From: KaiserD2 on
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:17:23 -0700 (PDT), "ken.overton(a)gmail.com"
<ken.overton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 24, 7:06�pm, Chagney Hunt <ess...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, why don't you do your own homework and tell us? There's not that
>> much data to mull over.
>
>Obviously I'm too lazy; I figured Anders might do it seeing all the
>boring accounting work he seems to happily perform for the group.
>That's why I responded to him in the first place.

May I suggest that someone study all goals scored in the Italian,
Spanish, English, German and French leagues, and all goals scored in
the Champions' League, say, last year, in 2000, and in 1990? I would
be very interested to see what percentage of the goals were scored by
Europeans in those various years. I suspect it is going down, and
maybe way down. Why not go with the simplest explanation--Europe
simply is producing a much smaller percentage of the world's best
players?

DK
From: MH on
Dwight Beers wrote:
> On 06/24/2010 02:04 PM, anders t wrote:
>> I have this feeling that the Europeans in general left their hearts
>> back in
>> Europe this WC. Perhaps the European players have become lazy and blas�?
>> This in combination with that the standards around the world is higher
>> now
>> overall has caught the Europeans with their pants down. I expect the
>> Europeans to rethink, regroup and come back stronger for 2014.
> >
> I think that the European clubs, except possibly Holland and Germany,

Mostly Rubbish Dwight. Germany has a higher percent of foreign players
in its league even than England, and certainly higher than France, Spain
and Italy.

Spain places great emphasis on its (National) youth teams which have
been quite successful. Portugal too. France has an excellent youth set
up for developing players, which contributes not only to the success of
France's younger teams, but also to developing players that eventually
opt to play for many of the african nations.

> have pretty much given up on the idea of developing players for the
> national team and adopted the attitude that foreign players (even
> Americans) are probably better investments. And, the federations, don't
> seem interested in taking up the slack.
>
> My suggestion, which if I remember correctly, I made on this forum a few
> years back is that the European federations should adopt what I humbly
> suggest be called "the Dwight rules":
>
> 1. 13 players on each 25 man squad should be eligible to play for the
> national team in the nation they are playing in.

>
> 2. 6 (or 7) players on each 25 man squad should be eligible to play for
> another European nation.
>
> 3. The rest should be eligible for national teams from other parts of
> the world.
>
>
>
>
From: MH on
ken.overton(a)gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:38 pm, Chagney Hunt <ess...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Worst *ever*. <snip> Europe will have at most
>> 7, at least 6 teams making the round of 16. Their usual number was
>> around 10, I don't think they've ever dropped below 9.

So far we have: England, Germany, Netherlands, Slovakia,

None of Portugal, Spain, or Switzerland is guaranteed a spot at this stage.
So the worst case scenario is only four teams.
It doesn't seem likely that Honduras will beat CH by 2 goals (3-1 ?)
while Spain lose 1-0 to Chile, but it is not impossible, given what has
already happened this cup.
And while I also doubt that Brazil will play hard enough to beat
Portugal by 3 or more goals, thus making the Ivorians' task easier,
stranger things have also happened.

>
> I know but I'm asking how much worse, and in particular, how much
> worse than other WC's **that were not in Europe**? For example, have
> a look at UEFA results in the last WC not in Europe:
>
> 4th place: 3

Slovenia, France, Poland in 2002

> 3rd place: 2

Russia, Portugal, Croatia makes 3

> 2nd place: 4

Ireland, England, Belgium, Turkey, Italy -- makes 5

> 1st place: 4

Germany, Denmark, Spain, Sweden

>
9/15 reached second round. 4 in QF, 2 in SF.

> Is this pattern longer or are these past 2 non-European WCs atypical?

Comparisons are not that valid before 1998, as we go to 24 team formats
with 3rd placed teams progressing to second round (except 1982), and
that changes the approach quite a bit. In addition, as every group had
at least two Euros (eg. in 1994 -one group even had 3; 1986 three groups
had 3), and three groups would have had Argentina, Brazil, and the hosts
on top of that, there was already a built in attrition rate of UEFA
members that almost had to happen in the first round - if not actually
eliminated, they would have to finish third by default.

In spite of that, in Mexico 1986, 10 of 14 UEFA entrants progressed to
the round of 16. In USA 1994, it was 10 out 13.

This tournament is definitely worse for UEFA.


From: Abubakr on
On Jun 25, 5:32 pm, anders t <anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Quoting Mehdi in rec.sport.soccer:
>
> > > Subject : A Thought
> > > FroM : anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com
>
> > > I have this feeling that the Europeans in general left their hearts
> >back in
> > > Europe this WC. Perhaps the European players have become lazy and blasé?
> > > This in combination with that the standards around the world is
> >higher now
> > > overall has caught the Europeans with their pants down. I expect the
> > > Europeans to rethink, regroup and come back stronger for 2014.
>
> >That's the type of question I would expect of a newb. You've been here
> >long enough and read enough comments criticising Lippi and Domenech
> >before the World Cup to know better. Who are the other Euros that didn't
> >really perform? The Danes? They're not very good. The Serbs? Choked.
>
> It is a matter of showing up from day one. Every minute. Not rattling in
> the third game (England).
>
> A feature (flaw??) of a tournament like this is that each team has to have
> some plan of how to approach it. Train for having the top form a couple of
> weeks in, start cautiously, relying on averages and/or experience, thus
> conserving energy for the later stages? Train for top form from the start,
> go all in, win at first, qualify for the second round, but sort of run out
> of steem (and focus (we've reached our goal!)) once there?
>
> Isn't it so that most surprising results come in the first round. In the
> second, the big guys tend to step up. I think some teams must rethink. Not
> even teams like Argentina (2002), Italy, France seems to be immune to this,
> but Brazil is for sure, perhaps the only one.

Re: Argentina (2002), the accusation is that Bielsa burned the squad
out with his training methods before the tournament had started.
From: Jesper Lauridsen on
On 2010-06-25, MH <MHnospam(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> ken.overton(a)gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I know but I'm asking how much worse, and in particular, how much
>> worse than other WC's **that were not in Europe**? For example, have
>> a look at UEFA results in the last WC not in Europe:
>>
>> 4th place: 3
>
> Slovenia, France, Poland in 2002
>
>> 3rd place: 2
>
> Russia, Portugal, Croatia makes 3
>
>> 2nd place: 4
>
> Ireland, England, Belgium, Turkey, Italy -- makes 5
>
>> 1st place: 4
>
> Germany, Denmark, Spain, Sweden
>
>>
> 9/15 reached second round. 4 in QF, 2 in SF.

After that cup UEFA the 15 was reduced to 14 *including* the hosts for 2006.

In 2006 it was 10/14 in the second round. 6 in QF, 4 in SF.

FIFA rewarded that by reducing UEFA by one spot again.