A famous Event

Share
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 54
Supports : Valencia, and in Africa Al-Ahly
Favourite Player : The Legendary David Albelda, Mohammed Aboutreika, Charles Gyamfi, Baba Yara, Kalusha Bwalya, Godfrey Chitalu, Segun Odegbami,
Registration date : 2007-03-24

Re: A famous Event

Post by EMP on Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:33 am

Di Caniooooo! wrote:
EMP wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:USA 1 - 0 England in 1950?

Correct. How many of that American team were immigrants who did not have US citizenship at that time and why were they allowed to play?
Only 3, most of them were Americans. There's even a movie on it. Plus, it was legal back then. US nearly beat Spain that WC too. Biggest WC upset ever.

Yes it was within the rules then, but interesting that only one of the three got citizenship. Where would you rank North Korea beating Italy in 1966? The movie was Hollywoodised. It even changed the captain and reduced his role. No need for that really. US lost pretty convincingly to Spain in that tournament. They took the lead, but apart from that didn't look like winning.

Di Caniooooo!

Number of posts : 10829
Age : 31
Supports : West Ham
Favourite Player : Paolo Di Canio, Moore, Hurst, Peters
Registration date : 2007-03-24

Re: A famous Event

Post by Di Caniooooo! on Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:45 am

EMP wrote:
Di Caniooooo! wrote:
EMP wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:USA 1 - 0 England in 1950?

Correct. How many of that American team were immigrants who did not have US citizenship at that time and why were they allowed to play?
Only 3, most of them were Americans. There's even a movie on it. Plus, it was legal back then. US nearly beat Spain that WC too. Biggest WC upset ever.

Yes it was within the rules then, but interesting that only one of the three got citizenship. Where would you rank North Korea beating Italy in 1966? The movie was Hollywoodised. It even changed the captain and reduced his role. No need for that really. US lost pretty convincingly to Spain in that tournament. They took the lead, but apart from that didn't look like winning.
USA vs England was such a big upset, odds makers hadn't even made odds for the match. When news reached England that the US had won 1-0, they thought they had it wrong, and reported that England had won 10-0. The US team didn't come together until a few weeks before the tournament. That, and the fact that England was favorites to win the cup, I think its bigger than NK vs Italy.
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 54
Supports : Valencia, and in Africa Al-Ahly
Favourite Player : The Legendary David Albelda, Mohammed Aboutreika, Charles Gyamfi, Baba Yara, Kalusha Bwalya, Godfrey Chitalu, Segun Odegbami,
Registration date : 2007-03-24

Re: A famous Event

Post by EMP on Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:00 am

Di Caniooooo! wrote:
EMP wrote:
Di Caniooooo! wrote:
EMP wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:USA 1 - 0 England in 1950?

Correct. How many of that American team were immigrants who did not have US citizenship at that time and why were they allowed to play?
Only 3, most of them were Americans. There's even a movie on it. Plus, it was legal back then. US nearly beat Spain that WC too. Biggest WC upset ever.

Yes it was within the rules then, but interesting that only one of the three got citizenship. Where would you rank North Korea beating Italy in 1966? The movie was Hollywoodised. It even changed the captain and reduced his role. No need for that really. US lost pretty convincingly to Spain in that tournament. They took the lead, but apart from that didn't look like winning.
USA vs England was such a big upset, odds makers hadn't even made odds for the match. When news reached England that the US had won 1-0, they thought they had it wrong, and reported that England had won 10-0. The US team didn't come together until a few weeks before the tournament. That, and the fact that England was favorites to win the cup, I think its bigger than NK vs Italy.

I'll bet you only got odds on North Korea because by then the USA had shown upsets can happen, but it is arguable that North Korea was bigger upset because Italy got eliminated (correct if wrong) and the underdogs went through to knock out phase. It was also England's first World Cup and while England were fancied by some what happened to Italy was telling.

110%

Number of posts : 8978
Age : 43
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:30 am

EMP wrote:Good grief. Uruguay did not boycott Italy and France in 1934 and 1938 over travel. They came without complaint over travel and absence from family to the Olympics in 1924 and 1928 despite the distance travelling and time away. They boycotted Italy in retaliation over Italy not coming, clearly suggesting they did not accept the 'legitimate' whingeing over travel and absence. Had it been in Europe in 1930 then the South Americans would have had to travel. The fact they had never suggested that was a reason to boycott suggests they would have come had they lost the right to host, which occurred because the Europeans withdrew in 1929. If they objected so much they should not have withdrawn especially as one of the whingers was Italy which had bid. Their withdrawal meant Uruguay would host. What did they think was going to happen after they withdrew their bids. Your claim against FIFA ignores the fact that all the European putative hosts withdrew their bids. Whether they provided expenses or not matters not a bit as they hosted because everyone else withdrew. If Italy objected to travelling so legitimately they should not have withdrawn their bid - pretty simple really.

This started because I asked you for proof that the FA thought they were too good to attend, and it turns out you were wrong, it was because they were in dispute with FIFA. Since that's clear let's deal with the "European whinging" discussion.

