2014 World Cup - 1/8 Finals

Kimbo wrote:I'm not sure what you're suggesting though, you want to reduce the size of the world cup?

messiah wrote:the Job the pekerman has been doing for Colombia has been great, they are playing like did under him at the 2006 world cup, where they and spain where the best team. and it from then i said spain and Argentina are the next, sadly spain kept their coach and pekerman resigned, over a rather simple mistake.

I hope he goes as far as possible, then returns to argentina to coach messi at his next and last world cup.

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:I'm not sure what you're suggesting though, you want to reduce the size of the world cup?

I'm suggesting nothing. I just posted some facts in numbers cause I thought it was interesting.

You and Rosicky are right about Euro domination in the last 2 WC semis.

However, managing to qualify only 6 out of 13 in the last WCs is a meaningful fact and could be taken into consideration.

Regarding the spots (what I think would be interesting):

SA: 5 (instead of 4.5)
NA: 3 (instead of 3.5)
Europe: 10 (instead of 13)

However, 4 Europeans apart form those 10 could have play-offs against 2 SAs and 2 NAs.

Thus, Europe could have between 10 and 14. SA, 5 and 7. Na, 3 and 5.

This would make 22 spots for those 3 confederations. 1 spot for the hosts. Asia, Africa and Oceania could share the other nine.


We could have interesting play-off games like Mexico-Croatia, Paraguay-Portugal, Costa Rica-Sweden, etc. That would be awesome.  

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:I'm not sure what you're suggesting though, you want to reduce the size of the world cup?

I'm suggesting nothing. I just posted some facts in numbers cause I thought it was interesting.

You and Rosicky are right about Euro domination in the last 2 WC semis.

However, managing to qualify only 6 out of 13 in the last WCs is a meaningful fact and could be taken into consideration.

Regarding the spots (what I think would be interesting):

SA: 5 (instead of 4.5)
NA: 3 (instead of 3.5)
Europe: 10 (instead of 13)

However, 4 Europeans apart form those 10 could have play-offs against 2 SAs and 2 NAs.

Thus, Europe could have between 10 and 14. SA, 5 and 7. Na, 3 and 5.

This would make 22 spots for those 3 confederations. 1 spot for the hosts. Asia, Africa and Oceania could share the other nine.


We could have interesting play-off games like Mexico-Croatia, Paraguay-Portugal, Costa Rica-Sweden, etc. That would be awesome.  

Seven spots for South America would be too much, Todo. You take this Euro x South America debate too seriously

Fey wrote:Let's wait if it's just a mere hype;
The 90's had the Africans
The 00's had the Asians
The 10's have the South-Amricans so far.

So far, Europe is very stable over time.

mongrel hawk wrote:

Fey wrote:Let's wait if it's just a mere hype;
The 90's had the Africans
The 00's had the Asians
The 10's have the South-Amricans so far.

So far, Europe is very stable over time.

The frequency of WCs in Europe are also very stable over time.  

mongrel hawk wrote:

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:I'm not sure what you're suggesting though, you want to reduce the size of the world cup?

I'm suggesting nothing. I just posted some facts in numbers cause I thought it was interesting.

You and Rosicky are right about Euro domination in the last 2 WC semis.

However, managing to qualify only 6 out of 13 in the last WCs is a meaningful fact and could be taken into consideration.

Regarding the spots (what I think would be interesting):

SA: 5 (instead of 4.5)
NA: 3 (instead of 3.5)
Europe: 10 (instead of 13)

However, 4 Europeans apart form those 10 could have play-offs against 2 SAs and 2 NAs.

Thus, Europe could have between 10 and 14. SA, 5 and 7. Na, 3 and 5.

This would make 22 spots for those 3 confederations. 1 spot for the hosts. Asia, Africa and Oceania could share the other nine.


We could have interesting play-off games like Mexico-Croatia, Paraguay-Portugal, Costa Rica-Sweden, etc. That would be awesome.  

Seven spots for South America would be too much, Todo. You take this Euro x South America debate too seriously

I take nothing here seriously, Sheva.   

If the 6th and 7th South Americans are bad, they won't qualify anyway.

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:As expected Paulinho lost his place in the starting eleven to Fernandinho. Dani Alves is likely to lose his place as well.

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:As expected Paulinho lost his place in the starting eleven to Fernandinho. Dani Alves is likely to lose his place as well.

Fey wrote:Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico twice, Brazil twice

All got to host a WC, Holland never got to host it.

Now I realise in those days it was different. But these days non in SA is even capable of hosting one, and you still get one. Though one can argue about Brazil. The rest no chance in the near future me thinks.

Fey wrote:Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico twice, Brazil twice

All got to host a WC, Holland never got to host it.

