?

But of course Europe has not been able to do this like South America has done, because they are NOT as good as South America :)

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 15:24

With equal chances ( when the tournament is being held in Europe), South Americans are the traditional losers.

South America has won a World Cup in Europe. Europe has NEVER won a World Cup in South America or any other continent outside of Europe. Remember, South America has won World Cups on ALL FOUR CONTINENTS. Europe has NOT been able to win a World Cup outside of Europe. This speaks volumes about which continent is better at football.

The only real argument you have here is the WC held in Japan/Korea , nothing else. Ok, maybe USA also.

Thank you.

winning the WC on penalties doesn't imply SA teams were better than the Europeans.

A win is a win. Italy has also won a World Cup on penalties. But even if you take away the win in America, both Brazil and Argentina have still won the World Cup in Mexico, which is still the North American continent.

Jim_UK

18-03-2007, 15:26

Firstly, why does this need a new thread? Are you that desperate for attention that you just had to open a new one on the same topic? :rollani:

Secondly you keep using national achievments as a basis for South American football being better, but we're talking about domestic football so all the "we've won the world cup x amount of times" is quite frankly irrelevant.

On a domestic level, all the proof there is that South American football is better is the Club championship and that is a one off game and hardly good enough evidence to say one is better than the other. The only way you can possibly conclude one is superior is if there were a regular league/cup competition with more than just 1 or 2 rounds.

As for the best training/coaching facilities, the majority of these are found in Europe and not South America.

If South American football didn't unearth these skillful players would you still say it's the best in the world? I doubt it.

You have your opinion and i have mine, nothing you can say or no amount of twisting my words to suit your cause will lead me to believe that South American football is better.

zlatanov

18-03-2007, 15:27

Wrong, wrong, and even more wrong. While there are some good coaches to be found in the upper echelon of Latin leagues of Europe (Spain, Italy, Portugal) and the Netherlands, the truth is that the best coaches in the world are consistently found in Brazil and Argentina.
My saying that the the best coaches are found in Europe is just as speculative as your statement above - no facts to back it up, just speculation ... or should I call it a 6th sense :rolleyes:

The amount of times South America has won the World Cup
could you be so kind to provide us with numbers for this "fact" of yours ... here is a clue for the clueless - how many world cups have been played so far? ... 18 and how many of them were won by SA teams (Brazil 5, Argentina 2, Uruguay 2)? ... 9, so how many WCups have Eurpean Countries won? ... I guess 9 ... so, yeah your logic holds true 9 > 9 :rolleyes:

their dominance of the world club championship
uuuhhh, excuse me but the only ones who care about the world club champioship are SA teams and Japanese football fans ... European teams consider winning the CL for the top prize in club football.
Also, when the world club championsip is played, European teams are in the middile of their season and players have to play league and CL games every 2-3 days ... for SA teams their domestic leagues have barely started, while the new season for the Libertadores Cup has not even begun, so they have their players fresh as green apples.

as well as their consistent development of the world's greatest players throughout football history (Pele, DiStefano, Maradonna, Romario, Ronaldinho, etc, etc.) proves this.
uhhhhh, sorry but your so called arguments are full of hot air - the only south american players of those you mentioned, who developed to become the players we know in SA teams is Pele ... all the rest are only SA talents, who were developed as the world class players they became in European Teams - DiStefano (Real M, without Real, DiStefano would hardly be the name he is today), Maradona (Barca, Napoli), Romarion, Ronaldo (PSV, Barca, etc, etc), Ronaldinho (PSG, Barca) ...

before he came to Europe, Dinho was a great talent, biut not a great player ... he became a great player under the influence of European football ... this is a fact, meaybe he would have been equally great if he stayed at Gremio, maybe not ... that however is a speculation ... although, based on your other arguments, that's as good as a fact n your book :rolleyes:

The South American clubs also have the best youth academies and training facilities/systems in all of football. Any top scout from Europe will tell you this but it is a big "no-no" to say it publicly because UEFA must continue its propaganda for financial purposes.
uhhhh, again, care to give us some facts to support that other than a "gut feeling of some teenager who stumbled upon a PC and decided to leave his mark on a forum or two?

It's obvious that a lot of talanted players come from SA teams but to say that their schools are better or whatever when just as many talanted players come out of European teams is laughable ignorance at it's best.
Any interviews with those "scouts" ... or maybe you are writing a book? Would you send me a copy ... with an autograph if you don't mind? :rolleyes:

As for longest traditions, you only display your ignorance with your statement. The legendary clubs of South America has just as long, if not longer, traditions then most of their European counterparts. Did you also know that the Copa America (South America championship for nations) is the oldest national teams competition in the world?
it's funny that you speak of ignorance because I'd bet my Milan scarf that if I was to open the latest edition of the Oxford dictionary and looked up that same word, I would find you picture against it ... nothing else as the picture would say it all.

Let me check your history a little here ... or maybe you will be covering that next year when you are 7th grade in school - have you ever heard of something called WWII? How about the words disctruction and rebuilding ...
See, my ignorant friend, Europe was the scene of the main battles in WWII and most countries, the lucky ones, were partially devastated ... the rest, fully devastated ... It took Europe a lot of US billions and 10-15 years to come back to it's feet ... in times like that, forming football competitions is hardly the first thing on people's minds.

And I am not gonna even bother explaining that WWI ended 20 years before WWII started ... again, being the epicenter of 2 world wars in a span of 20-30 years (not local conflicts but WORLD WARs), Europe had a little more important things to take care of than play international football competitions.

Want some more clues to get you out of that comfortable place you are occupying in ignorance-ville?
Germany, easily the most devastated country in WWII, along with Russia, formed it's domestic league, the Bundesliga, in the 60s ... close to 20 years after the end of WWII ... that should about give you a clue or two why Europe, as a whole, was in no hurry to form a Champions League before the mid 1950s.