I made a remark about other Europeans not attending the 1930 World Cup on the basis of distance, to which you started going on about Europeans whinging, so I'll give you an example of being invited somewhere and not going. see if you can follow:

I invited some people from Europe to my wedding in Hong Kong a few years ago. Some came but many could not, and in their RSVP they indicated the distance and time was something they couldn't manage. I accepted their reasoning (obviously you would not Wink. A couple of years after that we were invited to a friend's wedding in Spain. Initially my wife's reaction was that they hadn't come to ours so should we make the effort? However we went and had a great time. If my wife rejected future invites for years with "persistent complaining" (the definition of whinging) about who had not attended our wedding, then she would be a whinger. The people who didn't come to our wedding were not whingers, they turned down an invitation with a reason. Therefore in the scenario of the Europeans turning down an invite and the uruguayans complaining about it for years the uruguayans are the whingers. QED Wink

Giving false value to something: it is clear that there were various, shall we say, teething problems with the early world cups (whether it was participation, corruption, national influence or whatever) which devalues them.  Uruguayans may well have been the best in the world in 1930, 1934 and 1938, unfortunately we'll never know because of the problems with those competitions. They did win the world cup in 1930 so far play to them, but plenty of teams were missing, and those that made it made a 3 week sea voyage to get there so may not have been in their best physical shape (equally applies for 1934 and 1938 and south american teams travelling, before you go mental). These problems with the organisation, lack of participation, travelling and Uruguayan whinging devalued the early world cups, not me. You on the other hand,  agree that there were all these problems, plus some others which are just your opinion and whoever wrote an article in ghana world (was that you btw?), and just choose to ignore them in any argument about the value of a world cup in 1930 (or 1934 or 1938).

I acknowledge every point you made so no need to repeat again something about how pissed off Uruguay were and how pissed off you are on their behalf, etc I'll only point out to you that you were wrong about why the English didn't participate in 1930, you were wrong about Europeans whingers and it was in fact the uruguayans that were the whingers, and you overvalue competitions since you just choose to ignore any problems with any competition, except for some reason you seem to not like the Olympics (BTW I don't know attendance figures, but the reason I pointed it out was that watching the coverage of the matches you can see fans from the various countries at the Olympic matches
https://www.google.fi/search?q=fan+pictures+of+olympic+football&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=juXbUYCzCM344QSblID4Ag&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1208&bih=780
but at the Confed cup you mainly only saw Brazilians:
https://www.google.fi/search?q=fan+pictures+of+confed+cup&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Z-XbUYvnAuXJ4ATn0IC4DQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1208&bih=780).
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 54
Supports : Valencia, and in Africa Al-Ahly
Favourite Player : The Legendary David Albelda, Mohammed Aboutreika, Charles Gyamfi, Baba Yara, Kalusha Bwalya, Godfrey Chitalu, Segun Odegbami,
Registration date : 2007-03-24

Re: A famous Event

Post by EMP on Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:26 pm

110% wrote:
EMP wrote:Good grief. Uruguay did not boycott Italy and France in 1934 and 1938 over travel. They came without complaint over travel and absence from family to the Olympics in 1924 and 1928 despite the distance travelling and time away. They boycotted Italy in retaliation over Italy not coming, clearly suggesting they did not accept the 'legitimate' whingeing over travel and absence. Had it been in Europe in 1930 then the South Americans would have had to travel. The fact they had never suggested that was a reason to boycott suggests they would have come had they lost the right to host, which occurred because the Europeans withdrew in 1929. If they objected so much they should not have withdrawn especially as one of the whingers was Italy which had bid. Their withdrawal meant Uruguay would host. What did they think was going to happen after they withdrew their bids. Your claim against FIFA ignores the fact that all the European putative hosts withdrew their bids. Whether they provided expenses or not matters not a bit as they hosted because everyone else withdrew. If Italy objected to travelling so legitimately they should not have withdrawn their bid - pretty simple really.

This started because I asked you for proof that the FA thought they were too good to attend, and it turns out you were wrong, it was because they were in dispute with FIFA. Since that's clear let's deal with the "European whinging" discussion.

I made a remark about other Europeans not attending the 1930 World Cup on the basis of distance, to which you started going on about Europeans whinging, so I'll give you an example of being invited somewhere and not going. see if you can follow:

I invited some people from Europe to my wedding in Hong Kong a few years ago. Some came but many could not, and in their RSVP they indicated the distance and time was something they couldn't manage. I accepted their reasoning (obviously you would not Wink. A couple of years after that we were invited to a friend's wedding in Spain. Initially my wife's reaction was that they hadn't come to ours so should we make the effort? However we went and had a great time. If my wife rejected future invites for years with "persistent complaining" (the definition of whinging) about who had not attended our wedding, then she would be a whinger. The people who didn't come to our wedding were not whingers, they turned down an invitation with a reason. Therefore in the scenario of the Europeans turning down an invite and the uruguayans complaining about it for years the uruguayans are the whingers. QED Wink

Giving false value to something: it is clear that there were various, shall we say, teething problems with the early world cups (whether it was participation, corruption, national influence or whatever) which devalues them.  Uruguayans may well have been the best in the world in 1930, 1934 and 1938, unfortunately we'll never know because of the problems with those competitions. They did win the world cup in 1930 so far play to them, but plenty of teams were missing, and those that made it made a 3 week sea voyage to get there so may not have been in their best physical shape (equally applies for 1934 and 1938 and south american teams travelling, before you go mental). These problems with the organisation, lack of participation, travelling and Uruguayan whinging devalued the early world cups, not me. You on the other hand,  agree that there were all these problems, plus some others which are just your opinion and whoever wrote an article in ghana world (was that you btw?), and just choose to ignore them in any argument about the value of a world cup in 1930 (or 1934 or 1938).

