South America vs. Europe

abundance wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:moreover, we've already won this battle.

4 WCs in South America, around 10 WCs in Europe, many more teams from Europe, and the number of titles are the same.

mmh does not compute.
we are not discussing wheter Conmebol hosts a couple or three awesome footballing nations, are we? ;-)
the issue is whether the also runs are so good that more than half of its members deserve to take a ride in the cup

110% wrote:

abundance wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:moreover, we've already won this battle.

4 WCs in South America, around 10 WCs in Europe, many more teams from Europe, and the number of titles are the same.

mmh does not compute.
we are not discussing wheter Conmebol hosts a couple or three awesome footballing nations, are we? ;-)
the issue is whether the also runs are so good that more than half of its members deserve to take a ride in the cup

I think what he is saying is that Brazil should be allowed to send 4 teams to the world cup, and argentina maybe 2. That would keep everyone happy and the best players would be there, without any of that peruvian shite FFS

110% wrote:ooh, I like that idea, they could go to the world cup host nation to do it

kas wrote:@bluenine: they only just added Australi to Asia, to make it more competitive. Otherwise they were walking through their qualification group winning games 8-0 and then just had to win a playoff. Now the Oceania group is dominated by NZ (but more like 3-0 or 4-0) and they have it tough to get through their qualifier against an Asian team. I don't think we'll see them in every World Cup, this time they got Bahrain who IIRC shocked Saudi Arabia. Not every year will we see weak teams like NKorea and NZ coming from that sector of qualifying. Iran and Saudi are the heavyweights and will qualify more often.

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:

debaser wrote:Direct percentages out of the number who started is unfair too though. There's 13 Euro teams so 5 are guaranteed not to make QF whatever happens!

Have to do #SA teams/5 and #euro teams/8 to get the fairest comparison

We could just look at who makes the round of 16.

mongrel hawk wrote:

S4P wrote:Let's see how many South American teams make the QF and how many European teams make the QF before we start making a comparison.
Everyone saw the ease at which Germany brushed aside Australia, with Australia playing at 100% intensity from the start. Imagine if Germany had been playing the Inca warriors with all them corrupt fuckos We would have witnessed the biggest thrashing of all time.

If less than 4 South American teams make it, there could be an argument for reducing the number of South American teams qualifying.

yeh, let's see the percentage of SA teams that reach the quarters and of Euro teams that reach the quarters, in relation the the ones that started the competition. We only got 5 teams, so we can't work with absolute numbers.

Fey wrote:

Europe is getting hammered so far!!

Not everyone is surrendering though, where the lights of others fade into oblivion, Holland, the sun of the solar system called europe, is still sparkling like a diamond. A beacon of hope in these dark days.

The faith of Europe is now in the hands of the motherfucking Dutch

debaser wrote:I think % is too blunt a measure.

Perhaps the best and fairest way would be a sort of chi-squared test. Observed vs expected.

there are 13/32 European teams in competition, so if it was completely random you expect 6.5 to make the last 16.

likewise 5/32 SA teams, with random selection you would expect 2.5 to make the last 16.

We take the actually number who qualify from each and see how it varies from the number you'd expect by random.

Kimbo wrote:Good point fey.

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:Good point fey.

Fey wrote:South America is doing well, but all of them are nations with a big EUROPEAN decent or African. Countries with massive native South-American people are not here and suck massivly. So to say South AMerica is better..depends how you look at it I guess.

Alberto wrote:

Fey wrote:South America is doing well, but all of them are nations with a big EUROPEAN decent or African. Countries with massive native South-American people are not here and suck massivly. So to say South AMerica is better..depends how you look at it I guess.

América is the melting pot on Earth. EVEN the 'natives' arrived from elsewhere. The Americanos are the entire planet's genes, that's why WE ARE THE BEST!

The best cuisine, the most beautiful women in the world, the best football played in the world etc. etc. etc...all because we Americanos are a fusion of the entire planet.

Todo and Barrilete KNOW what I'm talking about.

Alberto wrote:For every San Marino, Faroe Islands, Andorra, England, Azerbaijan...etc etc America can counter with Turks and Caicos, Virgin Islands, Barbados, Surinam, Guyana...

S4P wrote:

Alberto wrote:For every San Marino, Faroe Islands, Andorra, England, Azerbaijan...etc etc America can counter with Turks and Caicos, Virgin Islands, Barbados, Surinam, Guyana...

When agendas get embarassing.

We have 20 competitive teams. How many do the Americas have? In North America you have the USA (and Mexico if you include them as North America). In South America you have Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay and maybe Ecuador. So 8 in total, yet you deserve 10 places?

Pierre Littbarski wrote:Europe is gay - roll on Conmebol WC qualifiers and Copa America 2011 in Argentina

S4P wrote:

Alberto wrote:For every San Marino, Faroe Islands, Andorra, England, Azerbaijan...etc etc America can counter with Turks and Caicos, Virgin Islands, Barbados, Surinam, Guyana...

When agendas get embarassing.

We have 20 competitive teams. How many do the Americas have? In North America you have the USA (and Mexico if you include them as North America). In South America you have Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay and maybe Ecuador. So 8 in total, yet you deserve 10 places?