You can relax now, end of lesson 1 ... now, stop wasting other people's time with your foolish posts and use your PC for more educational purposes or better yet - go back to the books.

Kaka1899

18-03-2007, 15:27

Originally posted by Il Duce
In the end, there is an inherent feeling of comfort for Portugal because they are playing in Europe.

so saying that why didnt Korea,China or Japan win the 2002 world cup? seen as they had the comfort of been at home.

also if South America is so superior how come most of there players play in europe not south america? (apart from Argentina who 75% play for Inter :D)

Kaka1899

18-03-2007, 15:34

My saying that the the best coaches are found in Europe is just as speculative as your statement above - no facts to back it up, just speculation ... or should I call it a 6th sense :rolleyes:

could you be so kind to provide us with numbers for this "fact" of yours ... here is a clue for the clueless - how many world cups have been played so far? ... 18 and how many of them were won by SA teams (Brazil 5, Argentina 2, Uruguay 2)? ... 9, so how many WCups have Eurpean Countries won? ... I guess 9 ... so, yeah your logic holds true 9 > 9 :rolleyes:

uuuhhh, excuse me but the only ones who care about the world club champioship are SA teams and Japanese football fans ... European teams consider winning the CL for the top prize in club football.
Also, when the world club championsip is played, European teams are in the middile of their season and players have to play league and CL games every 2-3 days ... for SA teams their domestic leagues are have barely started, while the new season for the Libertadores Cup has not even began, so they have their players fresh as green apples.

uhhhhh, sorry but your so called arguments are full of hot air - the only south american players of those you mentioned, who developed to become the players we know in SA teams is Pele ... all the rest are only SA talents, who were developed as the world class players they became in European Teams - DiStefano (Real M, without Real, DiStefano would hardly be the name he is today), Maradona (Barca, Napoli), Romarion, Ronaldo (PSV, Barca, etc, etc), Ronaldinho (PSG, Barca) ...

before he came to Europe, Dinho was a great talent, biut not a great player ... he became a great player under the influence of European football ... this is a fact, meaybe he would have been equally great if he stayed at Gremio, maybe not ... that however is a speculation ... although, based on your other arguments, that's as good as a fact n your book :rolleyes:

uhhhh, again, care to give us some facts to support that other than a "gut feeling of some teenager who stumbled upon a PC and decided to leave his mark on a forum or two?

It's obvious that a lot of talanted players come from SA teams but to say that their schools are better or whatever when just as many talanted players come out of European teams is laughable ignorance at it's best.
Any interviews with those "scouts" ... or maybe you are writing a book? Would you send me a copy ... with an autograph if you don't mind? :rolleyes:

it's funny that you speak of ignorance because I'd bet my Milan scarf that if I was to open the latest edition of the Oxford dictionary and looked up that same word, I would find you picture against it ... nothing else as the picture would say it all.

Let me check you history a little here ... or maybe you will be covering that next year when you are 8th grade in high school - have you ever heard of something called WWII? How about the words disctruction and rebuilding ...
See, my ignorant friend, Europe was the scene of the main battles in WWII and most countries, the lucky ones, were partially devastated ... the rest, fully devastated ... It took Europe a lot of US billions and 10-15 years to come back to it's feet ... in times like that, forming football competitions is hardly the first thing on people's minds.
And I am not gonna even bother explaining that WWI ended 20 years before WWII started ... again, being the epicenter of 2 world wars in a span of 20-30 years (not local conflicts but WORLD WARs), Europe had a little more important things to take care of than play international football competitions.

Want some more clues to get you out of that comfotable place you are occupying in ignorance-ville?
Germany, easily the most devastated country in WWII, along with Russia, formed it's domestic league, the Bundesliga, in the 60s ... colose to 20 years after the end of WWII ... that should about give you a clue or two about why Europe was in no hurry to form a Champions League before the mid 1950s.

You can relax now, end of lesson 1 ... now, stop wasting other people's time with your foolish posts and use your PC for more educational purposes or better yet - go back to the books.
I think thats officially called been Owned! Il Duce Zlat has just Owned you there are no come backs to this so just leave it mate. :grinser:

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 15:38

Kaka1889, I will get to you my friend, but let me reply to Jim UK again. I can not help but reply to his ignorance first...

Jim, I will continue to destroy your points one-by-one:

Secondly you keep using national achievments as a basis for South American football being better, but we're talking about domestic football so all the "we've won the world cup x amount of times" is quite frankly irrelevant

Jim, I repeat, if proving South America's superiority at national level, club level, and individual level doesn't prove the continent's superiority, then what does I ask you?

I have given you statistical proof that South America consistently performs better then Europe at national level, club level, and individual level. If you refuse to see the sun and call it the sun, then there's nothing I can do for you my friend.

On a domestic level, all the proof there is that South American football is better is the Club championship and that is a one off game and hardly good enough evidence to say one is better than the other. The only way you can possibly conclude one is superior is if there were a regular league/cup competition with more than just 1 or 2 rounds.

Jim my ignorantly bliss friend, did you know that the Toyota Cup world club championship played between the champions of South America and Europe was a 2-legged (sometimes 3-legged) series (with one game played in South America, and the other played in Europe) from 1960 to 1979? Oh yes it was Jim, and do you know which continent won the most times under this system (and remember that both teams were at full strength)?

It was SOUTH AMERICA, winning 10 times to Europe's 8.

Tony29.

18-03-2007, 15:53

Zlat , "thanx" for closing the other thread.

I spent 20 minutes replying to Benito and now it's lost after i clicked confirm ...grrrrr

:)

Close this one also ;)

zlatanov

18-03-2007, 15:54

Zlat , "thanx" for closing the other thread.