I acknowledge every point you made so no need to repeat again something about how pissed off Uruguay were and how pissed off you are on their behalf, etc I'll only point out to you that you were wrong about why the English didn't participate in 1930, you were wrong about Europeans whingers and it was in fact the uruguayans that were the whingers, and you overvalue competitions since you just choose to ignore any problems with any competition, except for some reason you seem to not like the Olympics (BTW I don't know attendance figures, but the reason I pointed it out was that watching the coverage of the matches you can see fans from the various countries at the Olympic matches
https://www.google.fi/search?q=fan+pictures+of+olympic+football&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=juXbUYCzCM344QSblID4Ag&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1208&bih=780
but at the Confed cup you mainly only saw Brazilians:
https://www.google.fi/search?q=fan+pictures+of+confed+cup&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Z-XbUYvnAuXJ4ATn0IC4DQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1208&bih=780).

For goodness sake, it is patently obvious that somebody had to travel and that if the Europeans objected to it they had every opportunity not to withdraw as potential hosts. There was no selection process as such because of the withdrawals. Having ensured that Uruguay got the tournament by their own actions the Europeans really have no right to complain about travel or anything else regarding it being in Uruguay.

Uruguay's boycotts were not about travel. They retaliated in 1934, which suggests that they were angry about European non-participation in 1930. They obviously were offended by the Europeans, especially Italy not coming. The fact that Uruguay travelled to the Olympics in 1924 and 1928 when both were in Europe shows that they do not have a problem travelling to Europe. Their refusal to come in 1934 and 1938 was for different reasons. It also suggests that travel and absence was not considered an adequate reason not to come. In that context, and especially after Europe abdicated its chance to host by withdrawing their bids in 1929, the Europeans not coming is an excuse. There is however, a much stronger reason for not coming. Amateurs would have had problems getting time off work, especially given travel duration. That would have been a legitimate reason, but it was never claimed by the Europeans or you.

I saw plenty of supporters from other countries at the Confed Cup. The majority were Brasilians. That is hardly surprising. The Olympics is not a worthwhile competition as it is Under 23, but not, as it allows three overage players. There already are youth tournaments - World Cups at various levels. With the various World Cups, what does the Olympics add? Certain managers went out of their way to get their players not to be available for selection. I dfidn't see much of that for Confed Cup.

Olympics is nowhere as valid a competition as it was when Uruguay dominated in the 1920s. They were denied a chance to defend in 1932 because Los Angeles' Games preferred American Football. According to FIFA the viewing figures for Confed Cup were records. It is a valid competition and was played by teams to whom it mattered. Tahiti apart the quality of football was decent; I'd say higher than at the Olympics.

You can think what you want about travel, but if it was so legitimate an excuse, why did Uruguay never use that as an excuse not to travel to Europe and why did the European putative hosts pull out in 1929.  All they had to do was put it to the vote where they probably would have won. They chose to pull out a year later after they had ensured that it would take place in Uruguay. I have no problem accepting people not being able to make it to invites in general, but this was different and you know it. Italy and the others could have bid, especially as at least one European nation which didn't go withdrew in favour of Italy. Italy's withdrawal of its bid made sure it would go to Uruguay - bit rich to complain about it afterwards. Did it take a year for them to work out that Uruguay was far away?

110%

Number of posts : 8978
Age : 43
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:50 pm

This actually started because I proved you wrong on the FA part (quote below). It continued because within the same post I accuse you of overhyping such competitions. It turns out I was also right about that. I have clearly demonstrated the problems with early competitions, you are have clearly demonstrated that uruguay were upset.  

Your whole point seems to be that you and the uruguayans don't accept travelling for 3 weeks on a ship as a reasonable reason not to attend a few football matches, because the uruguayans did it around that time. FIFA accepted it and the way it has been written everywhere except ghana world (still waiting an answer on that article btw) everyone seems to think it was a reasonable reason. The uruguayans felt snubbed at the time so they whinged about it for ages. And you've decided to take it upon yourself to whinge on their behalf 80 years later, by ironically calling the Europeans, who declined an invitation, whingers Very Happy 


110% wrote:
EMP wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:
EMP wrote:This was also the first time that England had played in the World Cup finals. Why?

They were too good for the rest of the world, and I can see this situation repeating itself in the World Club Cup.

Oh, I guess there was a second reason: English players were too delicate to play in the summer.  Biggrin 

Yep.

So who scored the goal that punctured their ego in Brasil and what happened to him?

What's the chance of climate change doing the right thing and ensuring that all future World Cups observe strict protocol of ensuring that all tournaments occur according to European climate requirements?

Proof? I read that there was some dispute between the FA and FIFA (they were corrupt even back then probably). Before 1950  did all the other European teams not participate because they also thought they were too good? Or it could have been that they didn't think a couple of football matches was worth spending so long away from their families and jobs? I notice that you like to try and hype events, such as the confed cup, beyond their actual level of importance, and this is the same with the world cup pre a certain time. The simple answer is that it was not a serious competition like it is now.

As for the climate, playing in excessive heat and humidity risks players' health or does that not matter? Are you saying we shouldn't bother with air-conditioned stadiums in Qatar, because playing in 50°C is fine? Or have you decided a temperature and humidity level at which complaining becomes legitimate, if so you need to tell us.

