Let's just say that "Europe v South America" is the mother of all flamewars...
Some sub-threads from a particularly long and lively debate,
March 18th-31st, 1998:
Mar 18-21 Hosting the World Cup
Mar 18-23 WC allocations and hosting rotation (Karel Stokkermans, Ariel Mazzarelli)
Mar 19-25 QFs as a ranking criteria, and some WCs revisited (Steve Jones, Ariel Mazzarelli)
Mar 20-25 Lessons from WC history (Karel Stokkermans, Ariel Mazzarelli)
Mar 20-23 Marginal entries and w-d-l stats (Marco Paserman, Ariel Mazzarelli)
Mar 23-27 Uruguay & SA WC qualifying (Marcelo Weinberger, Karel Stokkermans)
Mar 24-25 A post-modern approach (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Mar 22-26 WC'66 recap (Marco Paserman, Marcelo Weinberger)
Mar 26-31 WC'78 - Argentina v Peru (Paul Louis, Ariel Mazzarelli, Marco Paserman)
See also:
International Country Results - World
for statistical material, including:
"All time World Cup inter-federational stats" (Stephen Halchuk)
==============================================
Hosting the World Cup
==============================================
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 18 Mar 1998 03:04:03 -0500
From: gt7290b@prism.gatech.edu (Alex Mizuki)
Mario Treglia writes:
>[unfair World Cup rotation => South America ignored]
The answer to the question: "Why is South America being discrimitated
against in the Fifa World Cup rotation" is very simple: The European
voters (who are the most powerful) are bent on giving South America
every disadvantage they can since we will inevitably expose the
inferiority of European football. Europe has proven that it is incapable
of winning a World Cup outside of their own continent. The facts speak
for themselves:
World Cup Distribution by Region
----------------------------------------------------------------
No. Location European Victories South Am. Victories
----------------------------------------------------------------
8 Europe 7 1
4 South America 0 4
3 North America 0 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
15 7 8
Outside of of South America, the region only has two contenders: Brasil
and Argentina. But if the Cup is held within South America, there would
be a potential third contender. And that's the last thing those voters
want.
Since a global rotation will undoubtedly favor South America, the Europeans
are desperate to attain every advantage they can. I wouldn't worry
about it, Mario: consider it their "Last Supper".
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 18 Mar 1998 13:45:57 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
A black car pulls up outside a large black building in Switzerland,
three men get out in dark suits, they check the street and slowly
an older man in a camel hair coat rises from the back seat, he is
ushered into the building past the sign that reads "FIFA HQ".
A small man in glasses rises stuttering "Hello Mr E-e-e-urope, H-how
are you t-today ?". The man in the camel hair coat just grunts in reply.
Meanwhile in a dingy room on the other side of the world three men
sit planning their revenge, the pull out their guns and lay them on
the table. "Its payback time, time we showed them whose boss". The
three begin to rise but the ageing Mr Uruguay stumbles and is left
to his own devices by Mr Brazil and Mr Argentina. They board seperate
planes, both are given full cavity searches on arrival because of an
anonymous tip off. They meet in a crowded cafe, a waiter places two
coffees on the table and walks back into the kitchen, in the kitchen
is a vast array of recording equipment, the waiter walks past a speaker
which is relaying the converstation of Mr Brazil and Mr Argentina to
the seated Mr Europe. Slowly he nods to the waiter, who walks back
to the table, pulls out a gun and shoots the two seated men.
Its all a conspiracy I tell you, its has nothing to do with the
number of countries in Europe, the economic strength of the
region or the organisation of previous South American WCs, nope
its all a conspiracy.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 19 Mar 1998 00:12:30 GMT
From: dustinc@nortel.ca (Dustin Christmann)
Speaking of Europe's alleged superiority in hosting World Cups, in the past
several weeks, I've noticed a curious change in people's stance in one area:
One of the many complaints about USA '94 was that the stadia were "too large"
and that it detracted from the "atmosphere." France '98 would be much better,
said the people advocating this position. Nonetheless, people were able
to purchase tickets without too much difficulty and there weren't any cases
of half-empty stadia. So, one could conclude, the stadia were the right size.
Fast-forward to 1998: The big complaint? Ticket availability. I guess that
the more intimate French stadia aren't such a capital idea, after all. Of
course, if you were to ask the people that are complaining about the USA '94
stadia, they'd STILL insist that they were "too large."
I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed this.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:13:10 -0800
From: Colin Morris (cmorris@ccnet.com)
I doubt it. I'm sure they'll be some fellow travellers who forget the
other factors that made people consider France a "better" host for the
World Cup finals than the US. Such as the fact that the arenas aren't
spread over a continent-sized area. Or that the games won't have to be
played at climatically unsuitable times (admittedly the fault of
European TV). Or that France, unlike the US, actually fulfilled the
requirement for hosting of actually having a professional soccer league
etc etc.
As for French stadia, I'm somewhat unconvinced that they'll turn out to
be too small. The major problem seems to be that far too few tickets are
being distributed to competing teams and far too many to sponsors and a
host country that doesn't exactly flock to see pro soccer.
=============================================
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:13:48 -0500
From: Alex Mizuki (gt7290b@prism.gatech.edu)
The entire issue of number of quarterfinalists is irrelevant in
this context. This is not an argument about who should get more
spots in the World Cup. It's about respect, and the Europeans'
annoying desire to pre-empt us for themselves (after only 8 years
hosting) and regions with absolutely no tradition like Africa and
Asia.
The simple fact remains: In an average World Cup, South America will
have about a 50-50 percent chance of winning by the simple virtue
of our big guns being as good as any others. Again, no European nation
has shown it can win outside its continent -- and only Germany and
Italy has shown they can win outside their own country.
How about a more quantifiable comparison:
8 World Cups > 7 World Cups (all in home continent)
I know it sounds like a broken record, but it's apparent that too many
Europeans have failed elementary school mathematics.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 19 Mar 1998 18:49:06 GMT
From: halchuk@seismo.nrcan.gc.ca (Stephen Halchuk)
>[European pre-empting]
Kind of like the USA's pre-empting the rest of the world from hosting
the Olympics?
Over the recent era (past and future), the US will have hosted 4 of the
12 available Olympics - Lake Placid 80, Los Angeles 84, Atlanta 96,
Salt Lake City 02. And I can almost guarantee that they will host
another one by 2012. Less than 5% of the world's population hosting one
third of the games.
The reasons for this are similar to the reasons that almost since its
inception, the WC has rotated in the cycle Europe - somewhere else -
Europe. The money/power lies in Europe. Regardless of who "deserves"
the tournament, or who "should be given a chance" to host it, it will
probably almost always come back to Europe every second outing. Every
third outing at the very most. Rotating the WC between the federations
so that Europe hosts it once every 16 or 20 years is unthinkable, at
least in the minds of the FIFA merchants. This is one reason why the
combining of CONCACAF/CONMEBOL might fly. The World Cup could rotate in
the fashion Europe - Americas - Africa/Asia/Oceania - Europe. Of
course, when it is the turn of the Americas, it will go to the USA with
frightening regularity, since the most money is to be made there.
Doesn't put us much farther ahead, does it?
==============================================
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 20 Mar 1998
From: labuser@fas.harvard.edu (Massa Sugano)
Alex Mizuki wrote:
> [...]
> After all, Brasil is larger than Europe (excluding Russia, of course).
> Sure there are a lot of parts of Brasil that are very Third World --
> of course, that's the only thing people ever hear about outside
> Brasil. We can talk all day about how underdeveloped the
> Amazon Basin is, but I doubt the World Cup will take place in
> any of those regions (the Northeast is probably an exception).
I consider it unfair that Europe get the Cup before South America.
France is holding one this year, and even if you add the U.S. together
with South America, 1998 remains later than 1994. Hence, after Asia
(and possibly Africa), the Cup should revert to the Americas. Given
that the U.S., Mexico, and Argentina have hosted the Cup more recently
than Brazil, I find it the most natural that Brazil be granted the
rights to the 2006 World Cup, or 2010 if the 2006 one is to be held in
South Africa.
Hosting the World Cup in 2006 in Germany or England verges on the
ridiculous.
---------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 20 Mar 1998 23:15:55 GMT
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
At last someone gets to the point, without reverting to continental
rotation patterns based on dubious WC QF statistics (already rebutted
hundreds of times in rss) or kindergarden economics with high degree of
stupidity involving "my country is richer than yours."
If someone can make a sensible argument claiming that either Germany or
England should organize the WC before Brasil, please go ahead. I'll be
extremely surprised. The two WC after Japan/Korea should take place in
Brasil and South Africa, in either order. Europe should wait until 2014.
The reasons are simple and quite obvious:
a) Brasil can do it at least just as well as England or Germany;
b) From an economic (TV) perspective, it doesn't really matter where the
action is taking place: the time difference between Brasil and
continental Europe is just 4 hours (well, it might actually be 6
hours in July);
c) From a historic perspective Brasil is long overdue;
d) The European summer is the best season for Brasil too.
Having said that, if a WC in Brasil will entail that we'll need to hear
inane comments like "o mais grande do mundo" or "we don't have
terrorism" (I thought that killing homeless kids in the streets was
called terrorism, but I might be a little old-fashioned: maybe there
is a market justification...), I'd rather have the WC in Tonga.
---------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 21 Mar 1998
From: paul@i8spamacorns.demon.co.uk (Paul Louis)
>[any sensible counter-argument?]
How about "because Germany or England might be able to put together a
better bid than Brazil." I know this may be a radical suggestion but
has anyone ever considered taking a bid on it's own merits,
*regardless* of the continent it originates in?
=============================================
WC allocations and hosting rotation
=============================================
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 18 Mar 1998 10:16:25 GMT
From: stokkerm@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
Mario Treglia (kukobuka@leo.bekkoame.or.jp) writes:
> Something smells really bad here,
> let's not go through the old "Europe
> alone has almost 50% of the
> participants in a world cup --- 15
> out of 32 countries)
Which is a lower percentage than in most previous World Cups
(I guess 1930 and 1950 are the only exceptions), and a
precentage fully warranted by the results European teams
have had in the Cup (can you say 7 out of 8 quarterfinalists?).
> til Italy'90 the history of World Cup
> followed the tradition of one WC in
> Europe, and another in South America.
Not quite, two successive Cups were held in Europe 34-38 and
54-58. South America would have had the cup in 1986 (Colombia
I think) but Colombia decided they couldn't organize it. The
only countries who could singlehandedly organize a 32-team World
Cup in South America are Argentina and Brazil; Argentina hasn't
bid for a Cup since 1978 and Brazil did bid for 1994 but it would
seem their bid was far inferior to both USA's and Morocco's.
Brazil also aren't helped by the logistical nightmare they made
of the previous World Cup they organized.
> Havelange tells the British Prime minister that he favours
> England for the 2006 WC, (Europe again),
Havelange favours England when in England, Germany when
in Germany, a combined Germany/England bid when elsewhere
in Europe, and South Africa in most other places. If you
take Havelange seriously, that's entirely your own problem.
South Africa is the hot favourite to get the 2006 finals,
and rightly so. I'm sure Johansson promised Africa the 2006
finals in exchange for their support for his FIFA presidency
bid.
> [=> SA won't host WC until 2020]
As a matter of fact, UEFA have suggested a new pattern rotating the
World Cup among 4 or 5 continents (America-Europe-Asia/Oceania-Africa)
starting from 2002.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 19 Mar 1998 03:18:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
[snip almost all of the euromyopic stuff]
>(can you say 7 out of 8 quarterfinalists?).
Can you say selective data sampling? You could pick the sixteenthfinalists.
Or the semifinalists. Or the finalists. Or the champion. That's a good one,
UEFA had 0 out of one champion, ergo South America = UEFA/0.
Or you could look for more than just one tournament.
Anyway, I think we've been down this road a few times before. I say, even
without scaling for UEFA's ridiculous edge in slots for the tournament,
futbol(South America) > futbol(UEFA)
and leave it up to the reader to decide.