I spent 20 minutes replying to Benito and now it's lost after i clicked confirm ...grrrrr

:)

Close this one also ;)
sorry about that ... will close it if it goes in the same direction :)

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 15:56

what does that prove?

It proves that the South American clubs are better. South American football as a whole continually proves itself better then Europe.

As for the people who say the European teams are in the middle of the season, that is actually an advantage as it means they are in form.

As for saying that the European teams don't take it seriously, this is just an excuse to cover your humiliation. Every European team that has gone into the world club championship has stated how seriously they do indeed take it, and structure their whole schedule around it and field full strength sides. Manchester United even dropped out of the FA Cup to participate in 2000, and a full strength Man U side got hammered 3-1 by Brazilian champions Vasco da Gama LOL.

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 15:58

Zlatanov, why close a thread with a good discussion? All I did was post facts and figures compared to the nationalistic opinions of the pro-Europe members. Does the truth hurt?

zlatanov

18-03-2007, 16:01

As for the people who say the European teams are in the middle of the season, that is actually an advantage as it means they are in form.

again missed the whole point of that argument - it's not an advantage when you have to play competitive games every 2-3 days or so ... SA players are playing only demestic competitons at that point and while they are able to get in form, they do not have to spend their energy on two fronts - domestic league and Libertadores cup ...
You can see that as an excuse, depending on your bias, but it's also a fact and nothing that you say will change that.

zlatanov

18-03-2007, 16:03

Zlatanov, why close a thread with a good discussion? All I did was post facts and figures compared to the nationalistic opinions of the pro-Europe members. Does the truth hurt?
In that last post I told you why ... your attitude is bound to turn a discussion in a war of words ... and the only reason why it didn't happen already is because people just chose to ignore you.

You have to undertsand something - you have your views, other people have theirs but when you start an argument, at least have your facts straight ... and I think already showed you that you didn't 9=9 ;)

Jim_UK

18-03-2007, 16:04

Don't call me ignorant again, you don't know me well enough to even begin to label me with such tags.

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 16:09

Zlatanov...

You can see that as an excuse, depending on your bias, but it's also a fact and nothing that you say will change that.

The only FACT is that the South American champions have won the world club championship more times against the European champions. Everything else is just opinion.

Now your opinion is that the European fixture list works to a disadvantage to the European teams, whereas I think it works to their advantage as they are in form.

My opinion is that the South American champion is at the disadvantage of being out of form, having completed their season and Libertadores Cup a few weeks before the FIFA world club championship.

But let us not forget the FACT that the South American clubs have been more dominant.

zlatanov

18-03-2007, 16:22

As a I said, depending on your bias ;)

Thread closed temporarily ... maybe ... for the same reasons as the other one.

Il Duce

18-03-2007, 16:23

zlatanov

18-03-2007, 16:27

Zlatanov, you also mention 9-9, but you failed to mention that South America has won 9 World Cups while only hosting 4 of them. Europe has hosted 10 World Cups, yet only managed to win it 9 times on home soil.

South America has also won the World Cup 5 times outside its own continent, AND they have won it on ALL 4 continents that the World Cup has been hosted in (South America, Europe, North America, Asia). Europe on the other hand as NEVER won the World Cup outside of Europe.

These statistics prove the superiority of South America in football. Any experienced oddsmaker will tell you the same thing as well.
nice stats, they don't mentione however that when Argentina beat Peru 5-1, 6-1 or something like that and eased their way to a WC titel on home soil, an Argentinian cargo ship arrived at a Peruvian harbour carrying ... expensive goods ;)

All in all, there is a lot of sides to the story that stats don't tell

zlatanov

18-03-2007, 16:27

I am closing this thread as it could well go into forbiden territories ... not to mentions the total cluelessness and pointlessness behind its creation in the first place, for the only purpose of creating havoc and not discussion.

@ Il Duce ... read the forum rules and get them all thru your head if you intend to last longer than a summer breaze on this forum.

Change your attitude, and the thread will be opened again.
As for whether truth hurts or not, you should know better than anyone.

zlatanov

18-03-2007, 17:30

thread open again now.

Tony29.

18-03-2007, 17:33

First of all, there has never been a Brazil-Portugal final for this point to even be relevant, but the advantage would clearly go to Portugal. This is because the time change and traveling time is not as bad for Portugal as it is for Brazil. Portugal has also played in Russia and the rest of the European countries far more times then Brazil has and this is another advantage. In the end, there is an inherent feeling of comfort for Portugal because they are playing in Europe.
Time change ? Travelling time ?
What does time change has to do with Brazilian or Argentinian players ?
They'd feel the consequences of the time change if a WC is held in Mexico but they won't feel it if it's held in Europe.
They all live in Europe, remember ? ;)
Yeah, Portugesse or Italian or English players have played in Russia several times.
And by several times i mean - as much as Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Dida, Cafu, Ze Roberto, Lucio, Juan, Cris, Edmilson, Emerson, Denilson, Kaka, Adriano, Robinho, Juninho, Ayala, Heinze, Samuel, Riquelme, Saviola, Crespo, Cambiasso, Santa Cruz, Pizzaro, Cordoba, Gammara, Salas etc have played in Russia and less than Carvalho, Dudu or Vagner Lowe have played in Russia....... so, absolutely no advantage for Europeans here !

And why should Cristiano Ronaldo feel comfored if he plays on a WC in Europe ? What's the difference between Russia or Sweden and Tunisia or Morocco to him ?
I think it's totally the oposite. He'd enjoy more if he plays in Brazil where he'll find the same language and similar culture than playing in European far north.
And then again, what's the difference between South Africa and Italy to Kaka ?
Why should he feel comfored if a WC is being held out of Europe and won't feel comfored if it's held in a country where he actually lives ?