I apologise for boring the rest of you
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 54
Supports : Valencia, and in Africa Al-Ahly
Favourite Player : The Legendary David Albelda, Mohammed Aboutreika, Charles Gyamfi, Baba Yara, Kalusha Bwalya, Godfrey Chitalu, Segun Odegbami,
Registration date : 2007-03-24

Re: A famous Event

Post by EMP on Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:07 pm

110% wrote:This actually started because I proved you wrong on the FA part (quote below). It continued because within the same post I accuse you of overhyping such competitions. It turns out I was also right about that. I have clearly demonstrated the problems with early competitions, you are have clearly demonstrated that uruguay were upset.  

Your whole point seems to be that you and the uruguayans don't accept travelling for 3 weeks on a ship as a reasonable reason not to attend a few football matches, because the uruguayans did it around that time. FIFA accepted it and the way it has been written everywhere except ghana world (still waiting an answer on that article btw) everyone seems to think it was a reasonable reason. The uruguayans felt snubbed at the time so they whinged about it for ages. And you've decided to take it upon yourself to whinge on their behalf 80 years later, by ironically calling the Europeans, who declined an invitation, whingers Very Happy 


110% wrote:
EMP wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:
EMP wrote:This was also the first time that England had played in the World Cup finals. Why?

They were too good for the rest of the world, and I can see this situation repeating itself in the World Club Cup.

Oh, I guess there was a second reason: English players were too delicate to play in the summer.  Biggrin 

Yep.

So who scored the goal that punctured their ego in Brasil and what happened to him?

What's the chance of climate change doing the right thing and ensuring that all future World Cups observe strict protocol of ensuring that all tournaments occur according to European climate requirements?

Proof? I read that there was some dispute between the FA and FIFA (they were corrupt even back then probably). Before 1950  did all the other European teams not participate because they also thought they were too good? Or it could have been that they didn't think a couple of football matches was worth spending so long away from their families and jobs? I notice that you like to try and hype events, such as the confed cup, beyond their actual level of importance, and this is the same with the world cup pre a certain time. The simple answer is that it was not a serious competition like it is now.

As for the climate, playing in excessive heat and humidity risks players' health or does that not matter? Are you saying we shouldn't bother with air-conditioned stadiums in Qatar, because playing in 50°C is fine? Or have you decided a temperature and humidity level at which complaining becomes legitimate, if so you need to tell us.

I apologise for boring the rest of you

Good grief. You have not proved that these early competitions are what you say. FIFA caved in to Mussolini's outrageous conduct in 1934 and let him politicise the 1938 tournament. FIFA didn't want to risk further problems in 1934. They were hardly in any position to dictate to anyone. They were a very new organistaion and there was the alternative of the Olympics then. They could not have had a much weaker hand to impose their will.

You accept the travel argument - your choice. The facts show that Italy and the rest of the European no-shows had every opportunity to prevent it by continuing their bids in 1929. They didn't. Uruguay has every right to be pissed off as the Europeans knew for a year that it would be held in Uruguay and had done nothing to stop it when they had the chance.

They didn't go to Italy in 1934 because of what was perceived to be the snub of their World Cup, not because of travel. In other words, they did not have any problem travel the reverse distance or being away from their families and that was when they were undoubtedly the best team in the world.

What could FIFA do at that time, but accept what the Europeans did. It was their first tournament and they were not the powerful organisation that they are now. If the Europeans tried that now they would be banned and that has nothing to do with air-travel being available now.

Where exactly have you proved that the Olympics now is superior to the Confederations' Cup?

Regarding Qatar, their bid includes air-conditioned stadiums. The common-sense solution that Platini proposed won't happen, because the bid was for summer and was accepted. The delegates knew about the climate when they voted. Qatar won't do anything that will allow the WC to be taken away from them. Why should they? The solution is up to FIFA. Let them allow Qatar to shift it to winter. If not it will have to be according to the bid unless there is clear corruption that nullifies the bid.

110%

Number of posts : 8978
Age : 43
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:00 pm

So you're basically agreeing that there were loads of problems with early world cups yet don't think that has any effect on their value as world cups Very Happy 

In addition you find nothing to support your idea that Europeans were upset about Uruguay being award the world cup that you have inferred it for yourself? Europeans said "We don't want to travel so far", you interpreted that as "I am upset about the award so I won't go". Apart from the huge jump that you have made, it would be healthier (for a journalist/lawyer) if you could admit you were wrong when you are in fact wrong.

Have I said anywhere the olympics is superior to the confed cup? You should probably stop inferring things and actually try to understand what is written. You criticised the olympics and I pointed out that more actual fans go to the olympics. It is an event, whereas the confed cup is a rehearsal for the world cup event. Most people are waiting for the actual event to take place next year.

Regarding Qatar? I had almost forotten we talked about climate, such was the uproar for just how upset the uruguayans were in 1930. There is no common sense solution, as the common sense solution would have involved not giving the world cup to country that has no need for the stadiums, has the climate that it has, has the population it has, etc. With enough money you can make anything work, so Qatar will make it work at a massive loss, FIFA delegates will watch the matches in the air-conditions boxes and stay in 5-star hotels, people will still go there even though it will be in smaller numbers, and more viewers at home means even better TV deals for FIFA. FIFA wins, Qatar loses, the world in 1922 will still wonder how much Qatar paid the selectors.

Di Caniooooo!