[more snip]
>Brazil also aren't helped by the logistical nightmare they made
>of the previous World Cup they organized.
Logistical nightmare? You want a logistical nightmare? Here is a logistical
nightmare: finding a referee that won't tank you in Wembley.
>[World Cup rotation plan]
I hadn't heard about that. So the cup does not return to Europe until 2014?
Can Europe accept to go for so long without winning the cup?! This couldn't
be the Fat Man's idea.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 19 Mar 1998 15:53:22 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login4.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
>futbol(South America) > futbol(UEFA)
A more accurate statement would be:
futbol (Brazil, Argentina) ~ futbol (Italy, Germany)
futbol (rest of SA) << futbol (rest of UEFA)
And of course:
club futbol (SA) ~ club futbol (UEFA\Britain)
club futbol (SA) >>> club futbol (Britain)
But of course, why get into this thread again?
(Apart from the delight in seeing how Ariel will bring up some
fancy anti-arghie conspiracy theory, and how the Brazilians
will boast about their Cagao's...)
Daniele
(...when was the last time that any SA team other than Brazil-Argentina
did anything worthy of note in a World Cup?
A: Peru 1978...)
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 20 Mar 1998 10:40:41 GMT
From: stokkerm@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
> Can you say selective data sampling?
Can you say citing out of context? The original poster thought Europe was
over-represented with 14 qualifiers out of 30. I don't think that's the
case, and I don't think you do either. At least I remember you writing
that 5 representatives for South America in France was good enough, and
I doubt you think Asia or Concacaf are over-represented given your joy
after the group draw...
> even without scaling for UEFA's ridiculous edge in slots for the tournament,
Ah, so you do? Then tell me how many UEFA spots you would give Africa.
> Here is a logistical nightmare: finding a referee that won't tank you in Wembley.
I don't know. I think we have played 6 times in Wembley in the last 40 years,
have a record of one win, two losses and three draws, and can't remember any
particularly horrible refereeing.
> So the cup does not return to Europe until 2014?
Well no :). Their idea was to have it start from 2002, thereby of course
opening the possibility of having the Cup again in 2006... After that, they'd
apparently be content with a 16 or 20 year wait. Africa, otoh, would of course
prefer the cycle to start from 1998... (I'd say start it in 1994...)
> Can Europe accept to go for so long without winning the cup?!
We'll see who wins in 2002.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 20 Mar 1998 19:41:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Now wait a sec. You have me confused with somebody else. I have NEVER said
that UEFA deserves 14 spots out of 30.
South America needs more than five spots in a certain sense: there are nine
teams there that can play in a world cup, if we go by the standards of,
say, Austria and Scotland in the upcoming edition.
Now CONCACAF is a problem because the disparity is ridiculous. Things get
much more sensible if we just make a continental assessment from top to
bottom, rather than split the continent in two halves.
So the natural solution is to make one American confederation, and give it
the same number of World Cup slots as Europe. America has more World Cups,
and the number of countries, population, and $ is pretty much the same.
We should note that America has obtained all that World Cup success in spite
of the obvious advantage given to UEFA over the decades.
So there are two scenarios: make an American confederation or keep them
split up. If you make one confederation, then I'd give Asia+Oceania 5 spots,
Africa 5 spots, America 9 spots, Europe 9 spots, and the remaining 2 spots
to be settled in a little tournament between the also-rans (two from each
federation).
If you keep things as they are, then it is very hard to give South America
more than 5 spots because people would complain. So you have to give at
most 5 to South America. Give the same to the rest as above, except CONCACAF
gets only 3. That leaves 3 additional spots to be settled in the little
tournament.
If you insist on not changing anything (i.e. no little tournament), then
give UEFA 10 spots, South America 6 spots, CONCACAF 3 spots,
Asia+Oceania 5 spots and Africa 6 spots.
>[Wembley]
Oh, Argentina does fine there when it's a friendly. I would not trust the
English to run an honest international tournament, though. Their record is
very clear. What happens if they cheat for a THIRD time?!
>[WC rotation]
Maybe we should just make up a list of all the countries that can
host a world cup. Off the top of my head,
Argentina
Brasil
Colombia
Mexico
USA
Germany
France
Espa~a
Italia
Russia
South Africa
Nigeria
Japan
South Korea
China
India
Pakistan
Iran
Turkey
Thailand
Indonesia
Australia
Now some of those countries have very little futbol tradition, but that didn't
stop the USA from being a host did it? One can assume that by 2062 India will
have done something comparable to what Japan has done so far (ahem).
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 23 Mar 1998 12:11:06 GMT
From: stokkerm@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
> I have NEVER said that UEFA deserves 14 spots out of 30.
I didn't say you said that. I said you once conceded five teams out of 10
in France is more or less okay for South America. I also know you were happy
drawing Japan and Jamaica so I must assume you think neither Concacaf nor
Asia are under-represented.
So *if* Europe has too many spots, they should go to Africa, right?
> there are nine teams there that can play in a world cup, if we go by
> the standards of, say, Austria and Scotland in the upcoming edition.
Going by the standards of Austria and Scotland there are about 25 teams in
Europe that can do so...
> [America has more WCs => should have same # of WC slots as Europe]
Would you care to compare the success rate (wins-draws-losses) once in the
World Cup for European teams and American teams?
> We should note that America has obtained all that World Cup success in spite
> of the obvious advantage given to UEFA over the decades.
You mean, Argentina and Brazil. Uruguay obtained their successes in decades
when no advantage to UEFA can possibly be perceived.
> Asia+Oceania 5 spots
So Asia/Oceania is under-represented? Based on what? South Korea get to the
Cup all the time and haven't won a game yet..
> Maybe we should just make up a list of all the countries that can
> host a world cup. [...]
Like it or not, if you don't include England you make yourself ridiculous.
> Now some of those countries have very little futbol tradition, but that didn't
> stop the USA from being a host did it?
The USA were one of the first countries to take up futbol.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 23 Mar 1998 13:18:01 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
>[...] So *if* Europe has too many spots, they should go to Africa, right?
Ok, the point is that if we give another spot to South America people will
complain because when more than half a confederation is able to go, it is
politically unsustainable. But based on what these teams can actually do,
I think it's a fair proportion. That's why I'd like to see the whole
continent lumped together, then it is obvious that America deserves just
as many spots as UEFA.
Currently, America gets 8 spots and UEFA gets 14. That is obscene. Give 9
to each confederation and put up the excess into a pan-confederation
playoff tournament (they could do it in the world cup hosting country
the month before or some such; it would be fun). If that pre-tourney thing
is too revolutionary, then give America and UEFA 9 spots (make it 10 if
UEFA cannot live with a "mere" 9 spots) and spill off the rest to Africa
and Asia+Oceania, Africa getting the round-off errors.
>Going by the standards of Austria and Scotland there are about 25 teams in
>Europe that can do so...
See? An excess of spots has made the UEFA seeding process fat and lazy.
I am just trying to be helpful to UEFA.
>You mean, Argentina and Brazil. Uruguay obtained their successes in decades
>when no advantage to UEFA can possibly be perceived.
Excuse me???????? The 1934 and 1938 tourneys were horribly skewed for UEFA!
Shit, they even let the Italians use Argentina's stars! And of course the
1938 host should have been Argentina. And the 1942 and 1946 tournaments
were not played even though South America had no trouble putting teams
together. It's not South America's fault that Europe decided to go on a
genocidal binge of a scale unseen before or since.
>So Asia/Oceania is under-represented? Based on what?
I'm basing it on the fact that they have a huge number of nations and over
half the world's population. I'm not basing it on on-field performance, but
on the "it's a WORLD cup" criterion.
>Like it or not, if you don't include England you make yourself ridiculous.
Why not? Their weather is terrible and their cuisine does not require our
exploration. Who wants to go there for tourism?!
I'm sorry, until England proves that it can host a major tournament without
cheating its way past a round or two, they don't deserve to get ANOTHER
world cup. How would you feel if they cheat again? Ask Espa~a how they
feel about the '96 Eurocopa.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me THRICE,
make it a party!
>The USA were one of the first countries to take up futbol.
And one of the first to pervert it.
=================================================
QFs as a ranking criteria, and some WCs revisited
=================================================
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 19 Mar 1998 13:13:43 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
Umm someone taking on Karel at stats, you're a braver man than I.
> ['94 data sampling]
> Or you could look for more than just one tournament.
Okay lets do that then, so in 94 it was 1/8 for SAm, in 90 1/8, in
86 2/8, in 82 2/12, in 78 2/8, in 74 2/8, in 70 3/8.
So appart from 1970 its generally been pretty poor for South America,
especially in the number of different countries that have managed to
reach the 2nd phase/last 8.
> futbol(South America) > futbol(UEFA)
Futbol (South America) = Argentina + Brazil,
Futbol (UEFA) = Italy + Germany + Netherlands + England
+ Spain + France + Lichtenstien
> and leave it up to the reader to decide.
Naah let's just rant and throw subjective opinions about, that's after
all what we normally do.
> Here is a logistical
> nightmare: finding a referee that won't tank you in Wembley.
The bit after the : requires subtitles, what were the two individual
sentences that were merged together to produce that one ?
> Can Europe accept to go for so long without winning the cup?!
Ah but only Brazil have ever had the quality to cross water and win
a world cup, so can you cope with them winning another one ?
----------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 20 Mar 1998 03:16:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
>you're a braver man than I.
Not brave enough to make stuff up, though.
>[South American QF-ists 1970-1994]
Hmmm, I could pick on your deceptive parameter whereby if, out of a mere
three qualifiers, two of them go on past the first round, you are considering
things to be a failure; yet, for the Eurocrotos, it is fine if four or five
fail in the same manner.
However, I prefer to pick on your outright lie. Which of the following 1978
quarterfinalists, in your opinion, are not in South America: Peru, Brasil,
and the World Champion from that tournament, Argentina?
Maybe the RSS discussion(s) over the little group with these three squads
was before your time? This is still not a good excuse for you, since Reuters
is remarkably persistent in its conspiratorial review of that episode.
> [South America v UEFA]
Excuse me? Italia and Germany I can accept, but why do you burden us with
all the other mediocrities? Ok, Netherlands have had a good team a couple
of times, but they *were* also-rans, whereas Uruguay is always a couple
of good management decisions away from doing something.
I suppose it is not so hard to come up with a list of "almost" candidacies
when you are alloted 70% of the initial spots in a tournament. Man, how do
you get your thinking to be so circular? Do you wear magnetized rings on
your head or something?
>Naah lets just rant and throw subjective opinions about, thats after
>all what we normally do.
So we agree on something.
>[Wembley tanking?]
If you take off the magnets, I'm sure you will understand then.
>Ah but only Brazil have ever had the quality to cross water and win
>a world cup, so can you cope with them winning another one ?
Let me spoonfeed you: A UEFA team can only win in Europe. Hell, in
South America, UEFA has only managed to put a finalist in two out of
four tournaments, in spite of having the lion's share of the entries.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 20 Mar 1998 11:56:05 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
> [Which 1978 QF-ist is not from SA: Peru, Brasil, or Argentina?]
As I was replying to you that would be Brazil :-) Okay so I missed them
when I was looking, not a lie but an admistrative error.
> I suppose it is not so hard to come up with a list of "almost" candidacies
> when you are alloted 70% of the initial spots in a tournament.
And your argument would be that Peru, Colombia, Chile etc would have made
it to a final or semi final given a chance ? It would appear that when
they have had the chance they have been just a little better than
Scotland.
> If you take off the magnets, I'm sure you will understand then.
"finding a referee that won't tank you in Wembley"
Now as the ref _won't_ be English if you are playing the English and the
odds are that he won't be even if you aren't the problem would appear to
be unrelated to the nationality of ref. Also "tank" in the coloquial
English sense would be taken as "to beat heavily" and it would be very
unusual to find a ref who was actually taking on the opposition in a
competative manner. And possibly "at Wembley" would be more correct.
> Let me spoonfeed you: A UEFA team can only win in Europe.
