I strongly disagree. Italy won the FIFA World Cup in 2006, and then didn't even make it from their group stage in 2010. The same happened to Spain in 2010 and 2014. France, the other 2006 finalist, also didn't make it from group stage in 2010. In that tournament, Italy drew with New Zeland and Paraguay, and lost to Slovakia. France lost to South Africa and Mexico and drew with Uruguay 0-0.
World Cup: 2016 World Cup Part II: All fans and nations welcome
- Thread starter snipes
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
I strongly disagree. Italy won the FIFA World Cup in 2006, and then didn't even make it from their group stage in 2010. The same happened to Spain in 2010 and 2014. France, the other 2006 finalist, also didn't make it from group stage in 2010. In that tournament, Italy drew with New Zeland and Paraguay, and lost to Slovakia. France lost to South Africa and Mexico and drew with Uruguay 0-0.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,677
- 5,122
And even if there was, this team would not represent it, it would only "represent" Europe minus Sweden, Finland and the Czech Republic.
So you think Slovakia and South Africa are top-notch football nations because they've beaten teams like Italy and France in the World Cup. You probably didn't notice that by your logic Slovakia and Belarus are top-notch hockey nations cause they've both eliminated Sweden from NHL olympics. And Switzerland is a top-notch hockey nation cause they beat Canada in 2006. So there's really no need to keep Slovakia, Switzerland and Belarus out of the World Cup of hockey. They're top-notch!
The top nations can have crappy games and even crappy tournaments. But the fact of the matter is that there are only a handful of teams in any given soccer event with a realistic chance of winning.
The rest are there to have a good game or two and maybe pull off an upset.
Exactly. I don't think True Hockey Fan knows much about football, which is why he doesn't realize that South Africa's or Slovakia's chances of winning the World Cup of football aren't any better than Slovakia's or Switzerland's chances of winning in hockey would be. Slovakia are currently 400 to 1 to win in 2018, and I can't even find the odds for South Africa.
But not having a realistic chance of winning doesn't mean it's not worthwhile taking part. I went to the EURO 2016 in June and one of the eight matches I saw was Northern Ireland vs. Ukraine. Northern Ireland wasn't a contender in the tournament, but thanks to their fans this was the greatest hit song of the summer in France:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOpGCGtCVsE
"Your defense is terrified, Will Grigg's on fire!" will stay in my head for the rest of my life and it'll probably still give me goosebumps decades from now. Will Grigg played for Wigan in the third tier of English football in 2015-16. He didn't get to play one single minute in EURO 2016, and he was a member of a team that could be classified as an "also-ran" well before the competition began. But thanks to the great fans from Northern Ireland, that chant went absolutely viral (as you can probably see from the 6 million views on YouTube), and in the end fans from all nations were singing it. You certainly wouldn't have seen such passion, had the Ulster boys been forced to play for the same team with players from other lesser football nations for the sake of making the tournament more "competitive".
One thing's for sure: you don't get to witness such epic fan culture in North America.
Last edited:
Update: According to David Krejci WC is a tourney of the decade, bigger than OG. he wants to go despite his injury and so far against doctors recommendation. Players look more excited than fans so far....
It's just sad for Krejci that his chances of winning the tournament are really slim. It would obviously be nicer for him if he got to play with guys like Malkin and Datsyuk instead of guys like Hanzal and Frolik. That would make his team more competitive against Canada.
So because a guy makes a joke like that in an interview of odds of "300-1", that makes it a fact? It's not uncommon for different bookmakers to have different odds, but you might want to learn the basics of betting and what "arbitrage" means before posting such utter nonsense. I take it you didn't do too well at math in school.
I might as well say Canada were 10,000 to 1 to qualify for that tournament. Now I don't have any proof of that, just like you don't have any proof of your "fact". But I'm pretty sure of that line, so you can guffaw all you like but yes, it is a fact.
Last edited:
I work for the NYC dept. Of education . Most likely one of the worst organized organization in the United states. But if you stuck a camera and a microphone in my face I would say it was great. I need my job because my family comes first. This is exactly what Krecji did.
Could you tell us which countries you rate as "top-notch" in football? I take it you think South Africa and Slovakia are top-notch.