Number of posts : 10829
Age : 31
Supports : West Ham
Favourite Player : Paolo Di Canio, Moore, Hurst, Peters
Registration date : 2007-03-24

Re: A famous Event

Post by Di Caniooooo! on Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:03 pm

All I know is 3rd place in 1930 Very Happy
avatar
mongrel hawk

Number of posts : 4757
Age : 37
Supports : Corinthians
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: A famous Event

Post by mongrel hawk on Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:56 pm

All I know is Uruguay won the 3 most important cups in the world in a row and were the best in the world at the time by far. They won only 2 WCs up to now, but won 4 cups that at the time were the most important titles in the world, therefore they are 4 times world champions. That's why they have 4 stars on their jersey.

I don't think the English were arrogant (though this is common sense worldwide), I think they were afraid. England didn't play WCs because they didn't want to prove themselves and find out how crap they were when they pretended to believe they were the best. Maybe in 400 years England will be half of what Uruguay is in the history of football. 3 rigged WCs at home may help.

By the way, Uruguay reached the semis in 2010, something the English can't do since 1990.

It seems to me Uruguay was better and is still better now with no more than 5 million Uruguayans in the world. ok

Uruguay are the true country of football, not Brazil, not Italy, not Germany. Uruguay rules. <Ale> 
avatar
Isco Benny

Number of posts : 19647
Age : 37
Supports : Spurs, FOLLOWS (just for worms): Werder Bremen, Lazio, Ferencvaros, Valencia, El Classico, Angleterre, Magyarorszag
Favourite Player : Don't cha wish your left back was BAE? Don't cha
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: A famous Event

Post by Isco Benny on Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:44 pm

I agree. But did Uruguay ever build an Empire that was the envy of the World despite being a minuscule little Island in the North Sea? Nah, I didn't think so Laughing

Seriously though, as much as I wish England weren't so underwhelming when it comes to playing football, it isn't a country that has to depend on sport as a basis for it's own identity in the same way a country like Uruguay - and shoot me for sounding arrogant, but I speaks only the truth - is little known for anything else.
avatar
mongrel hawk

Number of posts : 4757
Age : 37
Supports : Corinthians
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: A famous Event

Post by mongrel hawk on Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:57 pm

Isco Benny wrote:I agree. But did Uruguay ever build an Empire that was the envy of the World despite being a minuscule little Island in the North Sea? Nah, I didn't think so Laughing

Seriously though, as much as I wish England weren't so underwhelming when it comes to playing football, it isn't a country that has to depend on sport as a basis for it's own identity in the same way a country like Uruguay - and shoot me for sounding arrogant, but I speaks only the truth - is little known for anything else.

Don't get me wrong, we're talking football here. Not meant to offend a country. England is a great country with many big qualities (which not include imperialism and football IMO). Right now I'm reading an English writer and was just listening to an English band, which only goes to show how much I like the country.

As to Uruguay, they have the best meat/barbecue in the world, followed by Argentina and Brazil, and the highest number of cows per capita in the world, almost 4 cows per person, that is around 15 million cows!!! Biggrin 

How many sheeps per person are there in Wales?
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 54
Supports : Valencia, and in Africa Al-Ahly
Favourite Player : The Legendary David Albelda, Mohammed Aboutreika, Charles Gyamfi, Baba Yara, Kalusha Bwalya, Godfrey Chitalu, Segun Odegbami,
Registration date : 2007-03-24

Re: A famous Event

Post by EMP on Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:19 pm

Isco Benny wrote:I agree. But did Uruguay ever build an Empire that was the envy of the World despite being a minuscule little Island in the North Sea? Nah, I didn't think so Laughing

Seriously though, as much as I wish England weren't so underwhelming when it comes to playing football, it isn't a country that has to depend on sport as a basis for it's own identity in the same way a country like Uruguay - and shoot me for sounding arrogant, but I speaks only the truth - is little known for anything else.

They also had Jose Gervasio Artigas - a sad story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Gervasio_Artigas

He is widely renowned as the founding father of the country. He fought the Spanish and helped achieve independence while surrounded by hostile nations, especially Argentina and Brasil. He had to flee into Paraguay to escape Brasilians and was never allowed to leave by the dictator of Paraguay, Dr Jose Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia. Nevertheless, Artigas' achievement in steering Uruguay to independence in such difficult circumstances should be respected, shouldn't it?
avatar
mongrel hawk

Number of posts : 4757
Age : 37
Supports : Corinthians
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: A famous Event

Post by mongrel hawk on Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:42 pm

They also have Eduardo Galeano. Among his works there's a good book about football: El fútbol a sol y sombra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_Galeano

avatar
Isco Benny

Number of posts : 19647
Age : 37
Supports : Spurs, FOLLOWS (just for worms): Werder Bremen, Lazio, Ferencvaros, Valencia, El Classico, Angleterre, Magyarorszag
Favourite Player : Don't cha wish your left back was BAE? Don't cha
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: A famous Event

Post by Isco Benny on Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:53 pm

Mongrel Hawk wrote:
Isco Benny wrote:I agree. But did Uruguay ever build an Empire that was the envy of the World despite being a minuscule little Island in the North Sea? Nah, I didn't think so Laughing

Seriously though, as much as I wish England weren't so underwhelming when it comes to playing football, it isn't a country that has to depend on sport as a basis for it's own identity in the same way a country like Uruguay - and shoot me for sounding arrogant, but I speaks only the truth - is little known for anything else.

Don't get me wrong, we're talking football here. Not meant to offend a country. England is a great country with many big qualities (which not include imperialism and football IMO). Right now I'm reading an English writer and was just listening to an English band, which only goes to show how much I like the country.

As to Uruguay, they have the best meat/barbecue in the world, followed by Argentina and Brazil, and the highest number of cows per capita in the world, almost 4 cows per person, that is around 15 million cows!!! Biggrin 

How many sheeps per person are there in Wales?

