Â鶹Éç

Afternoon Tim,

This marathon league format is a good leveller. As you have said before it gives everyone atleast half a chance, especially the so-called lesser nations.

However, do you think, overall, the lack of quality opposition for Brazil and Argentina hinders them when they come up against quality opposition, mainly from Europe, when they play in world cups?

From 1982 onwards Brazil and Argentina have 3 world cup wins between them.
Europe has won the rest. (5 wins)

Just seems to me that they should have more wins.
Considering the quality of players that both South American nations have produced during that time.

Pains me to think that the likes of Iaquinta of Italy and Llorente of Spain, both good players on their day, have world cup winners medals but true legends of the game like Zico, Socrates, Batistua, etc, havnt.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

"it's fascination"

WRONG ITS!!!!

Sorry, just a little thing that annoys me.

Good blog.

why are prolific strikers in europe like cardozo and falcao struggle at international level

Tim,

You may be aware that he Â鶹Éç, who allow you to blog, do not now have an 'international' link, so the results have to be gained from somewhere else. Your
headline of "Goals galore," had me thinking the results would be shown in a list, rather than scan the blog. Ok, you might think if people just see the results they won't scan the blog at all, but to me, it's missing a complete point.
Put the list of results (as FIFA do) either as a link, or right up front at the head of the blog, in order to match the headline.

I bet Carlos Tevez was desperate to play for Argentina this weekend. Closer to his family, away from dreary Manchester and that. Hopefully he loses his passport or flight gets cancelled. We dont want him back here.

Just watched the Argentina v Chile highlights. Messi was fantastic, so maybe finally people will stop complaining about his International performances if he plays like that.

Let's hope the open play continues. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll happen. For instance, I predict Colombia will play defensively in Bolivia. In other words, their goal is to tie. Now, if they can win, that'd be even better. That's one of the aspects of our beloved game I'll never get used to. You either play to win or don't even bother showing up.

bootjangler


I fell asleep whilst reading your comment.......no one cares!!!!!!



nice blog though Tim

"However, do you think, overall, the lack of quality opposition for Brazil and Argentina hinders them when they come up against quality opposition, mainly from Europe, when they play in world cups?"
-------------------------------

Brazil and Argentina don't face any lesser quality team in qualifiers than any big European nation.

European teams are seeded and top seeds don't play each other.

Take for example Germany, their biggest rival min the qualifiers were Russia who were no better than Slovenia. I think Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chili as well mas Ecuador are better than Slovenia.

Second place team in England's group was Ukraine, which lost out to a weak Greek team, that was easily beaten by South Korea and Argentina and if Nigeria played with some brains they would have beaten the Greeks too. South America had more teams in the quarter finals than Europe.

There are teams like Serbia, Russia, Czech Republic that are very often overrated by Europeans but generally flop in the world cup.

Tim,
Sorry, but we (Argentina) played a blinder, and that is that. Infact, I haven't seen us with that much freedom and confidence for quite some time. The back 4, shock-horror, worked reasonably well, and our defence looked ok (better then usual) only messing up badly for Andujar's error - Romero's return can't come soon enough.

What impressed me the most, however, was the midfield balance. Sosa working with Brana, not exactly my cup of tea, did all the right things. Of course Pastore is a more attractive option, but balance is the most important thing. Messi has to be the principle attacking midfielder and his performance was the closest I have ever seen to his Barcelona form.
There will probably (and in rather in typical fashion) be a hiccup or two along the way, but I am extremely optimistic - Sabella is the best coach we've had for the past decade.

@10

Brazil and Argentina play the same teams during world cup qualifiying as well as the south American championships. The same teams again and again. The same lack of quality again and again.

In Europe it's different. The so called better nations will play different teams for world cup qualifying than euro qualifying.

The likes of Chile and Paraguy are pot 3 material in Europe.
The current Uraguay team pot 2 at best.

I'm not talking about just the last world cup but the last 30 odd years.

#3 It doesn't say 'it's', it says 'its'. Read carefully before being so vociferous about grammatical errors.