This does however not contradict the comment I made above, Brazil are the
_only_ team to have crossed water and won a WC, all other WCs have been
won by a team on the same landmass.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 20 Mar 1998 18:22:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
> not a lie but an admistrative error.
You also snipped another lie, when you said that only 3 out of 8 South
American teams made it to the quarterfinals in 1970. Now you might say that
after counting the quarterfinalists, exactly three are from South America;
but the lie is to conveniently forget that there were precisely three
teams from South America in the tournament at the start, and that Argentina
had to stay home because Peru won the elimination group.
That one really bugs me because the idea that Peru and Argentina should
have to play off against each other while the likes of Bulgaria, Belgium,
Sweden, and Romania were given a spot speaks volumes about the injustice
of this setup.
Anyway, it so happened that all three South American teams ended up in the
same bracket after that. The brasucas did not get an easy game until the
final against the Euroresidue.
>[Peru, Colombia, Chile only slightly better than Scotland]
Scotland in the 19th century, perhaps. Chile and Peru were eliminated by the
brasucas in their best tournaments. Come on, Steve, go to the RSS web site
before making this stuff up!
>[objections to "finding a referee that won't tank you in Wembley"]
Did your brain pull a muscle after drawing up that paragraph?
Ok, I will be LITERAL since you insist. Argentina, West Germany, and Espa~a
have been tanked by a referee when they played in Wembley. The only two
major tournaments ever held in England have been skewed in favor of the
hosts in a manner that exceeds their normal due and goes firmly into the
category of cheating. But you knew all that, so I don't know why you went
through all those contortions above.
>Brazil are the _only_ team to have crossed water and won a WC,
>all other WCs have been won by a team on the same landmass.
So we are in agreement then: UEFA cannot win a world cup not held in Europe.
Let us South Americans worry about the brasucas, since they are clearly
unbeatable for the UEFA crowd.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 21 Mar 1998 10:47:35 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
>You also snipped another lie, when you said that only 3 out of 8 South
>American teams made it to the quarterfinals in 1970. Now you might say that
>after counting the quarterfinalists, exactly three are from South America;
>[snip]
Umm so it now actually a lie to correctly report the facts ?
> [...] speaks volumes about the injustice of this setup.
Same way I felt when I saw England stay at home while the likes of
Colombia got to go to the WC.
> Come on, Steve, go to the RSS web site before making this stuff up!
Thats where I'm getting this stuff from, Peru got tanked 4-2 by Brazil,
did losing 1-0 to Brazil make the USA a possibly WC winner ?
> [Wembley tanking]
Ah and of course in Argentina under a military regime it was all fine
and dandy and not a hint of corruption or unfair play at all ?
But in summary you are saying that _non_ English refs are giving the
English an unfair advantage when they play at Wembley.
> So we are in agreement then: UEFA cannot win a world cup not held in Europe.
> Let us South Americans worry about the brasucas, since they are clearly
> unbeatable for the UEFA crowd.
No, that is _not_ what I said, what I said was that _only_ Brazil can
win a WC where they have to cross water, the likes of Argentina and
Germany are both equally crippled apparently by crossing the sea.
Oh and Norway 4-2 Brazil.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 21 Mar 1998 13:29:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
>[snip]
>Umm so it now actually a lie to correctly report the facts ?
I was discussing lies of omission.
Now, I think the point I made in my paragraph is pretty clear. It is
unfortunate that you left only the first sentence in the paragraph,
thus making it look like I had no point. It's not the first time you have
used such selective editing in your replies, so I am starting to wonder
whether you understand the importance of context in Usenet threads.
The point I was making was that rather than pointing out that three teams
made it, it was far more meaningful to point out that 100% of those that
were allowed to enter into the tournament made it into the quarterfinals.
*That*, my friend, is lying by omission. In your case here, you have walked
down the path of recursion: in your previous post, you omitted the fact
that 100% qualified, whereas in the above post, you omitted the segment
of my paragraph that countered the very thing you were objecting to.
You should revisit the topic of lying by omission, I think you have a bit
of a blindspot there.
>Peru got tanked 4-2 by Brazil,
>did losing 1-0 to Brazil make the USA a possibly WC winner ?
If you have to ask...
Ok. To begin with, Peru made a round of 8, whereas the USA made a round of 16.
To continue with, Peru got there by eliminating a rather good team just to
get to that particular tournament, whereas the USA qualified by being the
host. To continue even further, the team that eliminated Peru is generally
considered to have played the finest world cup in history precisely because
it eliminated teams like Peru with relative ease. To continue to continue,
whereas Peru put up something of a fight, the USA could not get anywhere
even though they played half the game with an extra man.
To conclude with, anybody that looked for five minutes at that Peru team
could never, save for raving futbol idiocy, conclude that the USA team in
any of its incarnations is worthy of comparison to it.
I hope that answers your question.
>Ah and of course in Argentina under a military regime it was all fine
>and dandy and not a hint of corruption or unfair play at all ?
Hmmm... if we are going to compare governments, old boy, your English
bureaucrats have directed several acts of genocide over the last few
centuries, with corruption and fair play being far from its ethos.
We could take a global survey asking people which of the two governments
they found more detestable and perfidous, but I don't think you want
to go there.
I prefer to talk about futbol in this subthread. In Argentina '78, the best
team won. In England '66, the winner could not play a single game from the
quarterfinals on without cheating. The least serious bit was the changing
of venue for the semifinal game. The most serious bit was a variation on
the wive-swapping motif: arranging for the referee of a game against
one opponent to be from the same country as a team that was playing under
an English referee in that same round; predictably, each referee tanked
the South American visitor with gay abandon. In between, the non-goal
in overtime in the final game, which by itself is probably nothing more
than an anecdote in human fallibility; yet in context, it is the grace note
in a disgraceful tournament.
>But in summary you are saying that _non_ English refs are giving the
>English an unfair advantage when they play at Wembley.
I am saying that and more: I am saying that England needs to wait for about
a century before it is given a look at hosting this tournament. After you
and I are dead and buried, and the example has been set--cheat shamelessly
when you host, lose the privilege--then let those future keepers of the game
reconsider the issue.
>No, that is _not_ what I said, what I said was that _only_ Brazil can
>win a WC where they have to cross water, the likes of Argentina and
>Germany are both equally crippled apparently by crossing the sea.
In particular, since Brasil is not a member of UEFA, you have claimed that
UEFA cannot win a world cup not held in Europe. I am only following your
own reasoning to its logical conclusion.
btw I took your phrase "crossing water" to be a flowery way of saying that
a team was winning a cup outside of its continent. Given how many rivers
one must cross to get to other countries, everybody "crosses water" in
the literal sense.
>Oh and Norway 4-2 Brazil.
I suspect we would both be equally disappointed (even equally surprised)
should such a result repeat itself in France.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 23 Mar 1998 09:58:35 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
[snip the patronising bit :-)]
> [...] it was far more meaningful to point out that 100% of those that
> were allowed to enter into the tournament made it into the quarterfinals.
So you want _me_ to make _your_ argument for you ? That in your _opinion_
the most meaningful stat is that 100% of those qualified doesn't actually
make it correct. That there is another view on the statistics (as there
always is with statistics) doesn't invalidate the first view, it mearly
presents another face to them. Statistics are wonderful things, don't
spoil them by bringing truth into it :-)
[snip can't believe you fell for that one...]
> [Comparing Peru 1970 to USA 1994 is absurd]
> I hope that answers your question.
Not really as surely no comparisons can be made as clearly neither team
was up to winning the WC, this is in stark contrast to several 3->6th
placed European nations who could all clearly have a shot at winning
the WC. So the best the 3rd place CONEMBOL team can hope to do is get
easily beaten by the winners.
> [survey of the two governments]
What the British goverment of 1966 v Argentina 1978 ? That after all is
the comparison when refering to football surely. Or do you mean
Argentina 98 v Britain 98 ?
[snip the aluminum foil wrap rant]
>
> [England cheated in 1966]
And your proof for this cheating is.... supposition and accusation. A
wonderful basis for a legal case. To claim that in '78 there is not
a blemish on the Argentine case while pointing at '66 and claiming that
the English just cheated and could not hope to have won without it, is
a blindness that does you credit.
Produce _one_ shred of _actual_ evidence. After all I could state
"the entire Argentine team of '78 was on drugs" no evidence, no facts
just a mindless statement.
------------------------------------------
[snip wrangling on whether Ariel's presentation of the 1966 WC,
as expounded at
http://www.rsssf.com/rssbest/wc66.html
is "evidence" or "supposition, rumor and biased misreading". The following
snippet typifies the respective positions:]
> You know, I get the feeling that you are a little bit offended by the
> rather straightforward interpretation of the facts.
There are more straightforward readings, but I guess we can't apply
Occams razor because of his nationality either.
===============================================
Lessons from WC history
===============================================
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 20 Mar 1998 11:01:38 GMT
From: stokkerm@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
Ariel Mazzarelli writes:
> Not brave enough to make stuff up, though.
Really?
> in South America, UEFA has only managed to put a finalist in two out of
> four tournaments, in spite of having the lion's share of the entries.
I hope you do not suggest UEFA had the lion's share in each of the
four tournaments.
Well, let's see. In 1930 Europe had 3 out of 13 entries. South America
had 7, not counting Mexico. Still Yugoslavia eliminated both Brazil
and Bolivia, and Romania dumped Peru, but clearly Argentina and Uruguay
were the best teams of the lot. Also, the 3 European teams were hardly
the 3 best of the continent (in fact neither of them was among the best 3
(or indeed 8, as shown by the collection of quarterfinalists in 1934)).
In 1950 Europe had 8 versus South America 5 out of 15 entries. Now I could
say there was no final that tournament, but I'll admit I'd be cheating.
There is no question that 48 years ago Europe's teams were not much good.
In 1962 and 1978 Europe did manage to get a team to the final, and on
neither occasion it was one of the traditional European powerhouses, but
one of your "also-rans". Whereas all SA final appearances are due to 3
different teams. Both in South America or outside their continent.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 20 Mar 1998 18:04:01 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
>Really?
Well, not in this thread, anyway.
>I hope you do not suggest UEFA had the lion's share in each of the
>four tournaments.
No, of course not. I will suggest that that lion's share is what puts
UEFA entrants into the finals. It's not so hard, when they clog up half
a bracket!
>1930
The 1930 tournament should give you some perspective on how the rest of
the planet feels about the allocation of WC spots. It should be said,
however, that all the European teams that felt like going were accepted.
One can't blame them for thinking that they would not win in Montevideo...
>1950
Indeed. And in those days, they still had the tradition that when the
thing was held in South America, more South American teams went. And when
that happens, surprise surprise, the Europeans are marginalized.
>1962 and 1978
Hmmm... in 1962, Chile might have reached the final but they were in
the same bracket as the brasucas. It's always the same story, there are
so few initial entrants that when one of them makes a mistake it has
much greater repercussion on the global statistics for the federation
(Chile's mistake was in finishing second in their first-round group,
behind West Germany). When a UEFA representative fucks up, chances are that
the beneficiary is also from UEFA and so the mistake actually gets erased.
Now 1978 is a good example of how tight things are during qualification,
since Uruguay could not get into the tournament. Come on, if for most of
the cups, only three teams are allowed to qualify from a certain federation,
how can you be surprised when there is not great diversity?
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 23 Mar 1998 12:00:27 GMT
From: stokkerm@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
> It's not so hard, when they clog up half a bracket!
Well, they don't, in 1998. So I should assume UEFA will field less than
4 quarterfinalists, yes?
> all the European teams that felt like going were accepted.
True. You could leave out the "European" in the above sentence, though.
> One can't blame them for thinking that they would not win in Montevideo...
You know full well that was hardly the reason.
> > [1950]
> when that happens, surprise surprise, the Europeans are marginalized.
Well, no, they still fielded 2 of the semifinalists. Several European teams
were invited but refused to go (eg Scotland, Portugal, France, the latter on
seeing a pretty horrendous traveling schedule - once *in* Brazil).
> Hmmm... in 1962, Chile might have reached the final but they were in
> the same bracket as the brasucas.
