A famous Event

Share
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 53
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 Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:52 pm

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

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


And to their immense credit they have this guy, Judge Roberto Timbal cheerscheerscheers

He authorised the arrest, which led to the conviction of despicable former President Juan Maria Bordaberry, who led a self-coup that resulted in a 12 year dictatorship. He saw that the amnesty did not cover murders committed on foreign soil under the notorious Operation Condor. Bordaberry. I can understand why amnesty laws were passed at the time, but these were with a gun at the head. They should not protect torturers. Bordaberry and another dictator of Uruguay were subsequently convicted of murders committed by the dictatorship.

@ 110% I think the Confederations Cup is a major trophy, (emphasis on a) along with several others. I never equated it to the World Cup or the Olympics when Uruguay was in its prime. I do think it is more valid than the Olympics now. I don't see what the men's Olympics football adds now apart from the Olympics trying to cash in on the popularity of football. There are now Under-17 and Under-20 World Cups and Euros for youth too. Before those tournaments were initiated I could see the point, but not any more. I personally the Olympics should promote other sports that could use the exposure. It's just an opinion, but I hold it. It is not even an Under-23 tournament as it allows three over-age players and there is no obligation on clubs to release players to it. What exactly is the point of it now?
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 53
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 Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:01 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.

What about the South American equivalent the Copa America? Uruguay is the current holder of it and the most successful nation on that continent with 15 titles, or doesn't that count? They won it previously in 1995 as well. How many European titles did England win in that period or even from its inception? In short, not shit and more successful than England in those 20 years unless of course the Copa America is a third rate competition that doesn't count.
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 Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:21 pm

110% wrote:
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.

I know. But football became a popular sport worldwide in the early 20s/late 10s. Until then, it was mainly an aristocratic sport in South America, and most Brazilian clubs didn't even let blacks play.

What I know is those Olympic golds Uruguay won were seen as the first real world cups, cause they were the first world tournments that got the attention of the world and had a real importance at the time. That's why Uruguay was considered the best in the world and FIFA chose them to host the first WC. Those Olympic golds were harder to get than the first WC in 1930 for Uruguay.

England invented the sport and will always be a special football nation because of it. They were the best before Uruguay, probably followed by Scotland, but not many countries took the sport seriously then.

110%

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

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:28 pm

EMP 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.

What about the South American equivalent the Copa America? Uruguay is the current holder of it and the most successful nation on that continent with 15 titles, or doesn't that count? They won it previously in 1995 as well. How many European titles did England win in that period or even from its inception? In short, not shit and more successful than England in those 20 years unless of course the Copa America is a third rate competition that doesn't count.

Already answered all these points. Read the thread. If you want to declare Uruguay as one of the best then compare them to the best, which is not England Wink.
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 53
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 Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:17 pm

110% wrote:
EMP 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.

What about the South American equivalent the Copa America? Uruguay is the current holder of it and the most successful nation on that continent with 15 titles, or doesn't that count? They won it previously in 1995 as well. How many European titles did England win in that period or even from its inception? In short, not shit and more successful than England in those 20 years unless of course the Copa America is a third rate competition that doesn't count.

Already answered all these points. Read the thread. If you want to declare Uruguay as one of the best then compare them to the best, which is not England Wink.

Then don't compare Uruguay to England yourself.

110%

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

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:45 pm

Mongrel Hawk wrote:
110% wrote:
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.

I know. But football became a popular sport worldwide in the early 20s/late 10s. Until then, it was mainly an aristocratic sport in South America, and most Brazilian clubs didn't even let blacks play.

What I know is those Olympic golds Uruguay won were seen as the first real world cups, cause they were the first world tournments that got the attention of the world and had a real importance at the time. That's why Uruguay was considered the best in the world and FIFA chose them to host the first WC. Those Olympic golds were harder to get than the first WC in 1930 for Uruguay.

England invented the sport and will always be a special football nation because of it. They were the best before Uruguay, probably followed by Scotland, but not many countries took the sport seriously then.

Did the football world really change that much in 1920? Here is an interesting article from ghana world (just kidding):
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/soccerhistory.html
And there is nothing particular about the time you mention. It seems like the 1930s were when things were really happening, switching to professional status etc.

