Who Are The Top.10 Contenders For South Africa 2010?

I know that, you know that, but do they know that?

We won't qualify this year.

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:

Stimulus Package wrote:
What you think might happen is not all that matters. What actually happens matters more.

But we don't know what is actually going to happen.

England have qualified, France and Argentina haven't as yet.

You figured this all out by yourself?

As such, you'd have to be a fool to (currently) give France and Argentina a better chance of winning the overall tournament, as they have to do considerably more from now onward than England do.

Not really since qualification has little indication of finals performance.

The point is that the total number of events that have to happen for France or the Argies to win is considerably greater than the events that have to happen for England to win.

You know your maths, you know what the probability calculations would show.

Depends how you assign the probabilities of each event happening.

True, but there is no possibility of England not even qualifying, whereas both the French and the Argies have their doubts.

If one were being realistic, England (currently) have a higher probability of winning the World Cup because less has to go their way in order for them to win it than does for Argentina or France to win it.

Stimulus Package wrote:True, but there is no possibility of England not even qualifying, whereas both the French and the Argies have their doubts.

If one were being realistic, England (currently) have a higher probability of winning the World Cup because less has to go their way in order for them to win it than does for Argentina or France to win it.

Australia have already qualified, do they also have a bigger chance than France and Argentina to win the world cup ?

Axeslammer wrote:

Stimulus Package wrote:True, but there is no possibility of England not even qualifying, whereas both the French and the Argies have their doubts.

If one were being realistic, England (currently) have a higher probability of winning the World Cup because less has to go their way in order for them to win it than does for Argentina or France to win it.

Australia have already qualified, do they also have a bigger chance than France and Argentina to win the world cup ?

Stop playing Devil's advocate.

Özil wrote:

Fey wrote:

Özil wrote:

Fey wrote:Hmmm I think its safe to say we should have a top ten based on talent and a top ten contenders for South-Africa

When it comes to talent:

1/2 Brazil Spain

3 Portugal
4 England
5 Holland

6 France
7 Argentina
8 Italy

9 Germany
10 Ivorycoast, Denmark, Ghana etc.


Top ten for contenders for the world cup:

1 Brazil
2 Spain

3 Italy
4 Germany

5 France
6 England
7 Holland
8 Argentina

9/10 Portugal, Denmark, Ghana, Ivory coast etc.

hahaha i like your talent ranking

Fair and balanced Ozil, you should try that one day

you forget one thing, germany have talent and quality in every area, the dutchies only in the front

Du bist das wunder von Deutschland

To me:

Brasil
Spain

Germany / England


...and then no one else, even if Argentina, and probably Holland and France, have the players.


Looking at the past, it should be ze Germans turn, they always tend to amass some good finals and semis beatings before ending up winning it.

England current state remind me a little of Italy pre 2006.
Years and years talking about world class players, golden generations and stuff, and always ending up in failures. Some of those narrow, some unlucky, and some complete bottling.
Then when almost everybody expect more of the same, the right manager come in at the right moment, the team clicks, overachieve ad bring it home.


For the "no one else" part...

Argentina is a mess.
They have enough quality to recover, but traditionally they lack the "rise from the ashes" attitude of the the germans and the italians - ie, when they're looking like messing it up, they'll consistently keep messing till the end. Having a coach which is both hopeless and unsackable won't help either.

France is in the post-Zidane and post-golden generation hangover, they'll take some time to gel again, just like in the Eighties post-Platini and Tigana, Giresse, Fernandez etc.

Holland has quality but not enough to overcome their underachieving attitude - see Euro '08.

Outsiders... yeah it's outside Europe, yeah it's the first in Africa, and there are some good african and south american teams around; but I don't think it's time for a real outsider to win it yet.
Most probably there will be some surprise in the final fours, but no more.

Well according to big 4 plus hosts theory, England have no chance of winning it.

The big difference is Spain fulfilled many peoples hopeful expectations winning 2008 Euro Cup and are still strong. I do not count the Confed cup like a few on here. Italy may have a good history there form may well pick up. Argentina are the same even with a bad manager if they make the finals and there players kick in they could become serious contenders. France are no push overs even with Domenech they have good players. Holland can beat anyone on there day England have a system maybe not the best players. None the less to be in a situation where the spine of the team is half decent right down the middle our goalie being weaker than the other top team makes sense to put then in a 5 team group with: Italy, Holland, Argentina, France, England. After Spain, Brazil, and Germany

brazil, argentina (Taking into account that it will be outside europe)

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

germany, italy (As always)


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

england (Fabio's doing an excelent job. The team is good - I was impressed by their performance against Croatia. Language may help in SA), any African team.