Good blog as always Tim

Tim, I think you are a little harsh on Chile. I watched the game in its entirety and the Argentine goal led a charmed life as time and again the ball hit an Argentine defender or deflected off the less then impressive goalkeeper, who looked decidely unhappy when high balls came his way. Argentina seemed to have about 5 opportunities and scored from 4 of them. Not taking anything away from Messi who was brilliant but I thought that the Argentine defence looked vulnerable. It will be interesting to see how they play against Venezuela on Tuesday night. I agree that perhaps Chile were a little too positive for their own good, and fielding just 3 defenders was far too risky.

That current Uruguay team you talk about, reached the world cup semi-finals.
Could you honestly see the likes of Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Czech Republic or Sweden getting that far?
Me neither!
I`m just saying that the quality of South American (and Central American for that matter) football is certainly no worse than thier European equivilants.

Tim,

Sorry if this has been addressed already, but I can't help but wonder how a nation which has traditionally produced some of the world's best defenders - Zanetti, Ayala, Samuel, Passarella, Heinze, etc - has found itself with such a shortage of new talent in the last few years - especially when contrasted to their current attacking riches. What do you put this lack of defensive quality down to?

15.

"and Central American for that matter) football is certainly no worse than thier European equivilants."

You are joking right?. Panama got to the semi finals of the Gold Cup earlier this year. CONCACAF World cup qualifiers are a breeze for Mexico and the States. A daft comment comparing its quality to Europe or S. America

@15

What is this, kindergarten?

Talk about missing the point!

I said the 'last 30-odd years'.

Also, I'm talking about world cup wins for Brazil and Argertina.

Dont know why I bothered though. Because Tim has yet yo reply/answer.
Oh well.....

Zeemo wrote:
"The likes of Chile and Paraguy (sic) are pot 3 material in Europe.
The current Uraguay (sic) team pot 2 at best."
...........................................................................................................
I can't think of any European team which can boast three strikers of the quality of Suarez-Forlan-Cavani or indeed two centre-backs of the quality of Godin-Lugano.

The South American qualifiers are a single group. And any team in it has to play Argentina and Uruguay who are top, top sides, and also has to go to extreme altitude for its matches in Bolivia and Ecuador, and often Colombia too.

And because two matches are played in one week, there is no opportunity for players to acclimatise to that altitude.

I love watching the South American qualifiers and I'm glad that here in Australia a certain Irish tv station broadcasts them!

@18

I know you made the point about the "last 30-odd" years, but you're missing the point entirely, because teams aren't judged on what they do for the "last 30-odd" years, but what they are doing now. Look at the copa america. Brazil and Argentina, your so-called heavy weights, were both knocked out in the quarters. In a competition with 12 teams.

If the rest are pot-3 teams, and uruguay is a pot-2 team, thats like saying the final of the euro 2012 will be ireland v greece. (with spain, germany, et al knocked out at latest the quarters) Do you really see that as a possibility today, or 20 years from now for that matter? South America is a very balanced continent when it comes to talent, and just because there are less teams in S. America they make a less impact on the world cup! I mean generally there is a max of 5 teams from S. america (excluding 2014 obviously), how many teams play in the world cup from Europe? 10? 12? (im actually not entirely sure, but i think its about that number).

Dont underestimate the south americans. Uruguay came very close to defeating Germany in the 3rd place play-off at the world cup, and on another day would have won the match. In fact at the moment the majority of south american teams would give a lot of pot 1 teams a run for their money, including england, france, italy, portugal, etc. Probably the only teams which would be able to confidently be able to say they can beat the average south american team, are germany and spain. And even those two will be pushed to the limit and have an even chance of losing to brazil, uruguay and argentina.

So in conclusion, i will rephrase your statement. While Brazil and Argentina play the same, high-quality teams on a regular basis, European teams continue to play different, low-quality teams on a regular basis, in both the euro and WC qualifiers. Hence the fact that south america have won an almost equal number of WC titles, despite thier much worse infrastructure and low number of qualifying teams for each WC. It's also the reason why Europe has won back-to-back WC titles for the first time since 1938.

@20

In making your point, you've partly supported my argument.
After Brazil and Argentina there's only 'pot 3' quality left. (apart from the current Uraguay team as mentioned)

As for 'Ireland v Greece' being the euro 2012 equivalent? Have to disagree.
For every Spain and Germany being knocked out, there is still 'pot 1' quality there in Italy, France, Portugal, etc.