I guess we're getting to a conclusion of sorts. You've decided that you'll take seriously tournaments from 1920 onwards (just after England stopped winning and just before Uruguay started), hence Uruguay's status in your eyes. It seems a bit arbitrary to me that 1924 is ok but not 1912, because Brazilians were racist in 1912. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of racists around in 1924 and 1928.

I've decided that serious tournaments started sometime after 1950, possibly 1958, hence Uruguay's status (or lack thereof) in my eyes.

110%

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

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:49 pm

EMP wrote:
110% wrote:
EMP 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.

What about the South American equivalent the Copa America? Uruguay is the current holder of it and the most successful nation on that continent with 15 titles, or doesn't that count? They won it previously in 1995 as well. How many European titles did England win in that period or even from its inception? In short, not shit and more successful than England in those 20 years unless of course the Copa America is a third rate competition that doesn't count.

Already answered all these points. Read the thread. If you want to declare Uruguay as one of the best then compare them to the best, which is not England Wink.

Then don't compare Uruguay to England yourself.

OOh you got me, actually no you didn't. I am saying that England are bad, and uruguay's modern record is even worse than theirs, which just shows how bad they are.

You're saying uruguay are amongst the best and keep comparing them to England. Being better than England doesn't make you the best
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 53
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 Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:19 pm

110% wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:
110% wrote:
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.

I know. But football became a popular sport worldwide in the early 20s/late 10s. Until then, it was mainly an aristocratic sport in South America, and most Brazilian clubs didn't even let blacks play.

What I know is those Olympic golds Uruguay won were seen as the first real world cups, cause they were the first world tournments that got the attention of the world and had a real importance at the time. That's why Uruguay was considered the best in the world and FIFA chose them to host the first WC. Those Olympic golds were harder to get than the first WC in 1930 for Uruguay.

England invented the sport and will always be a special football nation because of it. They were the best before Uruguay, probably followed by Scotland, but not many countries took the sport seriously then.

Did the football world really change that much in 1920? Here is an interesting article from ghana world (just kidding):
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/soccerhistory.html
And there is nothing particular about the time you mention. It seems like the 1930s were when things were really happening, switching to professional status etc.

I guess we're getting to a conclusion of sorts. You've decided that you'll take seriously tournaments from 1920 onwards (just after England stopped winning and just before Uruguay started), hence Uruguay's status in your eyes. It seems a bit arbitrary to me that 1924 is ok but not 1912, because Brazilians were racist in 1912. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of racists around in 1924 and 1928.

I've decided that serious tournaments started sometime after 1950, possibly 1958, hence Uruguay's status (or lack thereof) in my eyes.

So the Mighty Magyars don't count as well. Why stop at 1958? Perhaps there was no meaningful football before the EPL started, or your arbitrary starting point of 20 years ago. By the way Uruguay has won the most Copa Americas and two of the last 7, reaching at least the semi-final in all but one of them. They won two of the previous five as well, in 1983 and 87 as well. Hardly a shit record. Most teams only play against their own continents, except in friendlies or the World Cup. In 1995 the World champions were Brasil, whom they beat to win the Copa America. They are not shit. They are the most successful team in their continental cup. But let's forget history and just start from wherever you decide meaningful football began.
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 53
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 Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:20 pm

110% wrote:
EMP wrote:
110% wrote:
EMP 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.

What about the South American equivalent the Copa America? Uruguay is the current holder of it and the most successful nation on that continent with 15 titles, or doesn't that count? They won it previously in 1995 as well. How many European titles did England win in that period or even from its inception? In short, not shit and more successful than England in those 20 years unless of course the Copa America is a third rate competition that doesn't count.

Already answered all these points. Read the thread. If you want to declare Uruguay as one of the best then compare them to the best, which is not England Wink.

Then don't compare Uruguay to England yourself.

OOh you got me, actually no you didn't. I am saying that England are bad, and uruguay's modern record is even worse than theirs, which just shows how bad they are.

You're saying uruguay are amongst the best and keep comparing them to England. Being better than England doesn't make you the best

So you are comparing them to England again. And as the Copa America shows Uruguay has been more successful than England in that time.

110%

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

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:49 pm

EMP wrote:
110% wrote:
EMP wrote:
110% wrote:
EMP 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.

What about the South American equivalent the Copa America? Uruguay is the current holder of it and the most successful nation on that continent with 15 titles, or doesn't that count? They won it previously in 1995 as well. How many European titles did England win in that period or even from its inception? In short, not shit and more successful than England in those 20 years unless of course the Copa America is a third rate competition that doesn't count.