As for the younger, more hungry, South American-based stars on the South American teams, they are at a disadvantage playing most of the World Cups outside their own continent. Yet they still win the most World Cups outside of home.
Errr.... what young South American based players who win World Cups ?
95% of the starting 11 players in every SA National Team play in Europe

Exactly, which is why FIFA has only held 4 World Cups in South America.
Great point.
It's a public secret FIFA is giving World Cups to European countries because they are affraid some South American team may win it otherwise.
Only fools believe an economic power like Germany gets a WC in front of Colombia because of other reasons.
Only fear, like i said !

This is not correct. Europe has a very real home advantage, which is why FIFA has held no less then 10 World Cups there! Even with having hosted 10 World Cups, Europe has onlybeen able to win 9 of them in Europe. If they were so superior, it stands to reason they would have won all 10, PLUS at least 5 World Cups outside of Europe the way South America has done, no?

But of course Europe has not been able to do this like South America has done, because they are NOT as good as South America

Mind blowing argument !
Winning only 9 out of 10 tournaments on european soil is shamefull.
Especially if we compare it to the 4 WC S.Americans won on their soil.

Lets take a look at those 4 tournaments :

1930 - Uruguay
Some of the best European football teams didn't participate on the opening WC.
They found it too expensive to travel 1 month with a ship.
1 month on the road, different time zone ( which in this case does counts as an argument) , no supporters at all, different climate ........... i'd have counted it as the 8th world wonder if a European team won this WC . Just like it was next to impossibile a South American team to win the 1934 or 1938 WC's.

1950 - Brazil
Almost the same things as in 1930 count for this WC

1962 - Chile
This time i have no defense. Brazilians were the best.

1978 - Argentina
It was a scandal to see the Argies at the final. 6:0 against Peru was the greatest farse of all time.

At the end i'll give two stupid arguments.

How many times was the WC final ALL South America ?
1930, 1950 ....... that's it
How many times was the WC finall ALL Europe ?
1934, 1938, 1954, 1966, 1974, 1982, 2006

How many times all 4 teams in the semifinals were from South America ?
None
How many times all 4 teams in the semifinals were from Europe ?
1934, 1966, 1982, 2006

Oh my God, Europeans are better. There you have your proof !

kastriot

18-03-2007, 18:04

It would be such a shame a post like not to be posted!!!Special thnx to mods for re-opening the thread!!!

I`m nominating this post for March!!!

zlatanov

18-03-2007, 19:35

yes, indeed, nice post by Tony ... some good points there ;)

Whoah10115

18-03-2007, 20:27

No, in addition to South America's national acheivements, I have also posted club achievements and the consistent production of best players in the world.

If proving South America's superiority at national level, club level, and individual level doesn't prove the continent's superiority, then what does I ask you?

How you equate a world club championship between two teams at full strength and in form to a silly charity shield is beyond me. If that's the best YOU'VE got, then your argument is already in shambles my friend :)

Actually read a response please...REGARDLESS of WHY they LEAVE, the point is they LEAVE. The best players in South America go to Europe, no? European clubs have the BEST SOUTH AMERICAN PLAYERS and they ALSO HAVE the BEST European players. If you combine the best from one continent along with the best from another continent, and then add the best African players and random great players from other regions then how can South America be better? Are you saying that the Brazilians playing in Brasil are better than the Brazilians playing in Europe? I would think not. Are there a great amount of great Europeans, Africans, and other non-South American nationalities playing in Brasil? NO. So your argument leads nowhere.

And I'm Brazilian.

drucurl

18-03-2007, 23:43

zlatanov

19-03-2007, 00:56

Oh quit it already!! :mad: If Europe is better than South America why on earth are they always pillaging South American talent?? Its all a financial issue. Europe can pay these South American players more than their South American counterparts! Duuuuuuuh!
that's exactly what Whoah's point was, at least a club level - if European clubs pull the best SA talents and add it to the best European talent, how is it possible that they are not better?
As for NT level ... the stats that Tony mentioned speak well for themselves. I personally would put both European and SA teams at one level as there are so many factors that a fair comparison is close to impossible ... to say however that SA are clearly better when they have won just as many WC as Europeans is just plain ... well, you put a word there so that I don't end up offending someone ;).

The best players ever are South American...One can even arguably assemble a list of the top ten players ever, without including a single European. European nations have recognised this and are making extensive use of 'naturalized' South American and African players.
This is an opinion, not a factual statement for which you have any evidence ... if I were to ask 10 people to compile me a list of the best players ever, I would get 10 dif lists. All in all, which players are on that list is all a matter of opinion, nothing more nothing less.
Just like you could compile a list of SA stars only, I could do the same with Europeans only on that list ... and will do so without breaking a sweat ;).

Investing in SA players has nothing to do with an admission on anything - it's is simply getting the creme della creme from both worlds, or more precisely from everything the world has to offer - SA, European, African, Middle or Far East ... just doesn't matter.

Also, don't confuse buying talanted SA players with making those talents into "accomplished" players. For instamnce, the maradonas, Batistitas, Redondos and so on you might be putting on that list of yours, were made the players they were also thru their experience in Europe ... and this is true for virtually all SA greats of the last 20-30 years ... only notable exceptions were the Brazilian and Argentinian players of Pele's and Garincha's generation when the world was not so small and players rarely transfered fromone continent to another.

