Argentina 1994-2010
in [World Football]
|
Prev: World Cup games single thread - [R] after quarters
Next: Hardest paths in World Cup history from great teams.
From: Google Beta User on 4 Jul 2010 12:19 On Jul 4, 5:19 am, hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) wrote: > anders t <anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com> wrote: > > 1994 OF - Lost to Romania (UEFA) > > 1998 QF - Lost to Netherlands (UEFA) > > 2002 Group - After Sweden (UEFA), England (UEFA) > > 2006 QF - Lost to Germany (UEFA) > > 2010 QF - Lost to Germany (UEFA) > > The England of CONMEBOL. ;) > > Argentina have never been that good, the only exception was the > corrupted WC78 and the Maradona years. Compared to who? They regularly produce top quality players. And with two world cups, I think they deserve to be there with the Germany, Italy, Brazil group. History Trophies Deep runs in tournaments (yes I think if one is going deep i.e. semis more than once (once can be a fluke), they should get some credit) Quantity and Regularity of quality players produced. Coaching/footballing minds produced.
From: forssberg on 4 Jul 2010 12:20 On Jul 4, 5:19 am, hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) wrote: > anders t <anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com> wrote: > > 1994 OF - Lost to Romania (UEFA) > > 1998 QF - Lost to Netherlands (UEFA) > > 2002 Group - After Sweden (UEFA), England (UEFA) > > 2006 QF - Lost to Germany (UEFA) > > 2010 QF - Lost to Germany (UEFA) > > The England of CONMEBOL. ;) > > Argentina have never been that good, the only exception was the > corrupted WC78 and the Maradona years. > > Ciao, > SM > --http://www.gourockviews.co.uk > I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it > does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously. > Douglas Adams Reaching the quarterfinals in 4 of the last 5 WCs looks like a pretty impressive accomplishment in itself. I do agree though that Argentina teams generally tend to be slightly overrated due to the star status of some of its players. For instance, because of Messi, the present team was generally considered more talented than Germany, which with hindsight was total nonsense.
From: Sven Mischkies on 4 Jul 2010 12:56 Google Beta User <wanyikuli(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 5:19 am, hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) wrote: > > anders t <anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > 1994 OF - Lost to Romania (UEFA) > > > 1998 QF - Lost to Netherlands (UEFA) > > > 2002 Group - After Sweden (UEFA), England (UEFA) > > > 2006 QF - Lost to Germany (UEFA) > > > 2010 QF - Lost to Germany (UEFA) > > > > The England of CONMEBOL. ;) > > > > Argentina have never been that good, the only exception was the > > corrupted WC78 and the Maradona years. > > Compared to who? They regularly produce top quality players. And with > two world cups, I think they deserve to be there with the Germany, > Italy, Brazil group. Argentina just like England averages QFs at WCs, not SFs like Germany or Brasil. SF appearances (or eq.): 10 Brasil/Germany 8 Italy 4 Argentina 2 England For the fun of it the all tiem table: http://www.planetworldcup.com/NATIONS/maraton.html > History > Trophies > Deep runs in tournaments (yes I think if one is going deep i.e. semis > more than once (once can be a fluke), they should get some credit) Comparing them to England is not giving them some credit? How bad do you thing England is? ;) Ciao, SM -- http://www.gourockviews.co.uk I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously. Douglas Adams
From: Google Beta User on 4 Jul 2010 13:09 On Jul 4, 12:56 pm, hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) wrote: > SF appearances (or eq.): > 10 Brasil/Germany > 8 Italy > 4 Argentina > 2 England Well they haven't reached that much more semis, but the tournaments are few. And four is quite a bit and of course they have 2 World Cups, and have reached a final. > > History > > Trophies > > Deep runs in tournaments (yes I think if one is going deep i.e. semis > > more than once (once can be a fluke), they should get some credit) > > Comparing them to England is not giving them some credit? How bad do you > thing England is? ;) Look at Anders table from the other thread. Right about where they "should" be. People overreact after these tournament losses.
From: Google Beta User on 4 Jul 2010 13:12
On Jul 4, 1:04 pm, b...(a)ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce D. Scott) wrote: > : For the fun of it the all tiem table: > :http://www.planetworldcup.com/NATIONS/maraton.html > > Interesting... it's a question where you draw the line whether you have > a big 3 (BRA GER ITA) or a big 4 (ARG). English fans will say 5 (ENG) > of course :-) I know it's a joke, but they really wouldn't. But oddly there's this perception that they do. It's the strangest thing. > : Comparing them to England is not giving them some credit? How bad do you > : thing England is? ;) > > Not as bad as I thought... they often make the 1/4 finals but after a > decent run against questionable teams are tossed out by the first good > team they meet (examples 2002/6). OF course they were in with Sweden > (in 2002 a strong side) and Argentina (but in 2002 much weaker than > usual). I think one can argue about 2002 but not 2006. > > It may be that England has simply hit a bad patch. Usually they are > above Portugal; the last decade is unusual in that respect. Another thing is one can see Holland, Portugal, France or England missing World Cups or Euro tournaments. It's unimaginable for Argentina or Italy to miss a World Cup. |