Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Historical Underperformance of South American Countries in Europe

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Historical Underperformance of South American Countries in Europe

    Brazil - one win, one fourth place

    Argentina - one runner-up

    Uruguay, Colombia and Peru all much less than in their best tournaments elsewhere

    There were explicable reasons in the past like unfamiliarity with European styles and refs and a greater relative homesickness but now it seems to be something else.

    #2
    Brazil one runner up as well

    Comment


      #3
      The complete diaspora of the star players must be a factor now. Brazil in the 60s and 70s used to come over with a selecao (sp) made up of domestic club players. So did Argentina in the 70s and 80s apart from Maradona, Kempes and Ardiles. Nowadays, half the Brazil side only meet up in tunnels before facing each other in a champions league game.

      Comment


        #4
        Colombia’s 2-1 loss to Japan was the first defeat of a South American country by an Asian country at the World Cup.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by cantagalo View Post
          Colombia’s 2-1 loss to Japan was the first defeat of a South American country by an Asian country at the World Cup.
          Well, the Kashima Antlers did beat Atletico Nacional of Colombia in the World Club Cup a few years ago.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
            Uruguay, Colombia and Peru all much less than in their best tournaments elsewhere
            Particularly in the case of Uruguay, it is worth bearing in mind that they didn't go in 1934 or 1938 due to differences of opinion with the organisers. Given their record in the two World Cups either side of those two, and given the fact they won the two Olympic Football Tournaments (both held in Europe) in 1924 and '28 at a time when that was the de facto world championship, I think it's fair to say that the overall South American record in Europe might look a bit different if they'd deigned to defend their crown, or to try and win it back.

            It might also be different had World Cups been held in the 1940s (well obviously, so let's also imagine World War II didn't happen), because Argentina had a very strong national team during that decade and Uruguay occasionally managed to trouble them during the quite ridiculous number of South American Championships held during the World Cup's hiatus.

            But ultimately I think your 'now it seems to be something else' is the same reason European national teams have the advantage regardless of venue: that's where all the best players are. Sure, a lot of those players are South American. But in decades of yore, strong national teams often had a clutch of key players who turned out for the same club. Hungary benefitted from all of Honvéd's greats playing together, Brazil in 1958 had a bunch from Flamengo, Vasco and Santos and a sprinkling from other clubs, Argentina as late as 1986 had a few from River (who won the Libertadores that year; the idea that Maradona was the only handy player in that squad is a bit of a misconception) and a few from Independiente, and there are doubtless lots of other examples, up to and including the Spain and Germany sides who've won the last two World Cups while packed with players from Barcelona, Madrid, Bayern and Dortmund.

            South American national teams today, by contrast, are drawn from further and wider – and when they are able to call up clubmates they're often in fringe parts of the squad (there were three Internazionale players in Argentina's squad in 2014; Hugo Campagnaro, Ricky Álvarez and Rodrigo Palacio), and that means very few of the key players are operating under anything like a system their international managers can implement which will be similar to what they're playing in week in, week out. In 2014 Argentina's starting XI was drawn from nine different clubs, with Manchester City (Pablo Zabaleta and Sergio Agüero) and Barcelona (Javier Mascherano and Lionel Messi) the only two clubs to provide two starters. The Germany starting XI they faced in the final was drawn from six clubs, with five players from Bayern. Which manager do you reckon had the easier job in a few weeks preparation time before the tournament, in terms of getting his team to play a cohesive style?

            Aside from this, demographics and economics play a bigger part now than when football was in its infancy and scouting was poor. It's easy to go, 'Uruguay have really fallen away since 1950,' but Uruguay's population has remained basically static. It's the same today was it was in 1950: 3 million people. It's absolutely ridiculous that they were able to even compete in 1950, never mind that they got to the semi-finals as recently as 2010. They surely won't do that again for a good while – or maybe in this one case they might, because there really isn't an awful lot to do in Uruguay apart from play football. Until Iceland this year Uruguay was the smallest nation ever to take part in a World Cup. Brazil aside, the big European nations are at least on a par if not ahead, population-wise; Colombia, the second-most populous country in South America, has about six million fewer people (or two Uruguays) than England. There's no particular reason to think Argentina, which is another six million smaller again, should produce more professional players than any other country, but for the fact that it does. These are countries who remain strong at football because they always have been and that means it's popular and that means they continue to be, basically. But also, the money's in Europe, and while that does mean European clubs can afford the best talent from everywhere else, it also means young talent that's already in Europe has a big head start.

            I'll sign off with a bit of trivia I found while writing this post and drawing up a list of European top four finishers in South American World Cups: the European nation who've finished top four in South America more times than any other no longer exists.

            [spoiler]Yugoslavia[/spoiler]
            Last edited by Sam; 20-06-2018, 04:28.

            Comment


              #7
              [spoiler]Yugoslavia?[/spoiler]
              Last edited by Pietro Paolo Virdis; 20-06-2018, 05:49.

              Comment


                #8
                The answer's in the 'Spoiler' tag if you want to check without stopping others from playing ... I shall refrain from commenting on your guess.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Edited

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Pedantry that adds little: Uruguay isn't the smallest nation prior to Iceland to play at the world cup. Slovenia, Wales, Northern Ireland, Trinidad and Tobago all smaller.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      You forgot Jamaica

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Uruguay weren't exactly shit in 1954, only losing in extra time to Hungary in a semifinal that is on the short list of Greatest Games Ever.
                        Last edited by Flynnie; 20-06-2018, 09:14.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          You forgot Jamaica
                          No, she went of her own accord, ha ha

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Great points, Sam. I think Argentina might have to bite the bullet and play more of a European system. Brazil already do this to a degree.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X