OTOH, Chile finished second behing West Germany in the group stage, who
might well have reached the final had they not have to play Yugoslavia in
the quarters - who indeed should have reached the final but fell to yet
another European also-ran. And there were so many European also-rans
in the quarters quite simply because Argentina, Colombia and Uruguay
were not good enough to beat them, not even on their own continent.
> (Chile's mistake was in finishing second in their first-round group,
> behind West Germany).
Right. Whereas Argentina's mistake that tournament was finishing behing
Hungary and England, and Colombia's and Uruguay's was finishing behind
the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. I mean, more than half of the South
American teams even failed to reached the second round - by losing against
European teams. Europe's success rate in the first round was 60%.
> [UEFA mistakes get erased]
Not in 1962 it wasn't.
> [...] how can you be surprised when there is not great diversity?
Well, all but two South American teams have qualified on one occasion or
the other for the World Cup, and only one of them could be assumed to be
on the level of a run-of-the-mill European team. Such as Portugal,
Switzerland, etc, countries which normally do not qualify either.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 23 Mar 1998 12:57:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
>Well, they don't, in 1998. So I should assume UEFA will field less than
>4 quarterfinalists, yes?
Huh? 15 out of 32 spots means 3.75 out of 8, so I'm afraid 4 is the "average"
number. I expect it to be higher, myself, but we will see what happens.
Certainly the 1994 figures were an aberration; conceivably Bulgaria can lose
on penales (though it may be less conceivable that Mexico could beat even
an all-RSS squad on penales), Nigeria might last an additional epsilon
without giving up a tying goal to Italia, Argentina might score one or two
out of the zillion chances it had against Rumania (or Rumania might not
score on that absurd free kick on its first goal)... all of these events
went UEFA's way when they were at best 50-50 (and in the latter two, far
below 50-50). That, and discounting Argentina's run-in with the FIFA
bureaucrats is what makes the usage of the 1994 quarterfinalist lineup
as *the* statistic disingenously selective.
>[1930] You know full well that was hardly the reason.
I do not know that at all! You don't know the reason any more than I do.
They simply did not go. They bitched that it was too far away and all you
like, but I am sure that if they felt that they could win it, they would
have sent a team. After Uruguay won the 1924 and 1928 Olympics on European
soil (with an all-American final in 1928 against Argentina), anybody could
see that the 1930 champion would probably be Uruguay or maybe Argentina.
So it's not a stretch to conclude that more than one federation offered
up a sour grapes defense rather than go through the expense and effort
of being humiliated on the field.
>Several European teams were invited but refused to go [...]
Anybody who was anybody went to that world cup except for Argentina, who
also objected to the travelling schedule on the grounds that it required
Argentina to leave Argentina and visit an undeserving South American host
(see, they were too backwards, in a futbol sense).
>[1962]
Chile was a terrible tournament for Argentina and Uruguay. But you Euros
are always complaining that the only ones that do anything are Argentina
and Brasil and Uruguay! Come on, make up your mind.
>Europe's success rate in the first round was 60%.
Yes, that was probably the heyday of the Eastern European futbol. If we
look at the performances of Italia and West Germany too closely, we might
conclude that they suck too.
So we can understand why Uruguay finished behind the tandem Yugoslavia-USSR.
Nobody to this day knows why Argentina was playing so badly in the
world cups of 1958 and 1962. Colombia was supposed to stink up the joint,
but they actually got a 4-4 draw against the Soviets (I assume that they
then got killed 5-0 by Yugoslavia because they needed to get a win and got
more and more desperate as the score mounted up).
Now look at Czechoslovakia in this tournament. They got all the way to
the final, and they might have won that if their goalkeeper had not decided
to play like a brasuca. So you say "see, there's a 'lesser' UEFA country
doing very well"; but just two world cup laters, in Mexico '70, they
lost every game they played, which then got erased by Italia and West Germany
doing much better than in 1962.
It's always the same, when you have so many teams in the competition, if
one goes down, it makes another one go up. It's a no-lose setup for UEFA.
This is all very obvious.
> [UEFA mistake wan't erased in 1962]
Ahem! You cited such an example yourself in the Yugoslavia victory over
West Germany. With 10 out of 16 entries (10 out of 16, when the thing
was held in South America and the defending champion was another
South American!!), this is to be expected.
>Well, all but two South American teams have qualified on one occasion or
>the other for the World Cup, [...]
The problem is that they often have to beat out a big team like Argentina
or Brasil or Uruguay (disorganized as they currently are, they are still a
team you do not want to face in such a situation). The UEFAns may occasionally
draw a Germany or an Italia into their group, but usually the biggest name in
their group is a team that hasn't been among the world's top 5 in decades.
The South American lesser entrants usually suffer from a fall in form from
the qualifier rounds, which is not offset by some other squad's rising
form since that other squad did not get a chance to go to the world cup.
For UEFA, this effect gets nullified because they have enough slots to
take both those that are in good form during the qualifiers and those that
peak at the world cup.
In 1994, Bolivia played much better during the qualifiers--in fact, they
qualified based on winning all their games at home, which is hardly a
useful trait in a world cup that you do not host. Colombia played very
well during those qualifiers, and yet once in the cup they were outplayed
by the USA; you can be certain that the USA would not have finished first
in Colombia's group during the qualifying round--indeed, the USA would have
probably finished last. Argentina finished behind Colombia and had to play
against Australia to finally qualify, and yet they were one of the two
candidates in the cup until Papa Joao did his little dance.
The UEFA qualifying round is a cakewalk compared to having to qualify
in South America. I see all this "analysis" from certain people on this
group that says "ok, take out the top two teams in UEFA and in South America
and THEN compare the rest". Well, that means taking out 2/10ths of
South America, hardly a small fraction! After all, it's not as if the
remaining eight teams never have to face one of the top two in order
to qualify; in UEFA, you rarely have to face Italia or Germany in order
to qualify, and even then you usually get a safety valve.
I know what: let's take out Venezuela and Ecuador from South America,
and let's take out San Marino and Andorra from UEFA, and THEN compare.
Clearly such schemes are harebrained.
You want to know how the lesser South American teams feel about the
difficulties of the World Cup qualifiers? Ask the Russians how they feel
about having to play Italia. They are foaming at the mouth over something
that is routine in South America.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 23 Mar 1998 20:35:47 GMT
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
> So we can understand why Uruguay finished behind the tandem
> Yugoslavia-USSR.
Well, it's easier to understand it once you know that not being able to
agree on a coach, the Uruguayan federation had the brilliant idea of
having a triumvirate coach the team!
> [Argentina in 1958 and 1962]
I recently watched an interview with Toto Lorenzo, Argentina's coach in
WC'66, from which you could easily infer why Argentina played the way
they did in 1958 and 1962. Playing for the national team was far from
being something players looked forward to; actually, he mentioned many
players that refused to be on the WC'62 team (Amadeo Carrizo was one of
them). Add to this that prior to 1958 the best Argentinean players were
transferred to Europe and did not play in the national team.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 23 Mar 1998 19:53:01 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Ok, we know things were terribly disorganized in those days. Labruna going
to Sweden '58 even though he was 41 years old, los Caras Sucias sold to
foreign clubs, etc., but still, I would expect better results than two
first-round eliminations in a row. Sanfilippo was a great player, scored
something like 1200 goals if you believe what he says, Amadeo was not the
only good goalkeeper in Argentina... I understand that there are excuses,
but they don't justify all of it. Also, when you look at the record in
South American "friendlies" from the 60s, Argentina does fine. But when
the World Cup comes around everybody plays like an idiot.
The reversal of that sad tale is Menotti's great legacy.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 25 Mar 1998 08:41:22 GMT
From: stokkerm@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
> [...]
> [disingenously selective usage of '94 QFs]
So in 1990 it was 6/8 and in 1986 it was 5/8. An average of 6/8 over the
last 3 Cups. Now tell me UEFA fielded 75% of the teams from the start.
> [SA not just the Big 3 -> Chile in 1962]
If your only exception is Chile in a tournament at home more than 35 years
ago, I'm not impressed.
> [Czechoslovakia 1962->1970]
I doubt very much they had more than 2 players remaining from the World Cup
8 years ago. Your point?
> Ahem! You cited such an example yourself in the Yugoslavia victory over
> West Germany. With 10 out of 16 entries [...] this is to be expected.
Well, is it expected that 4 of the remaining 6 teams fail to reach the second
round in spite of being closer to home?
> [1978]
Right, let's talk about 1978. You might seem to have a point there: clearly
10 European teams as opposed to 3 South American ones is plain ridiculous.
The worst European team there was Hungary, losing all three matches (two of
them against European opposition and one thanks to two red cards against
the hosts, but never mind). They were also the last European team to qualify.
So clearly they had no business being there at all.
Surely the last SA team to be eliminated would have done far better. So that
would be Bolivia, finishing third in the final elimination group between
Brazil and Peru after having eliminated mighty Uruguay you cited above.
Surely there should have been a playoff between those two teams, and Bolivia
should have easily won that and qualified for the tournament.
Wait. There was a playoff between Hungary and Bolivia. How on earth could
Bolivia, 4th of South America, lose against the pathetic 10th team from
Europe. Surely this was a very unlucky away goal or penalties type of
thing.
Well no. Hungary 6-0 Bolivia and Bolivia 2-3 Hungary.
You may argue Bolivia just got lucky to be the 4th team in South America and
actually other teams were stronger. Surely not Uruguay, as they finished
behind Bolivia, but perhaps Chile, only 1 point behind Peru in their elimination
group. Clearly Chile would have trashed Hungary, or at least not have been
annihilated 2-9 (that one I'll give you). Perhaps. OTOH, Chile qualified
for both the World Cup before and after that 1978 one, and in 6 matches
managed 2 draws, against East Germany and Australia, and lost all other 4
matches. So whether they'd have made a far greater contribution to the 1978
Cup than Hungary remains doubtful. If indeed they would have eliminated
Hungary.
> usually the biggest name in [a European team's] group is a team
> that hasn't been among the world's top 5 in decades.
The last three World Cups all featured a European semifinalist who failed
to qualify for the next World Cup (86 France, 90 England, 94 Sweden).
Europe's best team of 1978, twice losing finalists in a row, failed to
qualify for 1982.
> 1994
Colombia did not just finish behind the USA, but also behind Romania and
Switzerland.
> [South American WCQ]
This time the remaining 7 teams played for 3 places. A better proportion
than for UEFA's run-of-the-mill teams.
> You want to know how the lesser South American teams feel about the
> difficulties of the World Cup qualifiers? [-> Russia v Italy]
I can't recall any South American team having to play off against Argentina
for the last World Cup place. Not recently, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.
===============================================
Marginal entries and w-d-l stats
===============================================
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 20 Mar 1998 12:54:14 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login4.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
Recently some newbie italian posted something to the effect of:
"The only great South American not to have played in Europe was Pele`"
Obviously that is total bollocks. Marcelo Weinberger's reply
was: "Should I, for the n-th time, go over the list
of great South American players that nobody in Europe has
ever heard of? No, it's not really worth my time to stoop this
low..."
Now Ariel tries to convince us that Europe getting the lion's share
of spots in WC semifinals is just a consequence of Europe getting more than
50% of the total WC slots.
Now, should I remind Ariel of Bolivia, Colombia, Uruguay and Chile's impressive
achievements in the WC in the past 20 years? No, there is no way that
he will be convinced, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Not worth my time.
I'll adopt the alternative strategy instead:
"Inzaghi and Del Piero always dive"
"Juventus always buys the refs"
"If there is any football violence, anywhere in the world,
it must be infiltrated English hooligans" (thanks to Steve Jones)
and finally:
"South American football is clearly, overwhelmimngly superior
to European football, and why are we even arguing? Will Europe
ever be blessed with the talents of Cagao, Lampini, Di Giorgio
and Di Paolo?"
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 20 Mar 1998 18:58:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
[snip initial "red herring"]
I don't know, if it's worth your time to make an incomplete assessment
and reach the wrong conclusion, why not make a complete one and reach
a more accurate conclusion?
