I think it's easier to win the world cup...the Euro features the top 15 according to the FIFA rankings
Ibra's Abracadabra will help Barca win their second Treble, and Eto'o will revitalize Inter Milan!!
Soccerlens Forum » General Discussion » General Football Talk
Is it easier to win the Euro or the World Cup?
13 posts - Started 1 year ago by RicardoQuaresma - Latest reply from Ahmed Bilal -
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Posted 1 year ago #
There are more "weak" teams at the world cup. So, yea it is harder to win the euros.
Cue the Nani jokes... -
Posted 1 year ago #
i agree although england never seem to want to get past the 1/4 finals lol
-
Posted 1 year ago #
It's harder to win the world cup, because you have Brazil and Argentina and some strong African sides, e.g.:
- Ghana beat the Czech Republic and the USA (2006)
- Senegal beat France, then the world champions, as well as Sweden in the knock-out round (2002)
- Nigeria beat Spain, one of the tournament favourites, and Bulgaria (1998)
- Nigeria thrashed Greece (4-0) and Bulgaria (3-0); Bulgaria were then a very strong side and went on to make the semi-finals (1994)
- Cameroons beat both Argentina (then the reigning world champions with Maradona) and Romania; finished top of their group and went on to knock out Colombia in the knock-out phase (1990)
- Morocco beat Portugal, drew with England and Poland and finished top of their group ahead of England (1986)
- Algeria beat Germany, then the favourites to win the world cup (1982).
The challenge and strength of the Big Two from South America and the strong challenge from the African continent should not be underestimated.
-
Posted 1 year ago #
i agree with frankie, you have more sides etc.
Puff here!! also known as... PUFF MASTER CHANG!
*swak* -
Posted 1 year ago #
Its not just more sides, but its more quality in the tournament, as well as tactical differences too. Teams from Central European nations often produce the same sorts/types of players, so many teams such as Euro cohosts Austria and Switzerland have similar tactics. But in the World Cup, you add teams who bring something completely different from each other to the table, and you have a lot of tactical differences, which often lead to great matches between teams of differing continents.
What? I didn't foul him, I just nudged him a bit -
Posted 1 year ago #
Can you mention any of those great matches in any of the past two World Cups? Now think in terms of Euros.
2000: Spain v Yugoslavia
2004: Czech Republic v Holland (one of the best games ever)As for more teams, frankie, when you have teams like Saudi Arabia playing in the World Cup, they will get thrashed by the Germans and other teams (2002). This will pretty much ensure that the Germans will have 3 points in the bag and that they will only need a win to go through. Ecuador beat Poland in 2006, but were they any real threat to any of the other teams? Was Australia ever a factor in the last World Cup, or were they just an obstacle?
The teams that have enough quality to win the Euros will breeze through at the World Cup. Look at Portugal and Germany. Now look at Italy. They conceded one goal in 2006 and 3 in the first game of Euro 2008. Holland is of a different class than either USA or Ghana.
-
Posted 1 year ago #
Blatter would say that Australia had a fair chance to win the World Cup if Italy hadn't cheated
-
Posted 1 year ago #
Andrei:
You are betraying typical European arrogance towards the rest of the world.
When is the last time that Greece or Denmark or Spain or Russia or the Czech Republic (previously Czechoslavakia) or Holland won the world cup? Never. Yet, each of them have won the Euros. Why?
There is a good reason why only a handful of countries have ever won the World Cup - Brazil (5), Italy (4), Germany (3), Argentina (2), Uruguay (2), France (1) and England(1) - and why so many different countries are able to win the Euros. The reason probably lies in the simple fact that it is harder to win the world cup than it is to win the Euros, and only the best footballing nations of the day have any real chance of doing so. It's much more likely that mid-ranking nations like a Greece or a Denmark would win the Euros (which they both have done) than the world cup (which they haven't). To date, only the true giants of world football have been able to win a world cup (and then not all of them, for instance, Spain and Holland).
In almost 80 years of world cups only 4 European sides have ever won the world cup (Italy, Germany, England and France). Yet in just 42 years of the Euros, it has been won by no fewer than 9 different European countries, including such massive world powers like Denmark and Greece!
At the world cup you have the best European sides plus the best of the rest of the world (including the South American giants Argentina and Brazil). I don't see how that makes the world cup easier to win than the Euros. Ask any European footballer or manager which they consider to be the tougher competition to win, and I'd be surprised if any of them said the Euros. To a man they'd all want to be a world cup winner over a Euro winner, and that in itself gives a strong indication as to which is the more difficult competition to win.
I'm surprised that you are so dismissive of Brazil and Argentina, who between them have won 7 of the last 12 world cups; and 3 of the last 6 world cups. If every other world cup on average is being won by either Brazil or Argentina how can a competition (the Euros) which never includes the South Americans be harder to win than the world cup which does include them? You're not making sense.