This is how I would rate different nations:
Top-notch in hockey: Canada, USA, Sweden, Russia. Borderline: Finland, Czech Republic
Top-notch in football: Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Spain, France. Borderline: Belgium, Italy, Netherlands
I already know there are plenty of people who are gonna tell me that Finland has done really well in best-on-best hockey lately and that Portugal won the Euros in football a month ago and Chile won the Copa. To them I have three words: small sample size. Russia will still be the favorite against Finland in September, cause they've got so much more individual skill, and Brazil will still be the favorite against both Chile and Portugal in football.
Last edited:
I dont know what you mean. He wont play with Hanzal or Frolik imo, so it is quite irrelevant. I dont want Malkin or Datsyuk in my team as they are not czechs, even if we should loose because of that.
What does that matter? They're both Europeans and you're a European. I'm a European as well. Europe is a continent. So according to NHL's and True Hockey Fan's logic we should really have no problem rooting for Datsyuk and Malkin. They're obviously better than guys like Aho, Korpikoski, Frolik and Hanzal. We'd have a way better chance of winning if we just joined forces. Wouldn't that be superb?
Soccer is bit different example as many other nations always come up with generations which is arguably stronger than some of the top notch countries. Chile could be certainly favourite against Brazil right now. On the other hand Germany will never make final of WHC unless they dramatically develope their entire hockey program. It has already taken 20 years to Switzerland and they still havent reach the level and earn just one medal. Its less than what czechs have in Euro soccer.
)) if Bettman wants to kill us lets put together swedes and finns and as a second team czechs and russians. We will see a lot of own goals )Without home field advantage they could not. Brazil are currently 9 to 1 to win the next World Cup. Chile are 32 to 1. Chile could ofcourse very well beat Brazil in a single match, but no way would they be going into the game as favorites.
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,704
- 25,547
My answers in red.
So because a guy makes a joke like that in an interview of odds of "300-1", that makes it a fact? Seriously?
Like I said, it's a fact because I remember it quite well, a friend of mine (huge soccer fan) even bet 100 dollars on it.
It's not uncommon for different bookmakers to have different odds, but you might want to learn the basics of betting and what "arbitrage" means before posting such utter nonsense. I take it you didn't do too well at math in school.
Resorting to personal attacks now? Usually when people stoop that low they're out of arguments. Then again, in this case you never had an argument to begin with.
I just have to LOL now because math was always one of favorite subjects in school, I have worked as a software developer, business analyst, data analyst, professional poker player and have made some decent coin with sports betting on the side and now you're insulting my math skills, thanks for the laugh. The funny part is that my math skills are irrelevant here, I could be a professional basket weaver who can't add 2 and 2 together and that has nothing to do with the fact that a friend of mine made a bet 30 years ago where the odds were so remarkable that I remember it to this day.
I might as well say Canada were 10,000 to 1 to qualify for that tournament. Now I don't have any proof of that, just like you don't have any proof of your "fact". But I'm pretty sure of that line, so you can guffaw all you like but yes, it is a fact.
Expecting me to prove what odds some bookmaker in Toronto was offering in 1986 is not very smart. Do you understand why? Give it up already, you're making yourself look foolish. The bookie I knew offered 200-1, the article I linked to mentioned 300-1, it's a fact, I know it, if you don't believe it good for you, I really couldn't care less
Last edited:
Gary Nylund
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2013
- 31,704
- 25,547
Good to hear, love Krejci, thanks for sharing.
Um what?
There are some people who would point to any negative comment from a player as evidence that this tournament won't be taken seriously by the players and also point to any positive comment as irrelevant because of ... reasons. Now you wouldn't be one of those people now would you?
I'm amazed that you know what Krejci actually meant and what he had in his head when he was saying that. I guess, intuition?
In that case the problem must be that you know nothing about football.
It would have made no sense for your friend to bet as little as 100 dollars on it. If you really know sports betting, you must know what arbitrage means. 200 to 1 for Canada scoring a single goal is a gold mine when in a SINGLE MATCH even the most awful teams on World Cup level are never more than 50 to 1 to score a goal. 200 to 1 for a single goal in a tournament would have been loads of free money through arbitrage. Assuming you can trust the bookmaker to pay you what you win. Personally I wouldn't trust a bookmaker with such moronic odds much.
Your friend probably bet on Canada winning the World Cup at 200 to 1, and 30 years later it's turned into a bet about a single goal in your head.
No I don't disagree. That's why I don't want to see an 8-team World Cup in football or a 10-team World Cup in hockey. Also the fact that hockey is a more high-scoring game makes it more difficult for a heavy underdog to pull an upset in a single playoff game. In football it's easier to drag along till it's penalty shot time, and that's always more or less a toss-up.