Worst South American qualifier UEFA qualifiers below them
1994: Bolivia Greece
1990: Uruguay Sweden, Scotland, Austria
1986: Uruguay Hungary, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Portugal
1982: Chile The exception that proves the rule
1978: Peru France, Hungary, Spain, Sweden, Scotland
1974: Uruguay The exception that confirms the proof
1970: Peru England, Sweden, Romania, Czechoslovakia,
Bulgaria, Belgium
1966: Chile Bulgaria, Switzerland, France (away goals rule)
1962: Colombia Switzerland, Bulgaria
1958: Ahem Scotland, Austria
1954: Uruguay England, France, Czechoslovakia, Scotland,
Yugoslavia, Switzerland, Belgium
Sum: --------- -------------
11 countries 33 countries
I stop at 1954 because that was when serious qualification eliminations began.
PS Don't forget Di Menticato.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 21 Mar 1998 16:30:47 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login5.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
Very good Ariel. I see that you can play the game "Compare worst South American Qualifier
with Worst European Qualifier". Now let's see how you do at another little game:
"Compare the Best South American Qualifier Outside of Brazil and Argentina with
the European Qualifiers Outside of Italy and Germany". Is it worth my time to do this
whole exercise for you? I can give you a hint for 1994:
Colombia Sweden, Bulgaria, Spain, Romania, Holland,
Switzerland, Belgium, Ireland
Do you want me to go on? What about 1990:
Uruguay,Colombia England, Ireland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia,
Belgium, Spain, Holland
So, yes, the thirteenth European qualifier sucks, but the 3rd to the 9th
Europeans are quite more likely to do well in the WC than your Bolivias or
Ecuadors.
Prediction: only Chile will advance to the second round this year.
The masturbatory Colombians will be sent packing by the pragmatic
Romanians, and Paraguay won't get past the group of death...
sorry
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 21 Mar 1998 12:16:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
It's funny, you use caustic sarcasm as though you had refuted my thesis,
but all you do is prove a parallel thesis which I had not necessarily
set out to prove--namely, that you have no clue about how to look at this.
Let me spell it out for you, so you can meditate on it: if you are
going to discuss which teams should be left OUT of the world cup, you need
to start at those that do WORSE, as long as you are not taking into
consideration things like enhancing the representation of parts of the
world that would otherwise rarely get included (e.g. Asia).
So when we compare UEFA and South America regarding who sends WORSE teams,
it is UEFA by a landslide. Not surprisingly, UEFA also sends out lots of
teams, too many by any non-Eurocentric standard.
Sorry, I am afraid that you must repeat this course.
==========================================================
Subject: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets (was: Re: Why
Date: 22 Mar 1998 05:22:49 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login3.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
Ariel Mazzarelli replying to Steve Jones:
>[comparing Peru 1970 to USA 1994 is absurd]
So Peru 1970 was a very good side. No doubt about that. However, one could raise
a couple of points:
a) It was 1970. I was in my mother's belly at the time, and I think you
weren't much older.
b) Every once in a while, Europe too produces very good sides outside of the
big two (Poland and the Netherlands in 1974, France in 1982 and 1986)
I will say more: Peru 1970 was an aberration. Or, at the very least, it was the last
time a minor South American team showed anything worthy of note in the WC.
(Peru 1978 advanced to the final 8 by getting past Scotland and Iran, big deal; and
once there they achieved a combined 0-10 score in three matches).
Let's look at the total achievements of Uruguay, Chile, Peru, Paraguay, Colombia
and Bolivia in the 6 World Cups since 1974:
Goals
W D L For Against
-------------------------------------------------
Total 6 13 21 30 64
vs. Europe 2 9 15 couldn't be bothered to calculate
vs. Europe not incl.
W.GER and ITA 2 6 11
vs. ARG/BRA 0 0 3
vs. Rest of World 4 4 3
Can you spell "CONMEBOL sucks"?
Maybe it's an outrage that the Austrias, Scotlands and Greeces are awarded automatic
WC slots, but if anybody thinks that those spots would be better allocated
to CONMEBOL, frankly he is deluding himself in dreams of grandeur.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets (was: Re: Why
Date: 22 Mar 1998 00:11:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
>a) [...] I think you weren't much older.
Actually, I was a kid when I watched on TV as Peru qualified in Buenos Aires.
>b)[...] Europe too produces very good sides outside of the big two
So it would suck if they only got three or four spots to fight for,
would it not? If we ran a few world cups like that, then obviously you
would notice that hardly any UEFA teams outside of maybe Italia or Germany
would do anything.
>[Peru 1970] was the last time a minor South American team showed
>anything worthy of note in the WC.
That is a pretty ridiculous conclusion, unless you use your own little
personal definition of "worthy of note". Naturally, when a whole branch
in a single-elimination tournament is populated by members of the same
confederation, then the team that emerges will have done something "worthy
of note" and it will have come from the same confederation.
Belgium made the semifinals in 1986, out of this bracket:
Belgium
USSR
Espa~a
Denmark
Now you might really impress me if you can show me how anything other than a
UEFA entrant would have done something "worthy of note" from such a bracket.
Of course, as soon as that UEFA entrant met a CONMEBOL entrant, they were
quite outclassed. Said CONMEBOL entrant had its toughest match in the
round of 16 against another CONMEBOL entrant, Uruguay, but that probably
is not worthy of note for you.
>[Peru 1978]
You seem to be insinuating that Iran is surely a joke of a team;
then you insinuate that Scotland is more or less a joke as well,
and therefore beating them is not much of an achievement. Unfortunately
for your credence, Scotland is a UEFA representative. Unfortunately yet
again for your credence, Scotland beat the Netherlands in that very group
(you know, the Netherlands, that wonder team you mentioned above), and so
Peru won that group.
I guess you forgot all those additional details, barely being out of
your mother's panza at the time. Here is the table for ya:
Group IV (Cordoba and Mendoza)
Peru 3-1 Scotland 1.PERU 3 2 1 0 7- 2 5
Netherlands 3-0 Iran 2.NETHERLANDS 3 1 1 1 5- 3 3
Scotland 1-1 Iran 3.Scotland 3 1 1 1 5- 6 3
Peru 0-0 Netherlands 4.Iran 3 0 1 2 2- 8 1
Peru 4-1 Iran
Scotland 3-2 Netherlands
Then you mention Peru's unfortunate demise in the second round. You
forget to mention that Peru's performance was so poor because it was
kicked around by its fellow CONMEBOL members in that group (who also
disposed of the sole UEFA representative, Poland, without a worry).
Let's give credit to Poland, they did get a 1-0 win against Peru.
A friendly piece of advice: the next time you pick up a gun, wear
bullet-proof shoes.
>[...]
>Can you spell "CONMEBOL sucks"?
So since my little table elsewhere on this thread (I wish you had not
ignored it, I went to so much trouble to get it right) showed that there
were several UEFA representatives that "sucked" even more (it came to a
3/1 ratio), then maybe what has sucked most of all is your methodology.
In addition, you conveniently ignore the fact that of the above tournaments,
three took place in Europe and only one in South America. In case we have
forgotten by now, this thread is supposed to be about how obscene it would
be to give the 2006 world cup to either England or Germany.
>but if anybody thinks that those spots would be better allocated
>to CONMEBOL, frankly he is deluding himself in dreams of grandeur.
If you want to give the undeserved four slots that UEFA gets to Africa
and Asia, I have no objection, naturally. However, it would be fair to
give an additional slot to South America to increase the probability that
a team that happens to be in good form at the time of the world cup also
happens to have qualified through the world's toughest qualifiers.
Ultimately, that is what this subthread is about: which of the confederations
has the toughest qualifier. I have clearly demonstrated that it is not UEFA,
and I would even hazard the guess that Africa has had a tougher qualifier
round than UEFA (note that this is not the same as saying that Africa has
better teams than UEFA). If I put together the Martian all-star team and
FIFA let me pick a confederation to try to qualify for the world cup
among South America, Europe, or Africa, I'd pick Europe in a heartbeat.
I put up a table, which you ignored, showing how often the worst performer
from CONMEBOL outperformed several UEFA representatives. The end result was
that the stinkers from CONMEBOL typically finished ahead of three UEFA
stinkers. Couple that with the fact that CONMEBOL also wins more world cups
and the evidence is as clear as can be.
Strange that you did not choose this tack on that other post, where I
compared apples to apples and proved that when we start to take away
excessive slots from the World Cup, we must begin at UEFA, since that is
the confederation that provides the bulk of the stinkers. Unfortunately,
you have sunk to the depth of out-and-out ignoring the data that
contradicts your statements, and introducing comparisons that must perforce
be spurious. So I must conclude that, when it comes to this topic, it is
a waste of my time to inform you of things that you do not wish to know.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets (was: Re: Why
Date: 23 Mar 1998 05:02:09 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login6.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
>[UEFA teams minus GER/ITA hardly ever do anything in WC]
Based on the head to head comparison between UEFA and CONMEBOL teams, I would have
to say that probably UEFA teams would do better (slightly better? much better?)
than what CONMEBOL teams have done since 1974.
>[UEFA bracket in '86 WC]
If CONMEBOL representatives were a bit more consistent in getting to
the second round, then we would have fewer single confederation brackets...
For example: if Uruguay had won its first round group in 1986, as some
people expected, they would have been in Belgium's bracket, and would have obviously
rolled on easily to the semis. Instead, they lost 6-1 to Denmark, advancing
to the second round by virtue of the fact that Hungary did even worse in their
loss to the USSR (6-0).
By the way, if Uruguay had been in Denmark's place, they would have had to
face first Spain and then Belgium. Two teams that they eventually faced 4 years
later in the first round of Italia '90. Result: one loss and one draw...
>[toughest Argentine opponent in 1986 was Uruguay = "worthy of note"]
I hate to pick on Uruguay, if only for the respect I have for Marcelo (who has
graciously stayed away from this thread), but if you consider their performance
in 86 as worthy of note, then your standards must be really low.
>[Peru 1978]
Whatever, so Peru 1978 was also worthy of note, if that makes you happy.
And don't forget to tell me one day the tale of Cagas, that great Transandean
talent, a distant cousin of the more illustrious Cagao.
>[Ariel's table -> UEFA 3/1 sucking ratio]
I did not ignore your table. I addressed it in another part of the thread. I am
perfectly well aware of the fact that the worst UEFA representative has sucked
more mightily than the worst CONMEBOL representative in the past 20 years
(which in turn sucked more than the worst African representative). On the other
hand, the "best" CONMEBOL team has done only marginally better than the
worst CONMEBOL team, and significantly worse than the army of undeserving
UEFA representatives.
>[3 WC's in Europe v 1 WC in SA]
And would you be so kind as to explain why Poland would have an advantage
over Peru in La Corun~a? Come on...
>[this thread is about WC 2006]
Threads evolve. Hell, I even changed the subject line! As for the original
subject, I couldn't care less whether Brazilian corrupt politicians or
Anglo-German corrupt politicians get to benefit from the WC.
>[4 undeserved UEFA spots -> 1 to SA]
The problem is that *ex-post* UEFA has 4 undeserved qualifiers. But ex-ante, you don't know
whether these 4 undeserved qualifiers are {Scotland, Belgium, Austria, Bulgaria}
or {Scotland, Norway, Croatia, Italy}. On the other hand, based on the past 6
WCs, there wouldn't be much benefit in adding an extra slot for SA, because,
as shown above, the Colombia-Bolivia-Uruguay-Paraguay-Peru-Chile have been
uniformly mediocre.
Example: Sweden was the ultimate European stinker in 1990, but finished
3rd in 1994.
>Ultimately, that is what this subthread is about: which of the confederations
>has the toughest qualifier.
If you say so.
>I put up a table, which you ignored, [...]
I did not ignore your table. There are different ways to look at the evidence.
You select one particular, very limited, aspect, that shows that usually at least
one UEFA representative sucks more than the worst South American sucker.
I show some other evidence that shows that the minor SA qualifiers have had an
apalling record against everybody, and that certainly doesn't justify
increasing their represenatation in future WCs.