The interesting thing about this victory is that it was scored by both Barca and Madrid team mates. Messi first in years was a welcome relief - i hope he can perform just as well when not playing for Barcelona

In my opinion England wouldn't qualify in South America, it's truly beyond me how that team is anywhere near the top 10 nevermind so high in it. I'm hoping argentina will balance their team properly because they are the only chance we have of seeing a completely attacking national side capable of taking on and destroying all before them with their great wealth in attack.

By the way, my money for next year is again on Germany, been backing that team since the 2006 WC and they haven't gone all the way yet but after last year's performances I see them laying waste to Europe once more next year...

Comment #14. The undercurrent of anti Argentine sentiment always runs in your posts.

Argentina had more than the 5 oppurtunities. Sabella needs to rework the defence by bringing in better options at left back in Ansaldi and Tagliafico whereas Rojo is not a natural fullback and far too slow and Federico Fernandez, Matias Silvestre, Mateo Musacchio in at centreback or even the young German Pezzella.

However the side had balance and played with more control and freedom than I;ve seen for a long time.

Good work Tim, another enjoyable blog.
What's your take on Lucas at Sao Paulo? I've recently noticed him being linked with moves to the EPL on the Â鶹Éç gossip page, perhaps a bit too soon?

Zemmo,

Why don't you look at the actial results rather than spouting your srubbish that aside from 2 teams rest of south American teams are pot 3.

How many pot 3 teasm from Europe make it to the world cup?
In 2010 these were the second pot 2 Eurpean teams
Denmark Lost to Japan 3-0, failed to qualify
Serbia FINISHED LAST in their group
Swiss Finished ahead of Honduras and lost to Chili
Greece Lost to South Korea (and pretty much dominated by Koreans
Slovakia lost to Paraguay and made it to knockout stages at the expanse of an European team Italy.

In 2006. Ecuador easily beat Poland and finished ahead of them.
Paraguay were a disappointment. But Australia that edge Uruguay in play offs finished ahead of Croatia.

Also, On numerous occasions Argentina and Brazil had to scramble to make it to the World cup.

I am sorry if 4 out 5 teams make it to Quarter finals and 5 out of 5 to knockout stages, compared to 6 out 13 to knock out stages and 3 to quarter finals tells me that it is European pot 2 teams that are weaker than reats of soutnh American teams rather than rest of South American teams being in pot 3.

Greece is pot 1 team in Eurpe for crying out loud. Of course by same token FRance is pot 4. But based on ACTUAL results it would be hard to argue that south america teams minus big two are pot 3.

Like I said many European pot 2 teams are way overrated and are exposed world cup after world cup. Prime example Serbia "the permanent Dark horse" who are exposed in the world cups.

Hi Tim,

Very interesting article, there's a bit of a campagin to get Riquelme back in the national team. It would be a controversial decision as he is the Marmite of Argentine football (you either love him or hate him), but he has been in good form this season, so I was wondering what were your thoughts?

Here's an article about Riquelme on one of his bet nights:

@28

No thanks. Whilst he is unique, I grant you, I'd rather us focus our attention on Alvarez and in particular on Pastore.

The South American giants, namely Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile are still quite a way behind the major European powerhouses. Namely Spain, Holland and Germany. It wasn't too long ago that Brazil and Argentina were ranked near the top. Now both Brazil and Argentina have dropped to the 2nd tier of football powers. This is mainly thanks to their own disorganisation, too many wholesale changes in the quest to prepare for 2014 and poor management from their FAs and managers. Both Brazil and Argentina have the players to field 2 national squads, especially in the case of Brazil, however due to the managers picking the wrong selections, bad organisation and their lack of ability in international management they are no match for the main European powers.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The average level of South American WC qualifiers is considerably higher than the average level of European WC qualifiers, so the idea that Brazil and Argentina suffer, comparatively, from lack of quality opposition is not a valid point. All four South American teams made it to the second round of the world cup, while 7/12 European teams did not. Also, the SA qualifiers are less inclusive, so the European teams play a lower percentage of teams that make it to the world cup. It's the European teams that play a lower quality of opposition.

Why Brazil and Argentina have failed to win World Cups recently has some other cause(s). I'd say the best European teams have always tended to be better organized, and that their level of athleticism and creativity has caught up in recent times--but I'm no expert.