More sheep than women in Wales. Make of that what you will....


110%

Number of posts : 8978
Age : 43
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:19 pm

If it was 1930 right now, we'd be agreeing that Uruguay are the best, unfortunately it is 2013 and in the last 20 years (most of your lifetimes watching football) Uruguay's record is:
1994: Didn't qualify
1998: Didn't qualify
2002: 26th
2006: Didn't qualify
2010: 4th (Turkey got 3rd in 2002, so how much value to put on a one off result)
2014: May well not qualify

That's shit, much worse even than England, so you know just how bad it is lol! 

While I accept that the olympics was like the world cup in the 1920s, putting 4 stars on your shirt just seems small time. It seems that for Uruguay the record itself is not enough, they want to compare themselves to Brazil, and they need shove it in people's faces.
avatar
mongrel hawk

Number of posts : 4757
Age : 37
Supports : Corinthians
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: A famous Event

Post by mongrel hawk on Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:54 pm

110% wrote:If it was 1930 right now, we'd be agreeing that Uruguay are the best, unfortunately it is 2013 and in the last 20 years (most of your lifetimes watching football) Uruguay's record is:  
1994: Didn't qualify
1998: Didn't qualify
2002: 26th
2006: Didn't qualify
2010: 4th (Turkey got 3rd in 2002, so how much value to put on a one off result)
2014: May well not qualify

That's shit, much worse even than England, so you know just how bad it is lol! 

While I accept that the olympics was like the world cup in the 1920s, putting 4 stars on your shirt just seems small time. It seems that for Uruguay the record itself is not enough, they want to compare themselves to Brazil, and they need shove it in people's faces.

They have 4 stars in their shirt because they won 4 major titles. What's the problem?

In the period you mention, they won 2 Copas Américas and reached 1 WC semis. In this same time, England won nothing and never got past the quarters.

I'd say that technically England and Uruguay are even today IMO. Historically, though, there's no point discussing.
avatar
Super Progress

Number of posts : 15429
Age : 28
Supports : Real Madrid + Mierda inchada en un palo
Favourite Player : Laudrup,Cassano,Totti, Zidane,Marcelo, Pepe!,Guti, PROGRESS
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by Super Progress on Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:16 pm

Mongrel Hawk wrote:All I know is Uruguay won the 3 most important cups in the world in a row and were the best in the world at the time by far. They won only 2 WCs up to now, but won 4 cups that at the time were the most important titles in the world, therefore they are 4 times world champions. That's why they have 4 stars on their jersey.

I don't think the English were arrogant (though this is common sense worldwide), I think they were afraid. England didn't play WCs because they didn't want to prove themselves and find out how crap they were when they pretended to believe they were the best.
Maybe in 400 years England will be half of what Uruguay is in the history of football. 3 rigged WCs at home may help.

By the way, Uruguay reached the semis in 2010, something the English can't do since 1990.

It seems to me Uruguay was better and is still better now with no more than 5 million Uruguayans in the world. ok

Uruguay are the true country of football, not Brazil, not Italy, not Germany. Uruguay rules. <Ale> 
No England did think of themselves as the best and it wasn't so strange that they did although somewhat arrogant to assume they didn't have to prove themselves.

Imo Uruguay is a better side than England historically because of their wins but as it was pointed out they have nobodies for a very long time the last WC excepted. Also England fathered the game so they are legitemately one of the most important footballing nations although I suppose that goes beyond the discussion.

Brian2468

Number of posts : 4873
Age : 58
Registration date : 2006-08-06

Re: A famous Event

Post by Brian2468 on Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:45 am

Growing up I never met anyone that said England is a great football nation. We do like our footy that does not say we thought of ourselves as the best. Even far back in the 60's Brazil were considered the king of the game with the people that showed me the how to play.

Todo, once your hated, it is easier to leave things the way it is and point fingers, There was some arrogance that fed the fire, It gave smaller countries a way to swing an insult and say we are better that you even if we are not as powerful a country.

Never understood Puro's hate for England must of happened in his upbringing. Suspect Wink

110%

Number of posts : 8978
Age : 43
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:46 am

Mongrel Hawk wrote:
110% wrote:If it was 1930 right now, we'd be agreeing that Uruguay are the best, unfortunately it is 2013 and in the last 20 years (most of your lifetimes watching football) Uruguay's record is:  
1994: Didn't qualify
1998: Didn't qualify
2002: 26th
2006: Didn't qualify
2010: 4th (Turkey got 3rd in 2002, so how much value to put on a one off result)
2014: May well not qualify

That's shit, much worse even than England, so you know just how bad it is lol! 

While I accept that the olympics was like the world cup in the 1920s, putting 4 stars on your shirt just seems small time. It seems that for Uruguay the record itself is not enough, they want to compare themselves to Brazil, and they need shove it in people's faces.

They have 4 stars in their shirt because they won 4 major titles. What's the problem?

In the period you mention, they won 2 Copas Américas and reached 1 WC semis. In this same time, England won nothing and never got past the quarters.

I'd say that technically England and Uruguay are even today IMO. Historically, though, there's no point discussing.

The stars are not for a major title, otherwise Brasil should stick another one on for their confed cup win (according to EMP it's a major title Wink). Some teams could have rows of stars and look like they just came back from war. Everyone else has added a star for each world cup win, only uruguay stuck a couple of additional stars on so people don't forget the won the olympics a long time because they are nobodies in world football now. They can do it, it is their choice, but it just seems small time to me.