Daniele
P.S.: Some day I will probably regret having spent so much time reading and posting
on RSS. But I have also learnt many things. The most important thing I have
learnt is to take with a grain of salt the myths that la Gazzetta dello Sport
and il Guerin Sportivo ("il campionato piu` bello del mondo", "Velez is a Serie C
team", etc.) try to sell you. You should adopt the same attitude towards El Grafico.
P.P.S.: Que se comio` Villalonga...
--------------------------
Uruguay & SA WC qualifying
--------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 23 Mar 1998 19:27:24 GMT
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
The true reason why you don't want to pick on Uruguay (but you do) is
that you are afraid that I will talk to Paco Casal and he might decide
that he's not exporting any more Uruguayan talent to Juventus. Then you
may find yourself scouting for talent in your mighties Austria, Scotland
and Belgium. That's when you will start asking yourself again who
deserves what.
As for me staying away from this thread, it's just that I don't want to
repeat myself. Yes, UEFA consistently send to the WC three or four teams
that are less than mediocre, which to me is the ultimate proof that they
are overrepresented. Uruguay '86, with all its problems, finished ahead
of Scotland in the group (not to mention that, in terms of quality of
players, was miles ahead of most UEFA qualifiers, but of course this is
not a reasonable argument).
But on the other hand, I don't think that this is a good time for me to
pursue this line of argument, because as I already said a few weeks ago,
all CONMEBOL representatives to WC98, with the exception of Argentina
and Brasil, more or less suck. Paraguay has an exceptional defensive
line, one of the best in the world, but that's it. Chile is mainly
Salas; they have some good players too, but when it comes to prove it in
the WC arena they will fail miserably. Colombia is not better than 4
years ago. I hope these three teams prove me wrong (especially Paraguay,
I'm sympathetic to them), but they may all fall in the first round. Just
as Austria, Scotland, Belgium, and some other mighty UEFA
representatives: The bottom line is that it just doesn't matter.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 24 Mar 1998 07:05:23 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login5.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
> [Uruguayan talent at Juve]
I sincerely hope that Zalayeta will end up being the player that you
promise us he will be. For the moment he is a very promising youngster, with
much better ball skills than Del Piero, Inzaghi or Vieri.
Torricelli and Di Livio also suck, but I'm not quite sure I'd be
willing to trade them for many other more talented players.
>Then you may find yourself scouting for talent in your mighties
>Austria, Scotland and Belgium.
Or Ireland, Denmark, Wales, Poland, Portugal, France. Sivori was the last truly
great South American to have played for Juve. Before that we had Monti, Orsi and
Cesarini in the '30s. Turin is a sad, grey city. Not the ideal place for
South American players.
>Yes, UEFA consistently send to the WC three or four teams
>that are less than mediocre, which to me is the ultimate proof that they
>are overrepresented.
True. And CONMEBOL regularly send to the WC two teams that are at best
mediocre, and, more often than not, "less than mediocre". Which to me
is proof that a 32 team WC is too large, and the majority of teams are'
there to make up the numbers
I would have no objections to your argument if one could rank a priori
the European qualifiers, and then chuck out the last two or three or four.
But, unfortunately, this can't be done with a confederation the size of
UEFA. Prior to the 1994 WC, many people would have said that probably Greece,
Switzerland and Norway had no place in the WC. Greece indeed stunk, Switzerland
did no worse than Uruguay 1986 or 1990, and Norway played awfully boring football
but didn't disgrace itself. Their performance was certainly superior
to that of Bolivia and Colombia. Probably nobody expected anything of note from
Sweden or Bulgaria, but both reached the semifinals.
> [Uruguay '86 >> most UEFA qualifiers in terms of quality of players]
Marcelo wanders dangerously into Cagao-land...
> ... but of course this is not a reasonable argument).
But fortunately redeems himself. Whew!
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 24 Mar 1998 20:50:46 GMT
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
> [Uruguayan talent at Juve]
For some reason or another, Juventus seems to have made a decision to go
for Uruguay: 4 Uruguayan players in the roster. I would think that
quality/price ratio is a reason, but then why is price so important to
Juve? Anyway, you guys are not alone in the city: Torino just signed a
smart agreement with River Plate (a relatively small Uruguayan club)
according to which, basically, River gets money and prepares talent for
Torino. I guess that the arrangement must include a roots-hunter who
works on Italian or Spanish passports.
> Or Ireland, Denmark, Wales, Poland, Portugal, France.
Well, I would never put France in the list of doubtful European WC
participants, and Portugal indeed seems to have lots of talent but,
as Uruguay, they don't seem able to build a strong national team.
> I would have no objections to your argument if one could rank a
> priori the European qualifiers, and then chuck out the last two
> or three or four.
But the same could be said about CONMEBOL. Take Uruguay 1990: they came
to Italy after winning Copa America 1987 over the world champions at
their home, with their full squad, then in Copa America 1989, played in
Brasil and with full squads, they gave a futbol lesson to Argentina in
the semifinal (2-0, this was the peak of Ruben Sosa's career), losing
1-0 to Brasil in the final. Pen~arol and Nacional were Libertadores
champions in '87 and '88 respectively, who would predict that they would
play worse in the WC? The same goes for 1986: even Newsweek put Uruguay
as one of the favorites before the WC started! If someone knew that this
would happen, maybe another CONMEBOL team could be sent that would have
perform better. Ariel made this argument yesterday: there are cycles,
and with more participants you are more likely to hit the right phase in
the cycle.
> [...]
> But fortunately redeems himself. Whew!
Well, not quite. I'm talking about players that proved themselves in
multiple situations before: Francescoli, Ruben Paz, Alzamendi, Da Silva
(he had been the last Pichichi), Dario Pereira... Take Ruben Paz and
Dario Pereira, who were hardly used (Paz played only 20 minutes in the
last game): they both played in Brasil at the time, and I read Brasilian
media commenting on them being subs saying "they would be starters for
Brasil!"
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 25 Mar 1998 09:11:44 GMT
From: stokkerm@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
> Well, I would never put France in the list of doubtful European WC
> participants,
Oh? France last qualified for the World Cup in 1985. They failed to
reach the 1994 Cup due to finishing third in a group including Sweden
and Bulgaria. That didn't seem a particularly strong group at the
time. Of course, that was before the World Cup. Afterwards, that
qualifying group turned out to have contained two future semifinalists.
> Portugal [...] don't seem able to build a strong national team.
Once every twenty years, and then they lose against the hosts.
> [Uruguay 1990]
They still qualified for the 1990 World Cup (in spite of a mighty struggle
with Bolivia who were to impress us 4 years later in the US). That they
were a good team in South America and then accumulated 1 draw and 1 goal
in 3 matches against average European teams (all teams from that particular
first round group were dumped in the second round) hardly shows South
America were horribly under-represented.
> The same goes for 1986: even Newsweek put Uruguay
> as one of the favorites before the WC started!
Since when does Newsweek know anything about football?
> there are cycles, and with more participants you are more likely to
> hit the right phase in the cycle.
And you're more likely to have qualifiers in the wrong part of the cycle,
too. It cuts both ways. Probably England or France would have done better
in 1994 than Greece or Russia. So?
> [Uruguay '86]
Uruguay's highlight of the tournament was scraping out a 0-0 draw with
10 men against Scotland, and getting past Hungary (who played in a far
stronger group on paper) on fewer goals conceded.
> [Uruguay '86 >> most UEFA qualifiers in terms of quality of players]
Well, so were the Netherlands, who didn't even qualify for the 1986 Cup but
were to win the European title two years later with the same frame of
players. They'd probably have done better than Northern Ireland, Hungary
or Scotland too, but so what?
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 25 Mar 1998 19:37:04 GMT
From: marcelo@fc.hp.com (Marcelo Weinberger)
> [France are not certain World Cup qualifiers]
I guess I misused the word "doubtful." I was referring to the upcoming
WC, in which I consider France to be a serious candidate, rather than a
marginal European participant (I should have used the word "marginal"
rather than "doubtful").
> They still qualified for the 1990 World Cup (in spite of a mighty
> struggle with Bolivia who were to impress us 4 years later in the US).
These cheap shots only weaken your argument: if you are in a group with
a team that is in a deep crisis and cannot win a point (Peru), then all
comes down to a head-to-head against the other team (Bolivia). Given
that the away game at 3600 mts is almost lost a priori (I don't recall
Bolivia playing at 3600 mts in the US, but I'm sure you know better),
then the only way you can qualify is on goals difference. And Uruguay
did that by scoring at home the number of goals they needed against both
teams in the first half, while resting and controlling the games in the
second. The superiority was much more obvious than what the numbers
initially suggest.
> That they were a good team in South America and then accumulated 1
> draw and 1 goal in 3 matches against average European teams (all teams
> from that particular first round group were dumped in the second
> round) hardly shows South America were horribly under-represented.
You continue to disappoint me with your cheap shots. First, you ignore
that I was trying to suggest the use of the transitive property: for
example, Argentina had trouble dealing with Uruguay, yet they were the
world champions. Your argument would apply if Uruguay was the third in
the continent at the time. Second, your sentence above either suggests
that Uruguay played 3 Europeans in the first round or that Italy was an
average European team. Third, you forget to take into consideration how
the games in the first round evolved: the key to understand what
happened is Ruben Sosa's horribly missed penalty against Spain, a
totally one-sided game. This determined the way Uruguay came out against
Belgium, being thus exposed to the conter-attack of a team whose
forwards were much faster than Uruguay's defense. Fourth, and worst of
all, you know very well that I never suggested that "South America is
horribly under-represented." I repeatedly said it's about right, and if
anything, I said it just doesn't matter because all these teams are just
"also runs." Moreover, I said that the South American representation for
WC'98 is especially weak.
> Right. Uruguay's highlight of the tournament was scraping out a 0-0
> draw with 10 men against Scotland
No, maybe it was missing a win against West Germany, when with 10
minutes left Saralegui misses an open net which would have made it 2-0.
It was finally 1-1.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 26 Mar 1998 10:51:26 GMT
From: stokkerm@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
> [France a serious candidate at WC '90]
Okay. Still, I'd like to add that I'm not convinced France would have
qualified for the World Cup if they hadn't been hosts. Based on not
having qualified for the previous two ones they likely would have been
a second seed and might have ended up in Italy's group, finished second,
and lost to Russia - just an example. France are by no means certain
qualifiers for Euro 2000 either (unlike Germany or Spain, for instance).
> Given that the away game [in Bolivia] at 3600 mts is almost lost a priori
I note Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru all avoided a loss in their
away game in Bolivia during this qualifying campaign.
> [WC'90 Q] The superiority was much more obvious than what the numbers
> initially suggest.
Fine. Okay, so Uruguay were clearly among the top-3 in South America
in the late eighties, I won't deny it.
> First, you ignore that I was trying to suggest the use of the
> transitive property
But we all know that the transitive property has to be used with caution in
football.
> [...] Your argument would apply if Uruguay was the third in the
> continent at the time.
They were not?
> Second, [...] or that Italy was an average European team.
Italy was. They were at home, which was their only advantage. They were
semifinalists in the 1988 European championships and failed to qualify
for 1992. Of course they were an average European team.
> Third, [...] Ruben Sosa's horribly missed penalty against Spain
It's never difficult to find excuses. I can also say that Denmark totally
dominated Spain in 1986 until that horrible assist by Jesper Olsen.
> Fourth, and worst of all, you know very well that I never suggested
> that "South America is horribly under-represented."
Okay, this I will admit, and I shouldn't have suggested it. I suppose
I was affected by arguing so much with Ariel - whose line of thought
you explicitly took up.
> I said it just doesn't matter because all these teams are just
> "also runs."
Indeed I think we agreed that 16 teams would be plenty for any World Cup,
with a partition of 7/8 Europeans, 3 South Americans, 2 or 3 Africans and
Asia/Oceania and Concacaf both 1 or 2 (disregarding hosting/champions for
the moment).