Comparing the 9th best teams in hockey and football has very little relevance in this conversation, when in hockey they have 6 nations in the World Cup and in football they have 32. The more relevant question is do you think that the worst teams in the World Cup of football have a better chance of winning the whole thing than Slovakia or Switzerland would have in hockey. They don't. Northern Ireland was 400 to 1 to win EURO 2016, but seeing them play in front of their fans in Lyon was still a great experience.
And Finland's chances of winning the World Cup of basketball two years ago were even smaller, but I still had a great week in Bilbao supporting my NATION with 10,000 other Finns who had traveled to Spain through our continent. A continent that certainly could have given USA a better run for their money had it been represented by one single "Team Europe". But thank God the people in charge of FIBA understand that would make absolutely no sense in a World Cup.
Last edited:
Pathetic.
I am not sure what is happening since a canadian soccer player that played for that team Gary Nylund is talking about, says by himself - in that article GN mentioned to you - that the odds were 300-1 against them scoring a goal. I'm not really sure what you are discussing.
Not exactly surprised you don't understand betting either. If a Canadian professional soccer player currently without a team says he's had "a million job offers" you probably take that literally too. Imagine the work answering all those calls and deleting all those emails.
Last edited:
Ya, soccer is a whole lot deeper and competitive than hockey, but at the end of the day the sport is still dominated by a relatively small handful of nations.
Just to add to what you posted earlier.... Since the Olympic hockey went "best vs best" nations from outside the "big-6" have made the semifinals twice. In that same period of time nations from Asia, Africa and CONCACAF have combined to make the WC semifinals only once... Despite this nations from those 3 regions make up ~40% of the WC's field, and yet somehow soccer's WC remains a huge success.
The whole "having teams with no chance of leaving with the trophy is pointless" argument is weird to me for the simple fact that I'm having trouble thinking of sporting tournament/league that limits itself to only teams with a "realistic" chance of winning. Before the start of every NHL season you can run down the list of teams and pick out of bunch that have no chance of winning the SC. Despite this fact most people seem to be okay with these teams still participating. I mean the Leafs nor the Senators are winning the Stanley Cup this season, yet I don't see too many people suggesting, for the purpose of improving competitive balance, combining the rosters and forming the Ontario Maple Sens.
At this point I find a World Cup that is limited to 6 a nation (+2 gimmick teams) invitational every bit as meh as a World Championship where teams don't have access to many of their best players. International hockey is a mess.
I don't get why soccer is used as the reference point here when rugby would probably be a better comparison to what hockey is like at an international level. The 4 teams you could see being about 99% likely to win their world cup (New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, England) are the only ones to ever do so. And of those, only England has not won it twice. It's an insanely top heavy sport, with very distinct favorites and minnows for any given game.
And yet, they still manage to run their world cup without any imaginary teams. I don't buy the "need" for them at all. I'm guessing that most of the people who favor them (including the NHL) probably haven't watched a lot of international sports in general. Country vs. country is fun to watch no matter what the odds are.
By the way, I think the term "best on best" is virtually meaningless in the current international game. There are no barriers to teams participating fully in international play anymore. If we use reasoning like "Well, that team didn't care enough to send its best players, so it's not best on best" then almost anything can disqualify a tournament from being "true" best on best. I would rather see this term retired.
That's not to say I don't hunger for a true quadrennial hockey world cup. Both the Olympics and the WHC have their flaws that could seriously be improved on. But this silly farce ain't the right way to do it.
And yet, they still manage to run their world cup without any imaginary teams. I don't buy the "need" for them at all. I'm guessing that most of the people who favor them (including the NHL) probably haven't watched a lot of international sports in general. Country vs. country is fun to watch no matter what the odds are.
By the way, I think the term "best on best" is virtually meaningless in the current international game. There are no barriers to teams participating fully in international play anymore. If we use reasoning like "Well, that team didn't care enough to send its best players, so it's not best on best" then almost anything can disqualify a tournament from being "true" best on best. I would rather see this term retired.
That's not to say I don't hunger for a true quadrennial hockey world cup. Both the Olympics and the WHC have their flaws that could seriously be improved on. But this silly farce ain't the right way to do it.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,800
- 15,455
Latest posts
-
-
Another Long Term Injury for Kirby Dach- Out for the Rest of the Season- Latest: LeBrun is a Clown
-