Yes, I write off Spain. WC is no Euro Cup. Group stages are easier, but the cup as a whole is much more difficult. And France are NOTHING without Zidane. Holland may have a good WC, but they are no winners.

mongrel hawk wrote:brazil, argentina (Taking into account that it will be outside europe)

Jesus, i hope a european team wins just so people will stop with this shit.

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:brazil, argentina (Taking into account that it will be outside europe)

Jesus, i hope a european team wins just so people will stop with this shit.

this shit has been going on fo 80 years, kimbo. and remember our bet.

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:brazil, argentina (Taking into account that it will be outside europe)

Jesus, i hope a european team wins just so people will stop with this shit.

his shit has been going on fo 80 years, kimbo. and remember our bet.

80 years ago the world cup was a bunch of farmers from uruguay competing against a bunch of farmers from the Ottoman empire, none of that counts.

Football today is very different, most top SA and european players play in the same continent, so SA's have no advantage over europeans with the world cup being in South Africa. And there isn't a wizard saying no european tean can ever win outside europe, it's all mumbojumbo.

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:brazil, argentina (Taking into account that it will be outside europe)

Jesus, i hope a european team wins just so people will stop with this shit.

his shit has been going on fo 80 years, kimbo. and remember our bet.

80 years ago the world cup was a bunch of farmers from uruguay competing against a bunch of farmers from the Ottoman empire, none of that counts.

Football today is very different, most top SA and european players play in the same continent, so SA's have no advantage over europeans with the world cup being in South Africa. And there isn't a wizard saying no european tean can ever win outside europe, it's all mumbojumbo.

just remember our bet.

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:brazil, argentina (Taking into account that it will be outside europe)

Jesus, i hope a european team wins just so people will stop with this shit.

his shit has been going on fo 80 years, kimbo. and remember our bet.

80 years ago the world cup was a bunch of farmers from uruguay competing against a bunch of farmers from the Ottoman empire, none of that counts.

Football today is very different, most top SA and european players play in the same continent, so SA's have no advantage over europeans with the world cup being in South Africa. And there isn't a wizard saying no european tean can ever win outside europe, it's all mumbojumbo.

just remember our bet.

I don't remember our bet.

http://europeanboard.ephpbb.com/the-international-board-f6/fifa-confirms-world-cup-bids-list-t19548-20.htm

me: you wanna bet? I bet you 1,000 pounds Brazil will go further than England.

you: But that's not the argument, what has England got to do with anything?

me: ok, let's forget england and the money, afterall, how would we know we would really pay? another suggestion: if an Euro team wins next year, I'm out of this forum forever. If a South American wins, you're out, and there's no come back with another nick.
how about that?

you: Well i have already agreed to leave if Newcastle get relegated, so perhaps we'll have to hold off on this bet.

me: ok, then if you win your newcastle bet, our bet is on?
but I must warn you, the chance of you winning your newcastle bet is much higher.

you: Deal.

I didn't win my Newcastle bet.

Kimbo wrote:I didn't win my Newcastle bet.

so what are you doing here?

Ask Lulu.

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:brazil, argentina (Taking into account that it will be outside europe)

Jesus, i hope a european team wins just so people will stop with this shit.

his shit has been going on fo 80 years, kimbo. and remember our bet.

80 years ago the world cup was a bunch of farmers from uruguay competing against a bunch of farmers from the Ottoman empire, none of that counts.Football today is very different, most top SA and european players play in the same continent, so SA's have no advantage over europeans with the world cup being in South Africa. And there isn't a wizard saying no european tean can ever win outside europe, it's all mumbojumbo.

Bullshit. Uruguay were Olympic champions at that time as well. They won that title in Amsterdam in 1928 the last time that title can be considered a an unofficial World title. I'm tired of this disrespectful bullshit that conveniently writes off football history because it suits an argument. It's hypocritical from you especially Kimbo when you insist Newcastle's titles, some of which were earlier than Uruguay's I believe, must be counted as valid titles, which I do. Uruguay deserved their title. They were worthy World Champions in 1930. Give themthe same respect that you expect for Newcastle.