> [Uruguay's near win v West Germany]
I also recall Germany making most of the play in that match, but I admit
it's long ago and I never felt the urge of seeing that match again.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 26 Mar 1998 18:33:03 GMT
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
> I note Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru all avoided a loss in their
> away game in Bolivia during this qualifying campaign.
First, they prepared themselves, something you can afford only when you
have a month between games like this time around, and only if you can
get the players. Second, Bolivia '96-97 was a team in deep crisis. And
third, Uruguay, Argentina, and also Brasil (remember WC'94 qualifiers)
seem to have more trouble in La Paz; I don't know why. I guess it has to
do with the psychological aspect of playing in the altitude. There has
been so much talking about that in Uruguay, that it seems that the
players go there just to comply with a formality, knowing that the only
question is how long they will last until the concede a goal and then
it's over.
> [Uruguay were not third in SA at the time?]
Definitely not: if you consider continental competition only (of course
not a good criterion, but that was the basis from which I tried to use
the transitive property to suggest serious underperformance at the WC),
then Uruguay was number 1 during the eighties in South America, both at
club level (40% of Libertadores cups, against 30% of Argentina and 20%
of Brasil) and at the national team level (in 3 Copa America, 2 first
places and 1 second place; you may add the Mundialito final in 1981).
But, again, before others point to the irrelevance of those numbers, I
would agree that I would trade all this for just a WC semifinal. I'm
just saying that, regardless of this or that competition being taken
more or less seriously, there is a sustained pattern that suggests that
they were not "the best among the rest," but closer to the top two than
to the rest.
> [Italy in WC'90]
Average or not, as you said, they were at home. And when a big team
organizes a WC, you know what usually happens.
> It's never difficult to find excuses. [eg Denmark v Spain]
Indeed, and if you ask people to compare Denmark '86 with Spain '86, the
set of answers you will get will have nothing to do with that 5-1. Was
Spain 4 goals better than Denmark? What I'm trying to say is that the
result not necessarily proves that the a-priori probabilities that you
assigned were "wrong."
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 27 Mar 1998 10:49:41 GMT
From: stokkerm@cosy.sbg.ac.at (Karel Stokkermans)
> [Bolivia]
Well, in 1989 Bolivia played 3 matches in La Paz, two 2-1 wins vs Peru
and Uruguay and one loss against Chile. I admit it's hard to play
there, but to call it an a priori loss goes a bit far; though Uruguay's
record there might indeed suggest it.
>then Uruguay was number 1 during the eighties in South America
In fact looking at the late eighties alone it becomes even clearer; Argentine
and Brazilian clubs were pitiful in the Libertadores in those 5 years,
while Chile and Paraguay managed to win it. Which to me suggests it
also had to do with the sudden exodus of players after Italy opened
its borders in 1985 or so.
>they were not "the best among the rest," but closer to the top two than
>to the rest.
Okay, I completely agree. But now looking at the 1990 World Cup, it
is perhaps fair to suggest that none of the South American top-3 was
very convincing. Uruguay needs no further discussion, Argentina may
have gotten to the final but they had as little business being there
as Italy in 1994 or West Germany in 1986 (based on the quality of
their play over the whole tournament), and Brazil had 3 narrow wins
in the first round, two against very mediocre European teams both in
the wrong part of their cycle (well, Scotland always are there come
the World Cup...).
>Average or not, as you said, they were at home. And when a big team
>organizes a WC, you know what usually happens.
They get home advantage, sure. Though they got less of it than most
other recent hosts, I'd say.
>What I'm trying to say is that the result not necessarily proves that
>the a-priori probabilities that you assigned were "wrong."
No, but if the results over the last 4 or 5 Cups invariably suggest that
all South American teams bar Argentina and Brazil have achieved nothing,
they do give an indication.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 27 Mar 1998 19:00:41 GMT
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
I hope you are not suggesting that Uruguayan clubs might benefit from
Argentinean or Brasilian exodus! The Uruguayan clubs are probably among
the greatest exporters in the world, and that was also true in the
eighties. Moreover, both Pen~arol '87 and Nacional '88 won the
Libertadores with players that were not at the national team, which was
mostly formed by foreign-based players, both in WC'86 and WC'88.
Moreover, besides Europe, potential buyers of Uruguayan players are
precisely Brasil and Argentina. Also, the opening of the Italian borders
occurred before, in the early eighties.
===========================================
A post-modern approach
===========================================
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 22:06:29 +1200
From: robertc@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman)
Surely the point is that UEFA has more quality teams but that S America
has less countries. Out of 10 countries S America normally has about 5
good teams, while out of Europe's 60 countries there are about 15 quality
teams. S America usually has the best team but Europe has more strength
in depth. Where is the controversy in this?
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 24 Mar 1998 04:45:01 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
A sensible appraisal. A bit too neutral, which is not a cardinal sin.
Where the controversy is in this? Ah, that's what we want to find out.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 24 Mar 1998 13:19:19 +0100
From: Steve Jones (steve.jones@eurocontrol.fr)
A bit too neutral ? Umm
So you do agree that Europe should get 15 spots, while S America can
justify about 5. Changing like the wind these opinions of yours.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 24 Mar 1998 12:24:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. Perhaps I should have been a bit
more demanding of Chapman, since for one thing it's 50 countries in UEFA
rather than 60, and it's about 12 rather than 15, and it's about 7 rather
than 5.
Hmmm, you're right, those epsilons add up if you let them...
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 12:00:58 +1200
From: robertc@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman)
That was a typo with the 60, 50 is the correct number (actually 49 but I
was planning on rounding). I'd agree with 12 good UEFA teams before USSR
and Yug split up but now there's a definite 14 or 15. Swap Austria and
Scotland for Portugal / Ukraine / Russia / Czech Rep. And of course last
time out Greece and Turkey were obviously taking the place of France and
England (now that's a crime).
I just don't see which extra 2 countries should be added to CONMEBOL's 5,
the best 5 have been chosen in qualifying. Which are the other two?
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:28:37 -0500
From: Sheen Ikegaki (sikegaki@sprintmail.com)
Do we need to specify them?
Your argument is rather boring (NOTE: not wrong), because you are just trying
to cut a frame arbitrarily out of the films and stabilize the *alive*
entities, UEFA and CONMEBOL, according merely to the composition of the frame,
completely ignoring the immanent motion of each entity. We should be aware
that the composition could be drastically changed in the next frame
(tomorrow). The "Swap Austria and Scotland for Portugal / Ukraine / Russia /
Czech Rep" or "last time out Greece and Turkey were obviously taking the place
of France and England" kind of arguments are simply boring, and we all should
know that they cannot land at any places after all.
The very essence of our game is its continuity, so that I think we should
apply it also to the analysis of the relative value of the entities.
Isn't there any other unique, post-modern approach to this issue?
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: South America does not deserve any more WC spots than what it already gets
Date: 24 Mar 1998 23:10:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
> > Which are the other two?
Peru and Uruguay, obviously. Basically, after Argentina and Brasil, and
taking out Venezuela, the rest are very even (Uruguay can rise to the top
level when they don't adopt the spirit of the firing squad that arrays
itself in a circle).
>Isn't there any other unique, post-modern approach to this issue?
Ok. Each CONMEBOL and UEFA federation sends a team. Then some teams are
selected to stand on the side of a game as required by the following
scenario. The game starts, say it's Chile v. Italia. When an Italian
player makes a mistake, the Russian DT picks one of his players to go in
and replace him. When a Russian player makes a mistake, whomever the
Russians eliminated (Israel, right?) picks a player to replace him.
And so forth. On the other side, when a player from Chile makes a mistake,
the Peruvian DT Oblitas picks a Peruvian to replace him. When he makes a
mistake the Ecuadorian DT picks a substitute. And so forth. When we
reach the bottom of the bracket that produced the Italians, the Italian
player goes back in the game. Iterate throughout the game. After UEFA loses
every game we don't have to put up with their bullshit anymore except
when they make self-serving soft-focus documentaries about belle epoques
past e.g. "A la Recherche du Cups Perdu", "Wembley Revisited",
"Peazza Paradiso", "Don DiStefano y Sancho Puskas", "Mein Kup",
"Lady Chatterley's Blatter", "The Origin of the Footballs",
"FIFA and its Malcontents", "Das Fussball", "The Brothers Maradonov",
"A Tale of Two Halves", "Footkenstein", "The Football Colony",
"Systeme des contradictions economiques ou philosophie de le football",
"The French Libero's Woman", "Critique of Pure Football" and its companion
"Critique of Practical Football", "Football and Nothingness",
"The Myth of Edwards", "Crime and Football", "Football and Punishment",
"Eine Kleine Nichtfussball", "I Fought Denis Law and Denis Law Won",
"The Elephant Midfielder", "My 60 Memorable Games",
"An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Political Justice, and Its
Influence on General Virtue and Football", "Footballaris",
"The Rise and Fall of the Calcio Empire", "All is Quiet on the FIFA Front",
"A Clockwork Oranje", "Tales From the Saragossa Cup", "Auto-Da-Football",
"Mutual Aid: A Factor in Football", "A Day in the Life of Ivan Maradonovich",
"The Kingdom of Football is Within You", "Also Sprach Beckenbauer"...
===============================================
WC'66 recap
===============================================
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 22 Mar 1998 04:04:26 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login3.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
On 21 Mar 1998 13:29:00 -0700, Ariel Mazzarelli wrote:
>In England '66, the winner could not play a single game from the
>quarterfinals on without cheating.
A theorem on conspiracy theories:
For every conspiracy theory you can think of, there is always a
better, strictly footballing, explanation for the outcome of a game.
(see also the RSSSF Archive).
i.e.: If Argentina and Uruguay were as good as you think they
were, they would have beaten England and Germany, regardless of the
hostile refereeing.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 22 Mar 1998 20:16:49 GMT
From: marcelo@fc.hp.com (Marcelo Weinberger)
I don't think that Uruguayan team was better than Germany, at least
under the particular circumstances of that WC. They were roughly
comparable, and the referee turned what should have been a leveled
game (actually, Uruguay was largely outplaying Germany until the
referee started to interfere) into a 4-0. If you have the chance, take
a look at the tape: it's quite interesting, you don't see so blatant
robberies anymore. One can say that in this respect, soccer has gone a
long way in the right direction. It's not a matter of an occassional bad
call, but a systematic robbery.
And if you want to take a look at what Uruguay had to offer that year,
take a look at Pen~arol - Real Madrid 1966 (Intercontinental Cup played
a few months later), the tape of the Madrid game is available. A futbol
lesson (although I must admit, Spencer and Joya could not play for the
national team).
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 25 Mar 1998 10:26:36 GMT
From: hmSPAMBLOCK@custard.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Huw Morris)
Marco Paserman wrote:
> [Argentina and Uruguay in 1966]
Add to the fact that in the 60s, South American football was known for
it's brutality. (The Intercontinental Cup was nearly abandoned because
of the SA tactics, especially at home.) With both Argentina and Uruguay
having European referees, it's not surprising they had a slightly
different interpretation of the rules to the ref. In any case, nothing
can excuse a player refusing to leave the pitch after getting sent off.
I suppose Ariel also thought Argentina's behaviour in the 1990 final was
acceptable too?
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 25 Mar 1998 17:37:50 GMT
From: marcelo@fc.hp.com (Marcelo Weinberger)
So, here you have the key of some of the things we've been arguing
about, Daniele. The guy doesn't have a clue about the games, but his
brain-washed prejudices "South American football was known for it's
brutality" make him infer what happenend. Could it be that there were
no conspiracies, but you just make sure to chose referees with such
prejudicies.
As for the islander, I give the same advise that I gave to Daniele: go
watch a tape of Uruguay-Germany 1966, it will give you a refreshing
view of today's FIFA: at least, you don't see such blatant robberies
anymore.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 26 Mar 1998 11:17:04 GMT
From: hmSPAMBLOCK@custard.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Huw Morris)
Erm, sorry, who's the one with the "brain-washed prejudices"? Not me
I think. Anybody who goes whining on about "conspiracies" that are
32 years in the past has the problem. I was referring more to the
Arentina-England game anyway - which I have seen.