Now I realise in those days it was different. But these days non in SA is even capable of hosting one, and you still get one. Though one can argue about Brazil. The rest no chance in the near future me thinks.

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:I'm not sure what you're suggesting though, you want to reduce the size of the world cup?

I'm suggesting nothing. I just posted some facts in numbers cause I thought it was interesting.

You and Rosicky are right about Euro domination in the last 2 WC semis.

However, managing to qualify only 6 out of 13 in the last WCs is a meaningful fact and could be taken into consideration.

Regarding the spots (what I think would be interesting):

SA: 5 (instead of 4.5)
NA: 3 (instead of 3.5)
Europe: 10 (instead of 13)

However, 4 Europeans apart form those 10 could have play-offs against 2 SAs and 2 NAs.

Thus, Europe could have between 10 and 14. SA, 5 and 7. Na, 3 and 5.

This would make 22 spots for those 3 confederations. 1 spot for the hosts. Asia, Africa and Oceania could share the other nine.


We could have interesting play-off games like Mexico-Croatia, Paraguay-Portugal, Costa Rica-Sweden, etc. That would be awesome.  

Seven spots for South America would be too much, Todo. You take this Euro x South America debate too seriously

I take nothing here seriously, Sheva.   

If the 6th and 7th South Americans are bad, they won't qualify anyway.

Never underestimate a shitty south american team like Ecuador or Bolívia playing at altitude

Kimbo wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Fey wrote:Let's wait if it's just a mere hype;
The 90's had the Africans
The 00's had the Asians
The 10's have the South-Amricans so far.

So far, Europe is very stable over time.

The frequency of WCs in Europe are also very stable over time.  

As a continent Europe is the most suitable for hosting it, Brazil has been great, but remember when they tried to put it in Colombia.  

mongrel hawk wrote:

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:

mongrel hawk wrote:

Kimbo wrote:I'm not sure what you're suggesting though, you want to reduce the size of the world cup?

I'm suggesting nothing. I just posted some facts in numbers cause I thought it was interesting.

You and Rosicky are right about Euro domination in the last 2 WC semis.

However, managing to qualify only 6 out of 13 in the last WCs is a meaningful fact and could be taken into consideration.

Regarding the spots (what I think would be interesting):

SA: 5 (instead of 4.5)
NA: 3 (instead of 3.5)
Europe: 10 (instead of 13)

However, 4 Europeans apart form those 10 could have play-offs against 2 SAs and 2 NAs.

Thus, Europe could have between 10 and 14. SA, 5 and 7. Na, 3 and 5.

This would make 22 spots for those 3 confederations. 1 spot for the hosts. Asia, Africa and Oceania could share the other nine.


We could have interesting play-off games like Mexico-Croatia, Paraguay-Portugal, Costa Rica-Sweden, etc. That would be awesome.  

Seven spots for South America would be too much, Todo. You take this Euro x South America debate too seriously

I take nothing here seriously, Sheva.   

If the 6th and 7th South Americans are bad, they won't qualify anyway.

Never underestimate a shitty south american team like Ecuador or Bolívia playing at altitude

hahaha. It would be funny to see a Euro team arriving in Quito and complaining about everything.

When Australia came to play the play-off against Uruguay in 2001, they were received in the airport by a crowd of Uruguayans swearing, spitting and throwing things at them. They were scared to death. They tried to take the game to Buenos Aires, but Fifa said no and Ureuguay beat them 3-0 in a war atmosphere.   

Those Euros transformed football into a clean-ass-shopping-center sport. Here it's still terrace football.

ERIK LAMELA wrote:We got OUR REVENGE four years later.

mongrel hawk wrote:Useless data about Brazil at home:


In 100 years playing official matches at home (including Copa América, other official cups, WC and WC qualifiers), Brazil only lost 3 games.

1-2 Paraguay in 1949 (Campeonato Sul-Americano)

1-2 Uruguay in 1950 (WC)

1-3 Peru in 1975 (Copa América) (hail, Puro!!!)

Brazil never lost a single WC qualifier game at home.

In the last 56 official matches at home (since losing to Peru in 1975), Brazil won 40 and drew 16 (including Copa América, qualifiers and this WC).

If you include friendlies, the last loss at home was against Paraguay in 2002 (0-1).

mongrel hawk wrote:

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:As expected Paulinho lost his place in the starting eleven to Fernandinho. Dani Alves is likely to lose his place as well.

Alves losing now against Chile? That would be great news.

Paulinho shouldn't even have started. He's not half the player he was 1 year ago.

Luis wrote:Brazil 2-1 Chile

Colombia 1-1 Uruguay (Uruguay win on pens)

mongrel hawk wrote:Howard Webb for the Brazil game. What do you think?