As for player development, sure Europe is the best. This is because education technology and infrastructure are at their pinnacle in European football. Without European development all we have on this side of the world is essentially raw talent. However I don not subscribe to the view that the list of stars quoted by Zlatanov would not have seen positive evolution on their game were it not for the training they received at their eurpoean clubs. don't forget the most important component of European influence on SA talents - different mentality/attitude/philosophy ... there are dif names for it.
I don't remember ANYONE before you saying that if those players had NOT come to Europe but stayed in SA, they wouldn't have had the chance to become equally great players ... actually, I remember someone saying exactly the opposite ;).
This however is a speculation and is reserved for those who wanna explore the theory of parallel universies ... in the universe that we live in and percieve as "real" Maradona did go to Europe, so did Batistuta, Ronaldo, Romario, Dinho, you name them - they did came to Europe ... that's a fact, everything else belongs in the realm of "IFs and IF NOTs" i.e. speculative dreaming.

Take for instance, Ronaldo.....many mightn't know this but he actually was lethal in the air :str: at cruzerio. The Ronaldo that came to Europe was more versatile (if less effective) an attacker than the star worshiped in Barca and Inter. I'm not saying that Europe hasn't improved his/their skills. Such an assertion would be ludicrous. However, to say that the converse is true would be equally high handed.
no offense but where did you get/read that "Ronaldo was lethal in the air at Cruzeiro" ... how many times have you watched him terrorize defenses on a regural basis with his header given that the guy was barely 17-18 when he came to PSV and played 14 games for Cruzeiro's first team in his entire career so far ... I kind of doubt that you or anyone else will have such an "accomplished" opinion on his game in the air from 14 games ....

And to say that his coming to Europe limited his game in the air is just out of place, I think - Ronaldo was, most of the time, given a free role as a striker and the freedom and space to do what he does best - be unpredictable ... he's scored many times with the head, left, right leg .... as it come to him .... you however make it sound as if coaches in Europe deliberately limited his game, which is, shall I say, a speculation with hardly any grounds whatsoever.

And again to remind you of the limit between fact and fiction - the Ronaldo who we, and especially you, worship is the Ronaldo influenced by Europe. If he had stayed in SA maybe he would have become a better player, maybe not ... one thing's for sure though - the non-European Ronaldo doesn't exist in the real world we live in - what might have been, what could have been no one can say for sure ... we, however, know for sure what the "European" Ronaldo has done and is doing and that's a fact that should not be used and abused to speculate that he could have been better off in SA.

The thing I have noticed about Eurpoean football is that there is a tendancy to ***eonhole players into set roles....hence when the need arises for these players to perform in different capacities, they are pathetic at it. This is perhaps a necessary side effect of "honing one's skills" however there are also avantages of the more holistic development practised elsewhere.

To illustrate my point further, I'm sure that it wouldn't be too far a stretch for anyone to picture a Brazillian, and to a lesser extent, Argentine and Uraguayan defender playing up front with too much mess.....However the converse cannot be said for the average European defender/ defensive player (Paolo Maldini and John Terry are the nost notable exceptions)
Drucurl, what you said above is as true for SA football as it is for European ... I however am sure that you bias against European football mentality is based on the deception that just because Europeans talk more about tactics, they simply must be "limiting" their players in their developement ... hey, not all europeans are Capellos, you know ;)

And if you watch as much SA football as you claim you are, you will see that players have more or less defined roles there too ... not many defenders would be seen as center forwards over there either ;)

Just to point out a couple of things - Mancini (Roma) came to Europe as a RB ... now he is playing at Roma as support striker/forward. Not to mention the versatility of players like our own Stam, Kaladze, Brocchi ... oh boy, where am I going with this - if I have to mention all versatile players in European football who one day play at one position and then the next day in a dif role, I would probably have to name 1/3 of all players. :sweeteye:

Although what you said above is more of a "gut feeling" than anything you can support with evidence/facts, let me remind you that it was Euroepan and Dutch powerhouse Ajax and coaches like Stefan Kovac and Rinuus Michels who gave the world the idea of total football where all players attack and defend like one (as in basketball, is how Kovac put it) and also dif players are taught to play in many dif positions ... And to this day, clubs famous with their youth programs like Ajax, Barca, etc are following these ideas.

All in all, watch more SA football and please take note when you see a def play in midfield or attack or the other way around ... and then compare your "notes" with those you took from European football ... you will see no dif, I assure you as the world is a much smaller place now than it was 50-60 years ago, when your claim would have most probably been true :).

drucurl

19-03-2007, 01:56

Too tired atm to source all my proof, but I've got almost all ronaldo's goals at cruzerio and at his first year at PSV and YES he WAS lethal in the air. When you look at his Cruzerio scoring record and you watch hoe many came off his head it doesn't take a genius to see that he was proficient at headed goals

Additionally my point was more about the versatility of the players, not the ways they are played. I'd be pretty dumb not to give credit to the TOTAL FOOTBALL revolution at Ajax. However you must note that at one time Brazil played with five forwards in any match....each of whom defended as well.

Also a lot of this discussion is based on the hypothetical. If you are going to discredit each "if" then there is no discussion. I could easily ask "Why have there been no european players that could shine Maradonna's / Pele's boots". You might well replay with an "if" yourself :nerd: Hence its only normal that I'd make educated guesses as to what might have been if the shoe were on the other foot.

Tony29.

19-03-2007, 03:30

If Europe is better than South America....
Who says so ? ;)

drucurl

19-03-2007, 07:28

Who says so ? ;)
not me ;) I actually think that when the dust settles we're all equal :5ok:

zlatanov

19-03-2007, 07:46

Also a lot of this discussion is based on the hypothetical. If you are going to discredit each "if" then there is no discussion. I could easily ask "Why have there been no european players that could shine Maradonna's / Pele's boots". You might well replay with an "if" yourself :nerd: Hence its only normal that I'd make educated guesses as to what might have been if the shoe were on the other foot.
that's where the problem is dru, you support your arguments, most of them, with hypothetical assumptions or as you put it - educational guesses - of what might have been and what might not have been ... call me weird, but in my book a real argument is the one supported by facts not by dreamed out alternatives to reality.
it's one thing to just have a discussion about what things could have been, only if ... and just leave it at that but you are not doing that - you are using these hypothetical thoughts and use them to "prove" a point when your own so called "proof" needs itself to be proven in the first place.