Already answered all these points. Read the thread. If you want to declare Uruguay as one of the best then compare them to the best, which is not England Wink.

Then don't compare Uruguay to England yourself.

OOh you got me, actually no you didn't. I am saying that England are bad, and uruguay's modern record is even worse than theirs, which just shows how bad they are.

You're saying uruguay are amongst the best and keep comparing them to England. Being better than England doesn't make you the best

So you are comparing them to England again. And as the Copa America shows Uruguay has been more successful than England in that time.

If you can't understand a simple point, (the one underlined), I am not sure how to help. I could give you another example, such as: if you were to argue that player X is the best player in the world as he is better than stewart downing, I would say why are you comparing him with Downing, why not compare him with the Messi? Being better than downing doesn't make you the best. On the other hand if player X is worse than downing then he's pretty poor. Can you understand? I am not saying don't compare to England, I am saying why do you keep comparing to england if you are trying to prove they are the best. I have anyway already said they are better than england, so why do you keep arguing a point that no-one is disputing.

As for the Copa, Egypt have won the ACON numerous times and as much as you would like to think they are big in world football they are not. Likewise with Japan and the asian cup of nations, although japan seem to be more successful than egypt on the world stage.
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 53
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 Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:06 pm

It's quite simple. Stop mentioning England with reference to Uruguay. You said that Uruguay's record was shit in comparison to England's. No amount of wriggling off the hook changes that. Find a better comparison.

I have not suggested that Egypt are a great power in world football. Their record is what it is. I doubt that you even bother watching the AcoN when Egypt were at their best. They were very impressive in 2008. World-beaters? I doubt it, but on their day capable of pulling a surprise and depending how things went, winning it. That didn't happen - they missed qualifying in 2010 by a hair. Africa and Oceania are in the only Confederations that don't have a second chance play-off.

The Copa America is not the same as ACoN. I don't know anyone who would disagree that South America has a better record and higher quality of football. For Uruguay to have won that as many times as they have and recently too shows they are not shit. In fact they'd have to be pretty good to have performed that well in a continent that has such powerhouses as Brasil and Argentina.

Even mentioning them in same breath as England is ridiculous.


Last edited by EMP on Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:07 pm; edited 1 time in total

110%

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

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:06 pm

EMP wrote:
110% wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:
110% wrote:
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.

I know. But football became a popular sport worldwide in the early 20s/late 10s. Until then, it was mainly an aristocratic sport in South America, and most Brazilian clubs didn't even let blacks play.

What I know is those Olympic golds Uruguay won were seen as the first real world cups, cause they were the first world tournments that got the attention of the world and had a real importance at the time. That's why Uruguay was considered the best in the world and FIFA chose them to host the first WC. Those Olympic golds were harder to get than the first WC in 1930 for Uruguay.

England invented the sport and will always be a special football nation because of it. They were the best before Uruguay, probably followed by Scotland, but not many countries took the sport seriously then.

Did the football world really change that much in 1920? Here is an interesting article from ghana world (just kidding):
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/soccerhistory.html
And there is nothing particular about the time you mention. It seems like the 1930s were when things were really happening, switching to professional status etc.

I guess we're getting to a conclusion of sorts. You've decided that you'll take seriously tournaments from 1920 onwards (just after England stopped winning and just before Uruguay started), hence Uruguay's status in your eyes. It seems a bit arbitrary to me that 1924 is ok but not 1912, because Brazilians were racist in 1912. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of racists around in 1924 and 1928.

I've decided that serious tournaments started sometime after 1950, possibly 1958, hence Uruguay's status (or lack thereof) in my eyes.

So the Mighty Magyars don't count as well. Why stop at 1958? Perhaps there was no meaningful football before the EPL started, or your arbitrary starting point of 20 years ago. By the way Uruguay has won the most Copa Americas and two of the last 7, reaching at least the semi-final in all but one of them. They won two of the previous five as well, in 1983 and 87 as well. Hardly a shit record. Most teams only play against their own continents, except in friendlies or the World Cup. In 1995 the World champions were Brasil, whom they beat to win the Copa America. They are not shit. They are the most successful team in their continental cup. But let's forget history and just start from wherever you decide meaningful football began.