You keep comparing with England and saying Uruguay are top of the world. England are bad, you can be better than England and still be bad Very Happy . If you are saying Uruguay are still a top football nation compare them to teams that actually have been good in our lifetimes, so Spain, France, Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Netherlands and you will find that Uruguay have in fact done pretty badly compared to all of them. Even Sweden came 3rd in 1994, so uruguay coming 4th in 2010 are just behind them Wink.

As for the copa wins, well done to them. However we already had that discussion on the odds of winning the Copa are very different to the Euros. You've got 10 teams and 2 invitees. You need 8 teams to have a quarter final, so you can be 3rd in the group and still get through, after that you need to win 3 games and you usually only have 2 good teams to avoid (Brazil and Argentina). You get into the quarter final in the euros and you're coming up against the likes of spain, germany, italy, france, netherlands, etc and if you avoid them you might get portugal, russia etc. You don't get a bye by playing the likes of Peru Smile. Greece won a Euro, which is much harder, are they one of the top teams in the world? No, although well done to them on winning against the odds.
avatar
Fey

Number of posts : 35347
Supports : Feyenoord and Manchester United
Favourite Player : ??#$ Error, John Guidetti, Jordy Clasie
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by Fey on Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:03 pm

I don't rate Uruguay's WC's for the simple reason that the one in 1930 is almost a century ago, and hardly anyone participated in that one. And the same goes for 1950, cause we had an other event here that had the word World in it. It's no suprise that both of the European semi-finalists were neutral nations.

Anyway, it doesnt say I dont rate Uruguay as a football nation, I think the semi-final in 2010 is an amazing achievement for a nation that has only 3.3million people. However, Croatia also made it to the semi's in 1998.
avatar
mongrel hawk

Number of posts : 4757
Age : 37
Supports : Corinthians
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: A famous Event

Post by mongrel hawk on Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:20 pm

Fey wrote:I don't rate Uruguay's WC's for the simple reason that the one in 1930 is almost a century ago, and hardly anyone participated in that one. And the same goes for 1950, cause we had an other event here that had the word World in it. It's no suprise that both of the European semi-finalists were neutral nations.

Anyway, it doesnt say I dont rate Uruguay as a football nation, I think the semi-final in 2010 is an amazing achievement for a nation that has only 3.3million people. However, Croatia also made it to the semi's in 1998.

The Olympic golds (2) in the 20s were the most important titles at the time. Uruguay was chosen to host the first WC because they were the best in the world even in the eyes of Europeans. They won those golds against the best European teams, IN EUROPE. In a way, those Olympic golds were more important than the 1930 WC. Uruguay was the first football superpower after football became popular worldwide. You cannot deny them that just because it's old. That's a hell of an achievement.

@110%

The fact that you're comparing those 4 Uruguay's titles with the confed cup only shows how little you know about football.
avatar
Fey

Number of posts : 35347
Supports : Feyenoord and Manchester United
Favourite Player : ??#$ Error, John Guidetti, Jordy Clasie
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by Fey on Wed Jul 10, 2013 3:33 pm

Yes, you are right. But do bare in mind that is almost a century ago. You do realise people tend to judge players by their last game. Why should that be different for nation achievements. I had to teach my little nephew that Brazil are GOOD in football, he always thought that it's just another QF nation. And it came as a shock for him that Brazil won the the confedcup. And again I dont rate football achievements before World War 2. but to still rate Uruguay above Holland is silly.
avatar
mongrel hawk

Number of posts : 4757
Age : 37
Supports : Corinthians
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: A famous Event

Post by mongrel hawk on Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:55 pm

Fey wrote:Yes, you are right. But do bare in mind that is almost a century ago. You do realise people tend to judge players by their last game. Why should that be different for nation achievements. I had to teach my little nephew that Brazil are GOOD in football, he always thought that it's just another QF nation. And it came as a shock for him that Brazil won the the confedcup. And again I dont rate football achievements before World War 2. but to still rate Uruguay above Holland is silly.

I don''t blame your nephew. Laughing 

Then you don't rate Italy's titles in the 30s?

Uruguay has more important titles than Holland in history. Fact.

Holland has been certainly a better team than Uruguay since 1974. Fact.
avatar
Fey

Number of posts : 35347
Supports : Feyenoord and Manchester United
Favourite Player : ??#$ Error, John Guidetti, Jordy Clasie
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by Fey on Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:03 pm

Now, I dont rate any Italian WC title, because in my eyes they were never the better team but that's a different discussion. But in general most people don't rate the two WC's Italy won in the 30's
avatar
mongrel hawk

Number of posts : 4757
Age : 37
Supports : Corinthians
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: A famous Event

Post by mongrel hawk on Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:30 pm

Fey wrote:Now, I dont rate any Italian WC title, because in my eyes they were never the better team but that's a different discussion. But in general most people don't rate the two WC's Italy won in the 30's

Winning has nothing to do with being the best.

That's why I love cups and hate league formats.
avatar
Fey

Number of posts : 35347
Supports : Feyenoord and Manchester United
Favourite Player : ??#$ Error, John Guidetti, Jordy Clasie
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by Fey on Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:02 pm

If an event is held only once in 4 years, the best should win. Hence I would fucking love a league format!

Italy deserved the title in 2002. They had a great squad back then, and would have won it if it wasnt for those typical dodgy FIFA refs!