As for shining Maradona's boots and whatnot, that's purely a question of personal opinion ... only in Pele's case one could argue with facts that he is the best and that's mostly because of his WC titles and 1000+ goals but those are titles won and goals scored in a dif time when football was that long gone romantic idea of open and static defenses and midfields with rather unrefined tactics compared to what football has turned into over the past 20-30 years or so.

I for one don't see Yohan Cruyff as inferior to Maradona - every player was at the top in his own era of football, under totally dif circumstances and no logical and objective comparisons/parallels can be drawn between them, although that's what fans just LOVE to do - speculate, favourize, and generalize using their own SUBJECTIVE opinion as "proof".

Jim_UK

19-03-2007, 07:53

European football is better :D

zlatanov

19-03-2007, 07:57

no, South American is muuuuuch better :grinser:

Kui

19-03-2007, 08:11

South American football is a tomato.
European football is brocholi.
I make a great salad enjoying both. Nor can I have one without the other.
Something Mussolini here never understood.

drucurl

19-03-2007, 08:11

zlat, I have too much work to do this morning..otherwise I'd gladly take you apart.....but keep in mind that by your saying that Maradonna wasn't superior to Cryuff etc you're doing just the same thing as me.

The hypothetical must be employed to compare players of differnet eras.

.....the way how you skimmed through my proof about my statements about Superman (aka Ronaldo :D )...was also quite good :D.

So zlat and jim, just kiss and make up already :p155:

Jim_UK

19-03-2007, 08:33

no, South American is muuuuuch better :grinser:

pffft :d55:

:delol:

I don't think i'd want broccoli in my salad .... in a pasta sauce maybe, but not a salad.

Drucurl ... what me and zlat do in our own time is our own business, if we do kiss and make up we won't be doing it in front of an audience :devf:

Kui

19-03-2007, 08:39

I don't think i'd want broccoli in my salad .... in a pasta sauce maybe, but not a salad.

hows this than...
SA footie... tomato
Euro footie.... spinach

makes a great salad and I can have one without the other. sound better to you or do you not like spinach either?

Jim_UK

19-03-2007, 08:45

i like spinach and i like broccoli, just not in salads.

zlatanov

19-03-2007, 09:59

zlat, I have too much work to do this morning..otherwise I'd gladly take you apart.....but keep in mind that by your saying that Maradonna wasn't superior to Cryuff etc you're doing just the same thing as me.

exactly, dru, that's why I gave you that example - to show you how stretchy a personal opinion can be when used to "prove" a virtually "unprovable" issue like this ... in the end of the day, such arguments are more a question of subjective opinion than objective truth.
Now I guess we are thinking alike :5ok:
i like spinach and i like broccoli, just not in salads.
Jim, I think in italy they eat spinach salad with some garlic and olive oil and maybe some lemon juice or vinegar for dressing.
if you try it, however, don't hope for a kiss from me :grinser:

Stezagud

19-03-2007, 12:35

Too tired atm to source all my proof, but I've got almost all ronaldo's goals at cruzerio and at his first year at PSV and YES he WAS lethal in the air. When you look at his Cruzerio scoring record and you watch hoe many came off his head it doesn't take a genius to see that he was proficient at headed goals

I really dont see how coming to Europe could have affected his ability to head a ball? being good in the air requires timing and anticipation and both are fairly natural skills for a striker and it would be difficult to 'unlearn' them.

There is a more plausable alternative though, that being that defences in Europe are simply more organised, particularly in relation to full backs, and are usually more equiped to deal with crosses. I think it is far more likely that instead of Ronaldo getting worse its just a case of the defenses getting better.

I did come back to this thread to respond with the original poster but he appears to have gone quiet after Zlat taught him what it really means to have your post dismantled piece by piece :D

Stezagud

19-03-2007, 12:56

As for saying that the European teams don't take it seriously, this is just an excuse to cover your humiliation. Every European team that has gone into the world club championship has stated how seriously they do indeed take it, and structure their whole schedule around it and field full strength sides. Manchester United even dropped out of the FA Cup to participate in 2000, and a full strength Man U side got hammered 3-1 by Brazilian champions Vasco da Gama LOL.

LOL?

whats funny is that you think that tournament was treated seriously :dielaugh: The club was criticised in England for dropping out of the FA Cup to basically go on holiday, in fact they all came back from their holiday with batteries recharged and it was very helpful to Utd whose refreshed players ended up winning the league that year :D

Its laughable you weuld use these tournaments to prove South American superiority, it is akin to deciding which is the strongest European league going on Super Cup wins :dielaugh: It is telling that you consider it important, it certainly backs up the suggestion that South America takes it more seriously, doesnt it? ;)

Jim_UK

19-03-2007, 16:21

Jim, I think in italy they eat spinach salad with some garlic and olive oil and maybe some lemon juice or vinegar for dressing.
if you try it, however, don't hope for a kiss from me :grinser:

I prefer my spinach a little wilted, like on a pizza, in pasta or in a curry/side-dish like sag aloo or something.

Seeing as you LOOOOOOOOOVE garlic so much zlat, looks like we'll be made for each other :ilol:

Milanista4ever

19-03-2007, 19:49

Maybe South Americans have more raw talent and skills, but Europeans are much better at discipline, tactics, strength, organization. Overall, it must be clear that, as important as South America is to football, Europe is the center of global football, no question about it.

Warro Bantan

20-03-2007, 15:34

Ahh, lively debate, which I have caught late, but never fear, Warro the Bantan is here!