How much of an advantage is altitude really?

To explain, for a side like Bolivia most of their players do play in Bolivia and would be used to the altitude but the majority of south american stars live in Europe all year.

Surely they would struggle to some extent when they return home to high altitude games, I would assume Colombia would be the prime example of this, Bogota being a high city yet most players based in Europe. Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia still having a large number of domestic players in the national team.

Having not watched full 90 minutes from these games for a while, do you notice this sort of effect on the Europe based players returning to high altitude for "home" games.

As always Tim a good blog and why not apply for Phil's Job. We would get a much better journalist opinion on England.....

#3 It doesn't say 'it's', it says 'its'. Read carefully before being so vociferous about grammatical errors.

Good blog as always Tim

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

That's because he edited it. Maybe you should take some time to consider alternative explanations before jumping on someone's back

#35- that was a point which was much debated before qualifying for 2010 began. Colombia decided to copy Bolivia and Ecuador by staging games in high altitude Bogota but they found out exactly what you were speculating about, their advantage was minimized by the number of ther own foreign based players who had a hard time adapting to the altitude and eventually Colombia switched their home matches to the high humidity coastal city of Barranquilla where they enjoyed more success. I do not know what their plans are for this cycle of qualifying but I would not be surprised if they do play in Barranquilla once again (which by the way is the home town of both Shakira and Sofia Vergara!)

Ecuador did not change their host city of Quito but I too thought they were a little less effective in 2010 qualifying at home than they were for both 2002 and 2006. Not surprisingly then, Ecuador we all know qualified for both 2002 and 2006 but just barely missed out in 2010. So I would say the high altitude still is an advantage but perhaps is less so now that some of these "high altitude teams" have more players playing club football away from the altitude than it was 8-12 years ago.

Maybe Tim or one of the Ecuadorian posters could reply to this, why does Ecuador play at the Estadio Atahualpa in Quito, which is a typical oval shaped stadium with a running track around it instead of Liga de Quito's home ground, Estadio Casablanca which is roughly the same capacity, is more modern and has fans much closer to the field as it does not contain a running track? I would think Estadio Casablanca would give Ecuador even more of a home field advantage than they enjoy at the Atahualpa.

That should read, "low altitude, but high humidity, coastal city of Barranquilla..." in my post above.

No surprise that all 4 home teams won last Friday especially with two of the region's powers Argentina and Uruguay each at home. But now we get to see how both will do on the road in this 2nd day of matches. Argentina travels to play Venezuela in humid Puerto Ordaz while Uruguay plays at Paraguay who not only will be looking for revenge from their Copa America Final defeat but also looking to right themselves after last week's disappointing loss in Peru. Paraguay I think still feel the loss of Salvador Cabanas, whose career ended when he was shot in the head in Mexico City in early 2010, he was the heart and soul of that Paraguayan team and gave them some dynamism in attack which they have since been missing. I get the feeling both Argentina and Uruguay would be satisfied by taking one point from their visits tomorrow. Anything more would be a bonus.

Tim is right the Chile-Peru match is a fierce rivalry, probably the biggest national team rivalry in South America which does not involve Argentina, Uruguay or Brazil. Chile are one of those teams who will either look very good, as they did throughout much of the World Cup and Copa America, or will make silly mistakes which lead to their self destruction, as they did last Friday versus Argentina. There rarely is any medium ground with Chile. As for Peru, I am really curious to see how their well organized team under Sergio Markarian will do on the road. In Copa America they showed a lot of defensive solidity which will be useful especially on the road but will Markarian drop one of his talented four attackers (Pizarro, Guerrero, Farfan or Vargas) to take a more pragmatic approach on the road?

As an Argentine, I am cautiously optimistic about our team under Alejandro Sabella. I do believe he will provide more balance to the team as he seems the coach best able to combine Argentina's attacking flair with some defensive solidity. Tomorrow's game against Venezuela should begin to give us some more answers in that regard. If Romero is unable to play in goal, I would prefer to see Orion rather than Andujar as I think Orion is more consistent than the sometimes error prone Andujar. I eventually hope Catania's Matias Silvestre and Napoli's Hugo Campagnaro join Nicolas Otamendi as central defenders on the squad as the defense gets renovated.