EMP wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:brazil, argentina (Taking into account that it will be outside europe)

Jesus, i hope a european team wins just so people will stop with this shit.

his shit has been going on fo 80 years, kimbo. and remember our bet.

80 years ago the world cup was a bunch of farmers from uruguay competing against a bunch of farmers from the Ottoman empire, none of that counts.Football today is very different, most top SA and european players play in the same continent, so SA's have no advantage over europeans with the world cup being in South Africa. And there isn't a wizard saying no european tean can ever win outside europe, it's all mumbojumbo.

Bullshit. Uruguay were Olympic champions at that time as well. They won that title in Amsterdam in 1928 the last time that title can be considered a an unofficial World title. I'm tired of this disrespectful bullshit that conveniently writes off football history because it suits an argument. It's hypocritical from you especially Kimbo when you insist Newcastle's titles, some of which were earlier than Uruguay's I believe, must be counted as valid titles, which I do. Uruguay deserved their title. They were worthy World Champions in 1930. Give themthe same respect that you expect for Newcastle.

I hate it when people belittle past achievements.... the arguement of football changing or becoming more competitive is just crap, coz you can only beat the teams in front of you, and this arguement holds true every decade, even every year! No two championships are of the same difficulty/circumstance, but that does not mean that the achievement is any less.

Uruguay are two time world champions. Which is only less than Brasil, Italy and Germany.

EMP wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:brazil, argentina (Taking into account that it will be outside europe)

Jesus, i hope a european team wins just so people will stop with this shit.

his shit has been going on fo 80 years, kimbo. and remember our bet.

80 years ago the world cup was a bunch of farmers from uruguay competing against a bunch of farmers from the Ottoman empire, none of that counts.Football today is very different, most top SA and european players play in the same continent, so SA's have no advantage over europeans with the world cup being in South Africa. And there isn't a wizard saying no european tean can ever win outside europe, it's all mumbojumbo.

Bullshit. Uruguay were Olympic champions at that time as well. They won that title in Amsterdam in 1928 the last time that title can be considered a an unofficial World title. I'm tired of this disrespectful bullshit that conveniently writes off football history because it suits an argument. It's hypocritical from you especially Kimbo when you insist Newcastle's titles, some of which were earlier than Uruguay's I believe, must be counted as valid titles, which I do. Uruguay deserved their title. They were worthy World Champions in 1930. Give themthe same respect that you expect for Newcastle.

The Olympics were nonsense aswell. Britain once won a gold medal in cricket, who did they play? British Embassy staff based in Paris. The world cup only involved a few teams, FACTAMUNDO, and the Olympics was just for posh people that could afford to travel, another fact. It's not the same as Newcastles titles at all.

Downplaying stats value for a competition that spans 80 years while constantly evolving is one thing, and I agree.

Dismissing old titles as amateurish jokes is another, they are historical titles and have their full value, it's just how history goes.

It started small and casual and then grew big, but it's always been about trying it harder than the others and being best among your contenders.

And then, where you draw the line?
Let's say dismiss pre war titles, we could argue but ok, but then? It's BR '50 that different from CH '54 or SE' 58?
Why discount that Uruguay title but not Germany and Brazil ones? It's just because Uruguay then faded while Brazil and Germany are still big?

There were 180.000 fans in Maracanà for Brazil - Uruguay, you just can't say it was unimportant.


Or, just imagine that in 30 years from now 1 billion Chinese get mad about football and Africa suddenly become rich and developed. You'd had a badass Chinese team and some ten world class african teams.

Teens from 2030 would say "gee, last century it was a joke, you had just 4 or so south american and european teams that could go for it"...

"Now" is always different from the past, you can either make every title count or endlessy dissect differencies and split up eras.

The 1930 world cup had 13 teams, the only european teams were France, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Belgium. I'm sure people cared about it in SA, afterall it was basically just an Americas competition, but elsewhere people didn't give a shit about it and i don't know why we should give a shit now.

Anyway this isn't really the issue, it's not the main point i was trying to make. The fact is the world cup is very different to how it was just 20 years ago, all the best SA and european players play in the same teams, so none have an advantage from playing in Africa like people are saying. Is anyone going to disagree with that?

Most of the best SA players have played in SA and Europe. Most of the best European players have only played in Europe.