Ok..that being said...the whole argument, is quite likely to be subjective, as where one side has provided empirical evidence, this is discounted by the other side, usually with intangibles such as: "The European teams never cared about it..." which begs the question: If u arent interested in it, why play? And if u play, dont you give your best as a professional, in your employers kit, to win?

As a Jamaican, and a lover of the S American game, I tend to agree with Il Duce, and drucurl...my European counterparts will differ, and this I expect, and comes as no surprise.

There is no disputing the fact that Europe has the better football infrastructure in general and attracts players from SA in droves, but is this a simply a function of the financial disparity? I think so.

For example: I earn US$40,000 a year playing for River Plate, I am a star, worshipped by my fans, but I can only drive a Honda Accord (albeit a new one). I can go to any major European league, or even a second division team, and earn this per week!! Whats to debate about where I want to play next?

So, apart from the fact that there is more money to be had in Europe, I will also be playing with other "world renowned stars" of the game, such as Ronaldo, Ronaldinho etc etc...who all left before me to play where the money is the most.

There tends to be some amount of xenophobia from Europeans with regard to their football..."The UEFA Champions League is the biggest and best club competition in the world", yet the much vaunted and feared Barca lost to Internazionale of Porto Allegro...who are they anyway? Most people outside of die hard football fans probably never heard of this team before!!! Liverpool was "schooled" by...who was it? Sao Paulo? Milan lost to Riquelme´s Boca Juniors, as did Real Madrid with Zidane and Raul I believe. In fact, how long has it been since a European team won the playoff between the two continents? Tony? Zlat? Jim?

If we chose to ignore the statistics, then the argument descends into pure speculation...it is difficult to say that Di Stafano for instance, only improved after he got to Madrid in his 30s!!! Normally waaaaaaay past one´s prime and sell by date...but was it a result of being in immaculate form, or because the players around him were inferior...or was it the better medical facilities etc that allowed him to play at the highest level for such a long time? We will probably never know, even though he is alive, and all that would need to be done is to ask him...:D

At the risk of being political, Europe´s´advances, from a technological standpoint, due primarily to years of incessant warfare, created nation states, which, with their ability to create weapons (of that time) of mass destruction, were able to carve the rest of the world up between them. Thus the creation of the countries of the "new hemisphere", and the African nations...

What really has changed since? Europe continues to take the best from these countries, and football is no exception, with very little return for these deductions...not that I am disparaging Europe for doing so...its mankinds seemingly inevitable fate for the strong to rule the weak, economically, physically, or anywise.

So, if we look strictly at the empirical data, and leave the geo-historical/political talk behind, South America, has produced, better footballers (generally), won more tangibles, ie trophies, and remains the best production line of talent in the known Universe.

This is my opinion and no amount of dissection, "owning", or anything of the sort will change it...this is all based on over 2 decades of personal experience...

Milanista4ever has made a good point, that "Europe is the center of global football" and there is no denying that...but as to the debate as to who is "better" I have to give the props to SAmerica....

One can like the brainless big kicks, and manic running of the EPL, the tactically sound Serie A, the skillfull La Liga, the lovely melting pot of styles that is the French Ligue Un, or the practical to a fault Bundesliga...but for sheer enjoyment, give me a Boca or River match any day!!

In closing, as a moderator, I should never have typed the 9th paragraph, but felt compelled to do so. Therefore, if anyone feels that it should be deleted, I will be more than happy to do so, (or another mod can) as I am totally aware that it is quite political in nature, but I felt it had to be said, to keep everything in context, but in truth, I think its more historical than political.

And thats my 2 cents.

SANT

20-03-2007, 16:36

Warro, I'd edit it, but there are too many paragraphs to find #9 :tired:

if we were able to overlook another more political line from a previous post in this page, we can surely overlook this one too...

(No, don't scroll up just to find which one I was talking about)...

Warro Bantan

21-03-2007, 09:48

Well, if there are complaints, I will remove it myself, if not, I will let it stay. Thanks though SANT, for ur comment.

Stezagud

21-03-2007, 12:50

There is no disputing the fact that Europe has the better football infrastructure in general and attracts players from SA in droves, but is this a simply a function of the financial disparity? I think so.

But thats more of a side issue. The debate is over which continent is better and the financial issue deals more with the 'why'.

as where one side has provided empirical evidence, this is discounted by the other side, usually with intangibles such as: "The European teams never cared about it..." which begs the question: If u arent interested in it, why play? And if u play, dont you give your best as a professional, in your employers kit, to win?

The comparison i made with the English Charity Shield was real enough. That too is a game with a trophy at stake, often between 2 of the biggest sides in the country and obviously neither want to lose, but in terms of intensity and competitiveness it in no way compares to a league match.

Another good example is the Euro Super Cup, the side that appears through Champions League success is usually not particularly bothered as they have already won the biggest prize going as far as European teams are concerned. The UEFA Cup winner generally is slightly more competitive because they know the prize they hold is generally regarded as inferior and therefore they have something to prove. Since it became a single game match the UEFA Cup winners have won 6 to the Champions Leagues 3, going by that evidence the UEFA Cup is clearly the better competition ;)

That is perhaps the better comparison, the Libertadores sides know that Europe (and the world) consider the best South American talent to play in Europe, and thus the fact that these players are still representing South American sides gives them a bit of an inferiority complex. The Libertadores sides approach the game with something to prove as they are seen to hold the lesser trophy...

I'll leave the political point without response, not through offence as it is pretty much accurate, but because i think it too falls under the 'why' argument, which wasnt the point of the thread.

So, if we look strictly at the empirical data, and leave the geo-historical/political talk behind, South America, has produced, better footballers (generally), won more tangibles, ie trophies, and remains the best production line of talent in the known Universe.