Soccer Futbol Forum:

lucas is overated 31 mil on fifa lols

Rosarino: I must take issue with you with respect to your contention that Chile played well in the Copa America. The blew it BIG time! They had a great chance of making it to the final, with Brazil and Argentina out, but they totally underestimated Venezuela and quickly found themselves 2-0 down, before they finally woke-up and started playing. This was a great opportunity for Chile to go on and perhaps even win the tournament but they failed dismally.
Chile are a team that need their best 11 players on the field as they do not have great strength in depth. They badly missed Alexis Sanchez against Argentina. Had he been fit to play then I think that the shaky looking Argentine defence would have had a little more to think about. The game against Peru on Tuesday night will be a good test for Chile and we will see where they are now after their Copa America disappointment.

I have to get my Venezuelan geography staright, Venezuela-Argentina will be played in Puerto La Cruz not Puerto Ordaz. It still should be humid there though!

#41- Chile did blow it big time in the quarterfinal loss to Venezuela. That game showed one of Chile's great weaknesses, defending set piece plays, but prior to that match Chile were having a very good tournament which was the basis of my comment that overall they did well in the competition. Their ultimate disappointment in failing to get past the quarterfinals should not take away what otherwise was a good tournament for them. More than a tournament winner can be considered to do well.

@31 Tim

'torpedoed'? Ouch!!

@ one or two others

Let's just say you are all right and the rest of South America are not 'pot 3' standard.

Going back to the point I mentioned in comment 1,
Is there another reason as to why in the last 30-odd years Brazil only have 2 WC wins and Argentina only 1?

Surely it all can't be down to disorganisation and mismanagement like poster 32 mentioned.

The likes of Careca, Zico, Socrates, Batistuta, Veron, Riquelme to name but a few never won a WC.

Or am I just making an issue out of nothing?

Have to say I love the qualifying system in south America and would like to see something similar in Europe. That way, top European teams would have to play at least 1 team of quality in their campaign rather than their "fiercest" opposition being the likes of Switzerland, Serbia and the Czech Republic. Yes that would mean more games but we could just reduce the amount of friendlies. England wouldn't need to have friendlies against Spain, holland, France etc I they played a quality team in their group.

For this euros there are definitely far too many groups, with some of them containing only 5 teams! Having 6 groups of 8 teams or even 5 groups of 10 in my view would be a big improvement. At least UEFA could trial it one year and see how it goes. It would add a bit of variety.

All very interesting Tim, but were you aware that Uruguay also played on Friday. Remember them? Fourth ranked team in the world currently and the current Copa America champions. They won 4-2 by the way.

Rosarino: Thank you for your comments and agreement with me over Chile's exploits in Copa America.
Can you tell me when Argentina are going to find a reliable and safe goalkeeper who can command the 6-yards box, grab the ball as opposed to punching it (which most Argentine keepers seem prone to do) and can deal with corners and freekicks? I read that you say that you hope that Romero is back tomorrow against Venezuela. Are you aware that he cannot make the AZ Alkmaar (Holland) first team at the moment and the 22 year old Esteban Alvarado Brown (Costa Rica) is the first choice between the posts. Romero was too unreliable with his mis-timed punches and inability to deal with any high balls that came into the 6-yards box, much like he was in the World Cup in South Africa.
I really feel that unless Argentina can find a safe and reliable keeper then this will hinder their chances of winning the World Cup in Brazil, which probably presents the best opportunity they have had to win since their victory in Mexico in 1986.
I will be interested in your views on this subject.

#47- While I do think Sergio Romero needs some work on crosses, overall I think he is a pretty good goalkeeper and is an excellent shot stopper. He had a good Copa America as he continues to mature in the position. He was transferred from AZ to Sampdoria in Italy where he is the team's starter, just as he was when he was with AZ. I think he is developing into a pretty good goalie but I think Agustin Orion, currently with Boca but an ex Estudiantes goalie, should be Romero's backup instead of Mariano Andujar.

As for the future watch for Esteban Andrada of Lanus who was on the most sub 20 team. I was hoping Oscar Ustari, the goalie on Argentina's 2005 sub 20 world champions, would become the eventual national team starter but the poor guy has suffered one injury after another since his transfer to Getafe in Spain. I doubt if he ever will live up to the potential he showed as an sub20.