I am not sure if you're deliberately being stupid now. I am not talking about teams I am talking about tournaments, can you tell the difference?

Who mentioned the EPL? Only you

I mentioned 20 years as that is the time period most on here have been watching football, so it's not arbitrary, and it had nothing to with the EPL lol!
Watching football before that was like calling people on their mobiles then.

Copa: It's been covered. Repeating it multiple times doesn't change anything.

110%

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

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:08 pm

EMP wrote:It's quite simple. Stop mentioning England with reference to Uruguay. You said that Uruguay's record was shit in comparison to England's. No amount of wriggling off the hook changes that. Find a better comparison.

I have not suggested that Egypt are a great power in world football. Their record is what it is. I doubt that you even bother watching the AcoN when Egypt were at their best. They were very impressive in 2008. World-beaters? I doubt it, but on their day capable of pulling a surprise and depending how things went, winning it. That didn't happen - they missed qualifying in 2010 by a hair. Africa and Oceania are in the only Confederations that don't have a second chance play-off.

The Copa America is not the same as ACoN. I don't know anyone who would disagree that South America has a better record and higher quality of football. For Uruguay to have won that as many times as they have and recently too shows they are not shit. In fact they'd have to be pretty good to have performed that well in a continent that has such powerhouses as Brasil and Argentina.

Even mentioning them in same breath as England is ridiculous.

why have you mentioned england?
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 53
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 Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:27 pm

110% wrote:
EMP wrote:
110% wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:
110% wrote:
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.

I know. But football became a popular sport worldwide in the early 20s/late 10s. Until then, it was mainly an aristocratic sport in South America, and most Brazilian clubs didn't even let blacks play.

What I know is those Olympic golds Uruguay won were seen as the first real world cups, cause they were the first world tournments that got the attention of the world and had a real importance at the time. That's why Uruguay was considered the best in the world and FIFA chose them to host the first WC. Those Olympic golds were harder to get than the first WC in 1930 for Uruguay.

England invented the sport and will always be a special football nation because of it. They were the best before Uruguay, probably followed by Scotland, but not many countries took the sport seriously then.

Did the football world really change that much in 1920? Here is an interesting article from ghana world (just kidding):
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/soccerhistory.html
And there is nothing particular about the time you mention. It seems like the 1930s were when things were really happening, switching to professional status etc.

I guess we're getting to a conclusion of sorts. You've decided that you'll take seriously tournaments from 1920 onwards (just after England stopped winning and just before Uruguay started), hence Uruguay's status in your eyes. It seems a bit arbitrary to me that 1924 is ok but not 1912, because Brazilians were racist in 1912. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of racists around in 1924 and 1928.

I've decided that serious tournaments started sometime after 1950, possibly 1958, hence Uruguay's status (or lack thereof) in my eyes.

So the Mighty Magyars don't count as well. Why stop at 1958? Perhaps there was no meaningful football before the EPL started, or your arbitrary starting point of 20 years ago. By the way Uruguay has won the most Copa Americas and two of the last 7, reaching at least the semi-final in all but one of them. They won two of the previous five as well, in 1983 and 87 as well. Hardly a shit record. Most teams only play against their own continents, except in friendlies or the World Cup. In 1995 the World champions were Brasil, whom they beat to win the Copa America. They are not shit. They are the most successful team in their continental cup. But let's forget history and just start from wherever you decide meaningful football began.

I am not sure if you're deliberately being stupid now. I am not talking about teams I am talking about tournaments, can you tell the difference?

Who mentioned the EPL? Only you

I mentioned 20 years as that is the time period most on here have been watching football, so it's not arbitrary, and it had nothing to with the EPL lol!
Watching football before that was like calling people on their mobiles then.

Copa: It's been covered. Repeating it multiple times doesn't change anything.

The World Cup Final of 1954 was the only match Hungary had lost in two years and as your starting point was 1958, that rules out their achievement as well doesn't it.

I mentioned EPL because it started around the same time as your 20 years ago. It was a flippant comment illustrating the arbitrary nature of your starting point. The Copa has not been covered as you refuse to acknowledge that Uruguay's achievements in that alone prove they are not shit.