I'm not so sure that is accurate either. South American talent is overwhelmingly found in Brazil and Argentina, and while a good case can be made for Argentina having overachieved in population terms it would still be classed as a large country in Europe. Brazil though is an absoluately massive country of 190 million people, that is roughly the same as Germany, England, Italy, and Holland combined!

Brazilian national sides undoubtedly have had the best concentration of talent but with those numbers that isnt surprising, in fact it would be a shock if they hadnt. Europes problem (i say problem but they have won enough world cups anyway) is that the talent is widely spread throughout many countries. The greatest Brazil side is generally regarded to have been 1970, but if you could combine Germany Italy, England and Hollands national sides that year it is quite possible you could've formed a side that would have been superior.

One can like the brainless big kicks, and manic running of the EPL, the tactically sound Serie A, the skillfull La Liga, the lovely melting pot of styles that is the French Ligue Un, or the practical to a fault Bundesliga...but for sheer enjoyment, give me a Boca or River match any day!!

Thats a little stereotyped, and quite a blinkered view of the situation :grinser:

I've seen enough South American football to know that 95% of teams are not at Boca or Rivers level, and that South American teams can more than match Europeans for boring matches, thuggish defending and so on.

I would say that their isnt a South American league that can match the variety of styles used in the Premiership, sure their are the brainless big kickers of Watford and Wigan, but there the defensive tacticians of Liverpool, the ruthlessly efficient Chelsea, the pass masters of Arsenal, the flowing attackers of Utd and Spurs for example. Some clashes of styles can result in stalemate, some can be thrilling 4-3's and the beauty is you never know which clash will result in which :cool:

Warro Bantan

21-03-2007, 13:21

Excellent reply Stez, well thought out, and incisive.

Methinks this debate, as I indicated at the top of my post, remains in the realm of: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"...or "what is cheese to me, maybe chalk to you".

You are quite correct that I did generalise, especially about the EPL, but to examine more closely your own comments, only Arsenal, Spurs (and not all the time) and Man U play "attractive" football...out of how many teams?

Further, tell Maldini and Co that the Cup they lost to Boca was "meaningless" this is not what his comments suggested post match...and I sincerely disagree that the "intensity" of the Carling Cup final is any less than that of the league...the players fielded may differ, depending obviously on the clubs priorities, but I dare say that every player in the pitch is giving 110% effort during that game...and I will go further to say that any player that wasnt, I wouldnt want on my team.

Everytime a player puts on my club´s shirt, I expect 100% commitment to the club, and therefore by extension, the game.

Oh, and take the time to look at some Copa Libertadores action, and compare it to even a top level UCL match, then come back to me on quality...

Suffice it to say, this debate may never be won by either side...and maybe it should be that way.

Warro Bantan

21-03-2007, 13:35

Zlat, why havent we merged these threads? I am just noticing this one in all honesty (work is a ****)....I seriously think we should merge...if u agree, kindly be my guest, as I am a bit tied up on the job at the moment.

zlatanov

21-03-2007, 14:25

threads merged ... have fun at work, OK :5ok:

Stezagud

22-03-2007, 12:36

Methinks this debate, as I indicated at the top of my post, remains in the realm of: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"...or "what is cheese to me, maybe chalk to you".

Very true, there isnt really a way to quantify 'better' as it is so open to interpretation, it really is an unwinnable argument from both sides :cool:

You are quite correct that I did generalise, especially about the EPL, but to examine more closely your own comments, only Arsenal, Spurs (and not all the time) and Man U play "attractive" football...out of how many teams?

I think my earlier point of not knowing what the clash of styles will bring can partially answer this. The 3 teams mentioned will play attacking football almost every game but the lesser sides can as well, when the circumstances are right. The Premiership, like all major leagues, has a clear cut elite and smaller sides are wise enough not to go out all guns blazing but when playing each other they will change styles and play better football.

Smaller sides like Boro, Newcastle, Villa, Pompey, Reading, Man City and Fulham may not have great reputations throughout Europe but they can all play flowing football, its just that the only time those outside England are likely to see them is when they are playing the bigger teams as they are the games that are most likely to be televised.

Of those teams only 2 have been seen in Europe recently, Newcastle, who smashed 4 past Alkmaar last week and then went out anyway :eek: and Boro, who probably had the most entertaining run in Europe last year, overturned some huge deficits at home with great displays before getting thrashed in the final by Seville :D Neither ended the way their fans wanted but its undeniable they both played very attacking football which made for very entertaining matches :cool:

Further, tell Maldini and Co that the Cup they lost to Boca was "meaningless" this is not what his comments suggested post match...and I sincerely disagree that the "intensity" of the Carling Cup final is any less than that of the league...the players fielded may differ, depending obviously on the clubs priorities, but I dare say that every player in the pitch is giving 110% effort during that game...and I will go further to say that any player that wasnt, I wouldnt want on my team.

I said Charity Shield, not Carling Cup ;)

The better comparison was with the Euro Super Cup and the evidence of UEFA Cup superiority should be enough alone to back up the point that it means less for the bigger sides. Maldini is a professional and i'd expect he gets annoyed after every game he loses but that doesnt mean he plays every game with the same intensity. At International level for instance Italy have a terrible record in friendlies but the same players are world cup holders :googly: They dont plan to play badly in friendlies, but the intensity is lower and even if it is only by 1% it will show at the top level.

Oh, and take the time to look at some Copa Libertadores action, and compare it to even a top level UCL match, then come back to me on quality...

I have seen them play, and imho it doesnt reach the standards a top level UCL match usually does. That doesnt necesarily mean its less entertaining, its just the overall quality is lacking.

Suffice it to say, this debate may never be won by either side...and maybe it should be that way.

Agreed, neither of us will change opinions formed on years of watching football just because the other writes a paragraph or 2 suggesting we should :D