#15
That current Uruguay team you talk about, reached the world cup semi-finals.
Could you honestly see the likes of Russia, Serbia, Slovenia, Czech Republic or Sweden getting that far?
----------------------
Well yes I could see all of these teams get that far if they like Uruguay produced their best team in a generation or two. All teams come and go in cycles and its not so long ago that the WC saw strong Swedish and Russian teams and others such as Romania and Bulgaria. Arguably Uruguay only got as far as they did on the wing and a prayer of a Ghana penalty debacle. Very good team though but I also have memories of them in 86 against against Scotland and it wasn't nice or pretty.

Aside from that EEuropean teams have tended not to travel that well outside Europe but hopefully that will change. Generally they produce good technical players and every so often a Lobanovsky, a Hagi or a Stojkovic comes along and makes it special.

Good stuff as usual Tim. No real surprises in the opening round, Chile extremely naive but then I suppose they couldn't see themselves holding a side like Argentina to a draw away from home so just went for it. Could've made them work a bit harder though - I do like Valdivia but surely a more defensive-minded player in there would've been a better shout.

Peru are in with a great chance of qualifying IMO. With Guerrero playing well and Pizzaro and Farfan back, that is a splendid range of attacking options. As well as Chiroque, who was for me one of the most enjoyable players to watch at the Copa.

Zeemo, the reality is there is no simple reason to explain these things, but ignoring the development of defensive football generally over the period - success is not somehow guaranteed in a cup format when you come up against quality sides. Holland played some of the best football ever seen in the 70s but never won the WC.

You have mentioned a list of great Brazil or Argentinian players who didn't win the WC over the past 30 years, but you could do the same for every other big footballing nation since the 80s (eg Gullit, Van Basten, Rijkaard for Holland, Baggio, Maldini, Baresi for Italy etc).

James @ #41 - as I remember it, Chile got back into the game at 1-1 in the 2nd half and for all the world looked like they would go on and win that game. Poor defending at a set piece did them again, but really they did not deserve to lose the game overall IMO. They did play ok going forward I thought, without ever hitting top gear, and were a bit unlucky at times.

You have mentioned a list of great Brazil or Argentinian players who didn't win the WC over the past 30 years, but you could do the same for every other big footballing nation since the 80s (eg Gullit, Van Basten, Rijkaard for Holland, Baggio, Maldini, Baresi for Italy etc).
------------------------------------------------

And you could say the same for every great player irrespective of whether they had played in a BIG team or not: George Best, Jimmy Johnstone and Denis Law to name but a few, from countries which will probably never be in any danger of getting far in any tournament. The Brazil of '82 were wonderful to watch but fatally defensively flawed.

#44 - In the 8 World Cups from 1982 on, half of them have been held in Europe. None have been held in South America. European countries won all 4 of the cups held in Europe. They have only won 1 cup held in another continent. Brazil and Argentina have won the other 3 cups staged on other continents.

So I think the 'home continent' advantage may explain why Brazil and Argentina have 'only' won 3 of those 8 World Cups.

Why are there so many comparisons between different regions? This is a fruitless task. Good teams come and go from every corner of the planet. US amateurs once shocked England (1950), as did "unknown" Hungary (1953). Germany fell to Algeria (82), Italy almost succumbed to Cameroon (82) and Nigeria (94), Argentina were overwhelmed by Cameroon (90), Spain fell to S. Korea (02), Senegal pulverized France (02), Germany collapsed against Croatia (98), winners Spain lost to Switzerland (2010), Italy choked against New Zealand (2010), Uruguay trounced by little Denmark (86), Ghana shocked the Czechs (06), Mexico trounced France (10) etc.

In all these examples, the so called "minnows" shocked the world. There is no science that can explain these results. And it has nothing to do with the type of grass, eggs, air, beef, garri, or coffee in each "minnow" country. It simply so happens that every once in a while one country produces a constellation of super skilled players who happen to gel at the right time and under the right coach (i.e. one who lets them play without interfering too much e.g. Ramsey, Santana, Michels etc.)

Let's enjoy the breathtaking and joyful insouciance of the current crop of South American players. In two years we will find out who is good enough.

Thank you Tim for your insightful S.A. coverage.