The European teams feel very at home in Europe, but that's obviously not the case when theyre outside Europe.

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:Most of the best SA players have played in SA and Europe. Most of the best European players have only played in Europe.

The European teams feel very at home in Europe, but that's obviously not the case when theyre outside Europe.

Yes but the world cup is in Africa, not America. If the world cup was in south america i would agree that they have an advantage.

Kimbo wrote:The 1930 world cup had 13 teams, the only european teams were France, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Belgium. I'm sure people cared about it in SA, afterall it was basically just an Americas competition, but elsewhere people didn't give a shit about it and i don't know why we should give a shit now.

Anyway this isn't really the issue, it's not the main point i was trying to make. The fact is the world cup is very different to how it was just 20 years ago, all the best SA and european players play in the same teams, so none have an advantage from playing in Africa like people are saying. Is anyone going to disagree with that?

Regarding your second point; no I don't disagree, but there is no need to disrespect Uruguay's achievement to make that point. Newcatle's titles were achieved by those who could afford to play. Were theynot priviledged people that could afford to play?

The European Championship started off in 1960 as four invited teams that was later increased to eight. How come you don't dismiss those 'meaningless' tournaments? Uruguay came to Europe to beat the best they had in 1928. They were chosen as hosts because they were unofficial World Champions. Italy didn't go to Uruguay because they thought it too far and Mussolini was sulking a bit. England did not go until 1950 because they thought themselves World Champions by default.

There is no need to diminish the achievements of the past. Uruguay deserve credit and respect. They were worthy champions in 1930.

Note that in 1924 and 28 more countries participated including Italy. Uruguay won both titles. It is not their fault that the Olympics only allowed amateurs, which covered most of the game at that time anyway. FIFA devised the invitations and rightly chose Uruguay to host the first World Cup because they earned the right by winning the Olympic title in 1928. They beat everyone put in front of them in both competitions and deserve their title as the first World Champions. Ridiculing their achievement is arrogant and ignorant. The European nations were invited. They chose not to go Why? Italy, England, Germany and Austria were pretty good. The first three thought themselves too good, or maybe, having failed to beat Uruguay in Europe the realised they would lose in South America. Their failure to attend diminishes their courage, not Uruguay's achievement.

EMP wrote:

Kimbo wrote:The 1930 world cup had 13 teams, the only european teams were France, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Belgium. I'm sure people cared about it in SA, afterall it was basically just an Americas competition, but elsewhere people didn't give a shit about it and i don't know why we should give a shit now.

Anyway this isn't really the issue, it's not the main point i was trying to make. The fact is the world cup is very different to how it was just 20 years ago, all the best SA and european players play in the same teams, so none have an advantage from playing in Africa like people are saying. Is anyone going to disagree with that?

Regarding your second point; no I don't disagree, but there is no need to disrespect Uruguay's achievement to make that point. Newcatle's titles were achieved by those who could afford to play. Were theynot priviledged people that could afford to play?

The European Championship started off in 1960 as four invited teams that was later increased to eight. How come you don't dismiss those 'meaningless' tournaments? Uruguay came to Europe to beat the best they had in 1928. They were chosen as hosts because they were unofficial World Champions. Italy didn't go to Uruguay because they thought it too far and Mussolini was sulking a bit. England did not go until 1950 because they thought themselves World Champions by default.

There is no need to diminish the achievements of the past. Uruguay deserve credit and respect. They were worthy champions in 1930.

Note that in 1924 and 28 more countries participated including Italy. Uruguay won both titles. It is not their fault that the Olympics only allowed amateurs, which covered most of the game at that time anyway. FIFA devised the invitations and rightly chose Uruguay to host the first World Cup because they earned the right by winning the Olympic title in 1928. They beat everyone put in front of them in both competitions and deserve their title as the first World Champions. Ridiculing their achievement is arrogant and ignorant. The European nations were invited. They chose not to go Why? Italy, England, Germany and Austria were pretty good. The first three thought themselves too good, or maybe, having failed to beat Uruguay in Europe the realised they would lose in South America. Their failure to attend diminishes their courage, not Uruguay's achievement

No, players back then were poor as dirt. And i'm not disrespecting Uruguay, i'm stating a fact, the world cup was a tinpot tournament back then. You saying teams couldn't be arsed to go only reinforces my point.