You also miss the point about the African sides and completely ignore the evidence I've put in front of you. World cup after world cup different African sides have beaten top European sides and knocked them out of the world cup. There is a consistent record of African success against European nations. The Czech Republic, one of the favourites for the 2006 world cup and a side which had finished third in Euro 2004 were beaten and knocked out of the 2006 world cup by Ghana; France one of the big favourites in 2002 as double world and Euro 2000 champions, were beaten and knocked out by Senegal; Spain one of the favourites for the world cup (and quarter finalists in Euro 1996) were beaten and knocked out of the 1998 world cup by Nigeria; Greece in 1994 were beaten and knocked out by Nigeria; Romania were beaten and knocked out by Cameroon in 1990; Portugal were beaten and knocked out by Morocco in 1986.
World cup after world cup, top european sides like France, Spain, the Czech Republic, Romania etc have been beaten by the best African sides and eliminated from the world cup. How exactly does the presence of the Africans make the world cup easier to win than the Euros?
Let's turn our attention to the concacaf and Asian sides. You mention the USA. Well in a group comprising South Korea, USA, Poland and Portugal in the 2002 world cup. Guess who finished 1st and 2nd, and who finished in the bottom two places and were eliminated? Well, South Korea and the USA topped the group and Portugal and Poland failed to even make the round of 16. South Korea went on to eliminate Spain and Italy in reaching the semi finals; and the USA made the quarter finals which was as far as England and Spain got. In fact only two European sides made it beyond the quarter finals (Germany and Turkey) and the world cup was eventually won by Brazil. So much for the world cup being a breeze for the European nations.
The historical record shows that it is demonstrably easier to win the Euros than it is to win the world cup. European sides have never just "breezed" past Brazil and Argentina, and do not these days "breeze" past the very best African sides. Far from it.
Much also seems to depend on where the world cup is being staged. A European side has never won the world cup when it has been played outside of Europe, and only once has a non European team won the world cup when it has been played in Europe (Brazil, 1958). This suggests that there may be other factors involved in winning the world cup which makes it difficult: climate (heat, humidity, altitude), food, the support base etc. may all make a difference in the final analysis, depending on where the competition is staged.
If the world cup was as easy to win as the Euros then you'd expect to see as many world cups being won outside of Europe as in Europe by the european nations. Yet, in almost 80 years of world cup history, the European nations have been unable to register a single world cup win outside of Europe.
-
Posted 1 year ago #
Going back to your point about African nations, which I previously ignored. Here is some info from 2002:
I think we will both agree that Senegal's run to the quarter-finals was due, in part, to a huge amount of luck. On another day, Senegal would have struggled to score a goal in that group (France, Denmark and Uruguay?). Still, their merit that they qualified.
Spain qualified from their group with nine points and they played South Africa, Slovenia and Uruguay. Slovenia gathered none.
Group F had England, Argentina, Sweden and Nigeria. In Argentina and Nigeria, that group contained a South American heavyweight and agruably the best team in Africa at the moment. Who qualified? England and Sweden.
Each group had a team from Europe qualified with the exception of Portugal's group. In the round of 16, there were 8 European teams; in the Quarter-Finals, there were 4; in the Semis, there were two and in the final there was one.
No other federation had so many, or as many representatives in the respective stages of the competition (exception final, obviously), although European nations made up less that half of all the team there.
Now, 1998
There were 10 European teams in the round of 16, including such giants as Romania, Norway and Denmark. From these ten, six qualified to the quarter finals and three of them made it to the semis.
And, I want to look at the Euros a little bit. 2004:
Portugal and Greece qualified ahead of Spain - who has Raul, a young Torres, Casillas and Puyol and who made the World Cup quarter finals two years earlier - and an ageing Russia.
Italy, who would go on to lift the World Cup in two year's time failed to get past Norway and Sweden.
Germany, also failed to get past the group stages after the Czech Republic - favourites - and Holland stole in front of them.
So, you have Germany and Italy, one who lost a World Cup semi-final two years prior and one who clinched the World Cup two years onwards, fail at the group stage in Euro 2008. Then you have France who won the World Cup with a 3-0 scoreline against Brazil in 1998 needing extra time goals in the semis and the final.
-
Posted 1 year ago #
Oh, and if you are saying that I am an arrogant European who looks down on every other culture in terms of football, food and wine, then you are completley right. And trust me, I've been globetrotting...
-
Posted 1 year ago #
World cup is harder no doubt..African Nations and South American are involved. And then there is always that small team to catch your eye and dent the hopes of a big team - Trinidad vs. Sweden 2006....Sweden could believe they drew. And England didn't bargain for that kind of resistance.
You don't win a silver medal, you lose the gold!
http://sites.google.com/site/sunjosephproject -
Posted 1 year ago #
frankie, andrei - excellent debate. Andrei is an arrogant european, frankie is what, a guilt-ridden Englishman?
Reply
You must log in to post.