110%

Number of posts : 8978
Age : 43
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:23 pm

Mongrel Hawk wrote:
Fey wrote:I don't rate Uruguay's WC's for the simple reason that the one in 1930 is almost a century ago, and hardly anyone participated in that one. And the same goes for 1950, cause we had an other event here that had the word World in it. It's no suprise that both of the European semi-finalists were neutral nations.

Anyway, it doesnt say I dont rate Uruguay as a football nation, I think the semi-final in 2010 is an amazing achievement for a nation that has only 3.3million people. However, Croatia also made it to the semi's in 1998.

The Olympic golds (2) in the 20s were the most important titles at the time. Uruguay was chosen to host the first WC because they were the best in the world even in the eyes of Europeans. They won those golds against the best European teams, IN EUROPE. In a way, those Olympic golds were more important than the 1930 WC. Uruguay was the first football superpower after football became popular worldwide. You cannot deny them that just because it's old. That's a hell of an achievement.

@110%

The fact that you're comparing those 4 Uruguay's titles with the confed cup only shows how little you know about football.

The "how little you know about football" argument, always a good fall back when you can't actually dispute the point being made. You seem like you have a good sense of humour when dishing it out to the English, but you need to learn to take it as well if someone takes the piss out of your teams.

avatar
mongrel hawk

Number of posts : 4757
Age : 37
Supports : Corinthians
Registration date : 2006-08-08

Re: A famous Event

Post by mongrel hawk on Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:22 pm

110% wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:
Fey wrote:I don't rate Uruguay's WC's for the simple reason that the one in 1930 is almost a century ago, and hardly anyone participated in that one. And the same goes for 1950, cause we had an other event here that had the word World in it. It's no suprise that both of the European semi-finalists were neutral nations.

Anyway, it doesnt say I dont rate Uruguay as a football nation, I think the semi-final in 2010 is an amazing achievement for a nation that has only 3.3million people. However, Croatia also made it to the semi's in 1998.

The Olympic golds (2) in the 20s were the most important titles at the time. Uruguay was chosen to host the first WC because they were the best in the world even in the eyes of Europeans. They won those golds against the best European teams, IN EUROPE. In a way, those Olympic golds were more important than the 1930 WC. Uruguay was the first football superpower after football became popular worldwide. You cannot deny them that just because it's old. That's a hell of an achievement.

@110%

The fact that you're comparing those 4 Uruguay's titles with the confed cup only shows how little you know about football.

The "how little you know about football" argument, always a good fall back when you can't actually dispute the point being made. You seem like you have a good sense of humour when dishing it out to the English, but you need to learn to take it as well if someone takes the piss out of your teams.


Uruguay is not my team. It's just wrong to compare the most important cup at the time with the confed cup today. Sorry if I offended you.

@fey

I think league format should be banished from football forever. ok 

110%

Number of posts : 8978
Age : 43
Registration date : 2006-08-07

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:27 am

Mongrel Hawk wrote:
110% wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:
Fey wrote:I don't rate Uruguay's WC's for the simple reason that the one in 1930 is almost a century ago, and hardly anyone participated in that one. And the same goes for 1950, cause we had an other event here that had the word World in it. It's no suprise that both of the European semi-finalists were neutral nations.

Anyway, it doesnt say I dont rate Uruguay as a football nation, I think the semi-final in 2010 is an amazing achievement for a nation that has only 3.3million people. However, Croatia also made it to the semi's in 1998.

The Olympic golds (2) in the 20s were the most important titles at the time. Uruguay was chosen to host the first WC because they were the best in the world even in the eyes of Europeans. They won those golds against the best European teams, IN EUROPE. In a way, those Olympic golds were more important than the 1930 WC. Uruguay was the first football superpower after football became popular worldwide. You cannot deny them that just because it's old. That's a hell of an achievement.

@110%

The fact that you're comparing those 4 Uruguay's titles with the confed cup only shows how little you know about football.

The "how little you know about football" argument, always a good fall back when you can't actually dispute the point being made. You seem like you have a good sense of humour when dishing it out to the English, but you need to learn to take it as well if someone takes the piss out of your teams.


Uruguay is not my team. It's just wrong to compare the most important cup at the time with the confed cup today. Sorry if I offended you.

@fey

I think league format should be banished from football forever. ok 

No worries, I have never been offended by anything written here. For the record I haven't compared the cups. You said the olympics was major tournament at the time, EMP says the confed cup is a major tournament now. I am more inclined to agree with you. Everyone has different ideas what they think is a major tournament, but the stars are for world cup wins for everyone else, except for uruguay. Did you know that England won the first 2 olympics football tournaments in 1908 and 1912 but they were seriously flawed as well, only 6 teams were at the first one and 11 at the second. They didn't stick an extra couple of stars on their shirts for it. Someone must have won in 1916 I guess, but I doubt they put a star on their shirt. Uruguay seem to need the recognition. Brazil, Germany and Italy as true giants of the game wouldn't do it, their attitude would be to go out and win more world cups, not try to add stars any way they can.

BTW I respect what Uruguay managed at that time with such a small population, and they definitely achieved more than England (with 2 world cup wins), but there are qualifiers to their achievements (the flaws in the early tournaments) which I was pointing out, and their level in the modern game is not what it was. Their place in history (at the moment) is about 4th equal with Argentina). In another 50 years they might start getting lower so they might have to find some other tournaments that they can add stars for Wink.

Sponsored content

Re: A famous Event

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:08 pm