From Wikpedia on the World Cup

"In 1914, FIFA agreed to recognise the Olympic tournament as a "world football championship for amateurs", and took responsibility for managing the event.[7] This paved the way for the world's first intercontinental football competition, at the 1920 Summer Olympics, contested by Egypt and thirteen European teams, and won by Belgium.[8] Uruguay won the next two Olympic football tournaments in 1924 and 1928. Those were also the first two open world championships, as 1924 was the start of FIFA's professional era."

Olympics football in 1924 had 22 teams contest it, hardly comparable to 1908 or 1912. Note the time that FIFA agreed the Olympics was the World Championships of football - 1914! - i.e. after the Olympic successes that you mentioned. The World Cup had 16 until Spain in 1982. In other words there were more teams contesting what FIFA referred to as the World Championship and that Uruguay's first success was the start of FIFA's professional era.

You can think what you like; the facts show football existed at a decent level before your arbitrarily set era marking the beginning of decent football and that Uruguay's record is considerably better than you acknowledge and not just in the 1920s and 30s.
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 53
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 Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:30 pm

110% wrote:
EMP wrote:It's quite simple. Stop mentioning England with reference to Uruguay. You said that Uruguay's record was shit in comparison to England's. No amount of wriggling off the hook changes that. Find a better comparison.

I have not suggested that Egypt are a great power in world football. Their record is what it is. I doubt that you even bother watching the AcoN when Egypt were at their best. They were very impressive in 2008. World-beaters? I doubt it, but on their day capable of pulling a surprise and depending how things went, winning it. That didn't happen - they missed qualifying in 2010 by a hair. Africa and Oceania are in the only Confederations that don't have a second chance play-off.

The Copa America is not the same as ACoN. I don't know anyone who would disagree that South America has a better record and higher quality of football. For Uruguay to have won that as many times as they have and recently too shows they are not shit. In fact they'd have to be pretty good to have performed that well in a continent that has such powerhouses as Brasil and Argentina.

Even mentioning them in same breath as England is ridiculous.

why have you mentioned england?

Because you did and compared their records.

110%

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

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:59 pm

EMP wrote:
110% wrote:
EMP wrote:
110% wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:
110% wrote:
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.

I know. But football became a popular sport worldwide in the early 20s/late 10s. Until then, it was mainly an aristocratic sport in South America, and most Brazilian clubs didn't even let blacks play.

What I know is those Olympic golds Uruguay won were seen as the first real world cups, cause they were the first world tournments that got the attention of the world and had a real importance at the time. That's why Uruguay was considered the best in the world and FIFA chose them to host the first WC. Those Olympic golds were harder to get than the first WC in 1930 for Uruguay.

England invented the sport and will always be a special football nation because of it. They were the best before Uruguay, probably followed by Scotland, but not many countries took the sport seriously then.

Did the football world really change that much in 1920? Here is an interesting article from ghana world (just kidding):
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/soccerhistory.html
And there is nothing particular about the time you mention. It seems like the 1930s were when things were really happening, switching to professional status etc.

I guess we're getting to a conclusion of sorts. You've decided that you'll take seriously tournaments from 1920 onwards (just after England stopped winning and just before Uruguay started), hence Uruguay's status in your eyes. It seems a bit arbitrary to me that 1924 is ok but not 1912, because Brazilians were racist in 1912. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of racists around in 1924 and 1928.

I've decided that serious tournaments started sometime after 1950, possibly 1958, hence Uruguay's status (or lack thereof) in my eyes.

So the Mighty Magyars don't count as well. Why stop at 1958? Perhaps there was no meaningful football before the EPL started, or your arbitrary starting point of 20 years ago. By the way Uruguay has won the most Copa Americas and two of the last 7, reaching at least the semi-final in all but one of them. They won two of the previous five as well, in 1983 and 87 as well. Hardly a shit record. Most teams only play against their own continents, except in friendlies or the World Cup. In 1995 the World champions were Brasil, whom they beat to win the Copa America. They are not shit. They are the most successful team in their continental cup. But let's forget history and just start from wherever you decide meaningful football began.

I am not sure if you're deliberately being stupid now. I am not talking about teams I am talking about tournaments, can you tell the difference?

Who mentioned the EPL? Only you

I mentioned 20 years as that is the time period most on here have been watching football, so it's not arbitrary, and it had nothing to with the EPL lol!
Watching football before that was like calling people on their mobiles then.

Copa: It's been covered. Repeating it multiple times doesn't change anything.

The World Cup Final of 1954 was the only match Hungary had lost in two years and as your starting point was 1958, that rules out their achievement as well doesn't it.