> go watch a tape of Uruguay-Germany 1966
I really don't care. Are you telling me that you have complete confidence
that there will not be a single incompetent ref in France 98?
------------------------------------------
Subject: 1966 WC Quarterfinals ... again
Date: 26 Mar 1998 18:45:46 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login6.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
Marcelo, if you have a tape of that game and can send it to me, I'll be
delighted to watch it (or any of Pen~arol's games of the mid '60s)
However, let me restate my theorem on conspiracy theories: "For every
conspiracy theory you can think of, there is always a better, strictly
footballing, explanation for the outcome of a game".
Now, I am too young (and naive, probably) to have watched any of the
games from WC'66, so maybe you can just ridicule the rest of this post.
On the other hand, not being a fan of any of the teams involved,
I can also be considered more objective.
So let me try a reconstruction, based mostly on the RSS archive,
and on another clearly biased source (I'll try to extract the
facts only, but I admit this is difficult)
So, to recap the evidence, the stage is set for two very intriguing
World Cup Quarterfinals between Europe and South America: England-Argentina,
Germany-Uruguay. As it happens, a german referee, Herr Kreitlein,
is designated for the first game, and an English one, Mr. Finney,
for the second. Peculiar, but, a priori, few people seemed to have any
objections, as the two were considered to be among the best referees
around.
It turns out that the Uruguay-Germany game is particularly violent,
with both teams sharing the blame, but Mr. Finney seems to notice
the Uruguayan fouls more than the German ones. Nevertheless, Uruguay
seems the better team and creates goalscoring opportunities;
on one occasion they are even able to beat the German goalie,
but Schnellinger (a dirty bastard milanista, by the way)
handles the ball on the line, and is ignored by Mr. Finney.
At this point, the temporal sequence of events becomes a bit
blurred (please correct me if anything is wrong): a violent foul
by Emmerich on the Uruguayan captain Troche, to which Troche
reacts with a kick in the stomach, and is sent off (this is taken
by that notoriously unbiased gentleman Mr. Glanville, so it could
be all wrong; and I'll spare you some of his other allegations, otherwise
you might end up getting a heart attack, or flying to England to
take care of Brian personally). Then Germany scores. Then Silva is
also sent off. (Actually change that: first Silva is sent off for
a non-foul, then Germany scores, then Troche is justifiably sent off).
In 11 against 9, the Germans have an easy life, and go on to win
4-0.
The second match also has its share of controversy. I can't really
reconstruct much of it, because all the reports are inevitably
incredibly biased. Anyway, in the first half Rattin is sent off: he was
probably just asking Herr Kreitlein where he had bought his watch,
but Kreitlein mistook his innocent question for an incredibly
offensive curse in all the languages of the world. Rattin makes a
scene and refuses to walk off the pitch for 10 minutes. When the game
finally resumes, not much changes. Argentina creates its chances,
so does England. In the end England manages to score with 13 minutes
to go and wins 1-0.
Now, what do we conclude from all this. Argentina and Uruguay were
damaged by bad refereeing mistakes. It is unfortunate that in the
mid '60s South American football had a bad reputation of violence
in Europe, and this misperception probably contributed to the
excessive severity of Finney and Kreitlein towards the South
Americans, and their condescendence towards violence on the
Europeans' side.
However, bad refereeing happens, including one-sided refereeing,
including one-sided refereeing of a different order of magnitude
from what we are used to see today. And bad refereeing can even
happen in two matches. Under the null hypothesis of
no conspiracy (i.e., that the probability of a bad refereeing
mistake in one direction is 0.5), the probability of such an
event happening is 0.25. No reasonable scientist would reject
the null under these circumstances.
People say: English referee assigned to Germany-Uruguay, German
referee to England-Germany. English referee screws Uruguay,
German referee screws Argentina. Add 1+1 and you see the result.
However, statistically 1+1 is not necessarily equal to 2.
Moreover: it is fair to say that Uruguay lost its head after
going one goal down and finding itself down to 10 men. A team
with the tradition and huevos of Uruguay should not have committed
this mistake. And Argentina was penalized by the sending off
of Rattin, but they could have won the game anyway. It has
happened before, and will happen again, that a team with ten men
wins a game. I know this might be hard to admit, but probably
England '66 was enough of a good team to beat Argentina at home.
Oh, and the switching of venues in 1966 and 1970 is really a
minor thing. If Portugal was good enough to beat England
at Goodison Park, they should have also been good enough to
beat England at Wembley. And from what I know, Guadalajara
is also in the mexican altiplano; the switching of venues
is certainly irregular (just like Argentina-Peru being
switched to later in the evening for TV reasons...),
but it is not the major factor that determined the outcome
of the games.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 1966 WC Quarterfinals ... again
Date: 26 Mar 1998 20:11:36 GMT
From: marcelo@apollo.HP.COM (Marcelo Weinberger)
> Marcelo, if you have a tape of that game and can send it to me, I'll
> be delighted to watch it (or any of Pen~arol's games of the mid '60s)
Unfortunately I don't, I watched it a few years ago and I don't remember
in which circumstances. As for Pen~arol, a tape of the Real Madrid game
in 1966 in Madrid was recently released in Montevideo. I'm desperately
trying to get it.
> [Uruguay v West Germany]
Perfect reconstruction. Let me add one thing from a Uruguayan
perspective, which adds more controversy: a few months after the WC,
Troche is transferred to a German team. Since then, there have been
widespread rumors that Troche was actually bought and he got himself
sent-off on purpose for his reaction. Even though he played for Cerro
at the time, he had spent most of his career at Nacional, so the zero
hypothesis for him is that every possible bad rumor is true.
> [reputation for violence in South American football]
First, in 1966 this reputation had no basis whatsoever, even for minds
inclined to prejudice. If anything, South Americans viewed themselves as
representatives of a school that approached futbol as an art, while
viewing Europeans as pure muscle (hence, closer to violent behavior). Of
course, a rather simplistic view as well, although I was surprised to
hear Berti Vogts confirm it by claiming that the new rule on tackles
from behind affects the European style. Second, what you are claiming is
exactly what I said: no need to buy referees, just choose those that are
more likely to go your way.
>From exactly the reasons you presented, the probability of having a bad
referee in one direction is not equal to the probability of having it in
the other direction when the referee is chosen the way it was. You don't
need a conspiracy. If I claim that a referee favored the host I won't
think of a conspiracy: it's only natural; referees tend to favor the
home team without being bought! What happended then is an exacerbation
of the host factor by many circumstances. Not necessarily a conspiracy,
but hardly an event to be explained by random errors!
> [a team with ten men can still win a game]
Absolutely, totally agreed. People in Uruguay also blame their players:
the Troche rumor just proves it.
> England '66 was enough of a good team to beat Argentina at home.
I don't think anyone in Argentina doubts it. But in that particular game
they needed the referee's help.
> [Portugal -> no difference Goodison or Wembley].
Agreed.
> And from what I know, Guadalajara is also in the mexican altiplano;
No, the conditions in Mexico City and Guadalajara are totally different.
Brasil was undeniably favored by the venue change in the WC'70
semifinal. But nobody in Uruguay would argue with your claim that
Brasil didn't need that extra help.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: 1966 WC Quarterfinals ... again
Date: 26 Mar 1998 16:33:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Your analysis is fine by me, Marco, but you need to add one crucial fact to
complete the picture: in the opening round, Argentina played West Germany and
the game was very violent, in which I would not characterize the Germans as
mere innocent victims. So it was rather offensive to put a West German referee
against Argentina later on in the tournament. Even if there had not been the
cross-refereeing side to this, it was still a very suspicious decision.
==============================================
WC'78 - Argentina v Peru
===============================================
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 02:56:28 GMT
From: paul@i8spamacorns.demon.co.uk (Paul Louis)
Ariel Mazzarelli replying to Steve Jones:
>I prefer to talk about futbol in this subthread. In Argentina '78, the best
>team won.
Yes, but would you have done so without the gracious help of Peru, in
particular one of the most generous goalkeepers ever to play in a World
Cup. Were I the sort to indulge in conspiracy theories I'm sure I
could come up with a few.
------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 26 Mar 1998 00:15:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
Ah, see, it is easy to suppose that that Peruvian team did not play that
game very well. It is even reasonable to speculate that something happened
behind the scenes to predispose the Peruvians to take a fall--I myself
had some doubts until I saw the game again a few years ago.
However, a mere glance at the game shows that that goalkeeper had nothing
to do with all but at most one of the six goals scored that night. Other
players that could be excused for seeming to make something of an effort
would include the two Peruvians that almost scored while the game was
still 0-0 (one hit the post, the other nearly did).
In the end, I could not tell what players had deliberately played beneath
their best on that day. Of course on TV you can miss some things, and so
maybe some midfielder was always late to cover his spot, or some wingback
was a little slower than the man turning his corner--this is hard to see,
but possible. But the crass thing that you are suggesting just did not
happen. I worry that this assertion upsets you, but that is the way it
went down. I'm sorry.
Now I have a dilemma which I hope you will help me settle: should I assume
that you posted without having seen the game, or that you posted without
knowing anything about futbol, or is there some third option that I missed?
----------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998
From: Paul Louis (paul@i8spamacorns.demon.co.uk)
The third option: I disagree with you but I do know something about
football and, while I must confess to not having seen the match in
it's entirety, I have seen the goals many times, and each time I see
them they seem softer and softer.
The Peruvian goalkeeper (I'm afraid I cannot recall his name)
seemed entirely disinterested in the chore of having to exert himself
in order to prevent the ball entering the net. Though maybe I am being
unfair to him, perhaps he was a visionary who was trying to invent an
entirely new form of goalkeeping. Eschewing the tired concept of
"diving" (no, not Benny's 8th deadly sin, the sort goalkeepers indulge
in) whereby a jump involving some horizontal movement with arms
outstretched would be committed in order to at least attempt to
intercept the ball, our Peruvian friend preferred instead the tactic
of going from vertical alignment to horizontal, while never actually
moving from his original position. The result was that he would end up
lying down where he had been recently standing. Quite a unique tactic
but sadly not one, on the evidence of the Argentina-Peru match at
least, that was overly successful;.
So, you see, it's possible to have a position contrary to your own
yet not be a drooling, neanderthalite cretin. Though I'm sure it
doesn't happen very often, infallibility rarely draws sensible
criticism.
----------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 30 Mar 1998 19:47:02 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
I'm afraid you're just smearing the good name of that goalkeeper then,
because your claim is an outright falsehood.
---------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 31 Mar 1998 12:48:21 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login1.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
Quiroga (yet another "El Loco"). On the other hand, I have never heard
Ariel's comments on that dreadful decision to move Argentina's game
to the cold and wintery Rosario night rather than in the afternoon,
together with Brazil-Poland. I'm sure the cold must have damaged
Argentina's chances to score several on Peru...do I see here a brasuca
conspiracy?
---------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 31 Mar 1998 16:45:00 -0700
From: mazzare@primenet.erase2mail.com (Ariel Mazzarelli)
The game was not moved. The reason that they wanted to play the games at
different times was so that they could both be broadcast live on TV. Same
issue came up four years later in 1982 and led to the W. Germany-Austria
fiasco. After that, FIFA decided that the convenience of being able to
watch all games live was outweighed by sporting considerations.
----------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Sacrifice only South America?
Date: 1 Apr 1998 14:10:44 GMT
From: mdpaserm@login6.fas.harvard.edu (Marco Paserman)
On the other hand, the other semifinal group, that would have
included Argentina if everything had gone according to seeding,
had its final two matches (Italy-Holland, Germany-Austria) played
simultaneously. So I don't know if the Argentina-Peru game was literally
moved at the last moment, or if there was a contingent arrangement that
specified: "Argentina's final game in the semifinal group will be
delayed for TV purposes, wherever they happen to play".
What is undeniable is that the delay had two contrasting effects:
it favored Argentina since it allowed them to know exactly how many
they needed to score against Peru; it damaged Argentina by forcing them
to play in the cold and wintery Rosario night...