I mentioned EPL because it started around the same time as your 20 years ago. It was a flippant comment illustrating the arbitrary nature of your starting point. The Copa has not been covered as you refuse to acknowledge that Uruguay's achievements in that alone prove they are not shit.

From Wikpedia on the World Cup

"In 1914, FIFA agreed to recognise the Olympic tournament as a "world football championship for amateurs", and took responsibility for managing the event.[7] This paved the way for the world's first intercontinental football competition, at the 1920 Summer Olympics, contested by Egypt and thirteen European teams, and won by Belgium.[8] Uruguay won the next two Olympic football tournaments in 1924 and 1928. Those were also the first two open world championships, as 1924 was the start of FIFA's professional era."

Olympics football in 1924 had 22 teams contest it, hardly comparable to 1908 or 1912. Note the time that FIFA agreed the Olympics was the World Championships of football - 1914! - i.e. after the Olympic successes that you mentioned. The World Cup had 16 until Spain in 1982. In other words there were more teams contesting what FIFA referred to as the World Championship and that Uruguay's first success was the start of FIFA's professional era.

You can think what you like; the facts show football existed at a decent level before your arbitrarily set era marking the beginning of decent football and that Uruguay's record is considerably better than you acknowledge and not just in the 1920s and 30s.

I hadn't decided which year I will take as a meaningful, so I used the word "possibly". If you want to jump on little bits of text as if it is the whole point, then jump on the word "possibly".

I have twice given my reason for saying 20 years. If you prefer I can say 30 years it has no connection to the EPL, so it doesn't confuse you, and Uruguay did nothing in the last 30 years <Ale>

So you've chosen 1914 as your starting point, well done. BTW How come Belgium doesn't have a star on their shirt?

Wel at least your comparing Uruguay's record with my top level of knowledge and you didn't compare it with your own low level, so you learned something.
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 53
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 Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:17 pm

110% wrote:
EMP wrote:
110% wrote:
EMP wrote:
110% wrote:
Mongrel Hawk wrote:
110% wrote:
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.

I know. But football became a popular sport worldwide in the early 20s/late 10s. Until then, it was mainly an aristocratic sport in South America, and most Brazilian clubs didn't even let blacks play.

What I know is those Olympic golds Uruguay won were seen as the first real world cups, cause they were the first world tournments that got the attention of the world and had a real importance at the time. That's why Uruguay was considered the best in the world and FIFA chose them to host the first WC. Those Olympic golds were harder to get than the first WC in 1930 for Uruguay.

England invented the sport and will always be a special football nation because of it. They were the best before Uruguay, probably followed by Scotland, but not many countries took the sport seriously then.

Did the football world really change that much in 1920? Here is an interesting article from ghana world (just kidding):
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/soccerhistory.html
And there is nothing particular about the time you mention. It seems like the 1930s were when things were really happening, switching to professional status etc.

I guess we're getting to a conclusion of sorts. You've decided that you'll take seriously tournaments from 1920 onwards (just after England stopped winning and just before Uruguay started), hence Uruguay's status in your eyes. It seems a bit arbitrary to me that 1924 is ok but not 1912, because Brazilians were racist in 1912. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of racists around in 1924 and 1928.

I've decided that serious tournaments started sometime after 1950, possibly 1958, hence Uruguay's status (or lack thereof) in my eyes.

So the Mighty Magyars don't count as well. Why stop at 1958? Perhaps there was no meaningful football before the EPL started, or your arbitrary starting point of 20 years ago. By the way Uruguay has won the most Copa Americas and two of the last 7, reaching at least the semi-final in all but one of them. They won two of the previous five as well, in 1983 and 87 as well. Hardly a shit record. Most teams only play against their own continents, except in friendlies or the World Cup. In 1995 the World champions were Brasil, whom they beat to win the Copa America. They are not shit. They are the most successful team in their continental cup. But let's forget history and just start from wherever you decide meaningful football began.

I am not sure if you're deliberately being stupid now. I am not talking about teams I am talking about tournaments, can you tell the difference?

Who mentioned the EPL? Only you

I mentioned 20 years as that is the time period most on here have been watching football, so it's not arbitrary, and it had nothing to with the EPL lol!
Watching football before that was like calling people on their mobiles then.

Copa: It's been covered. Repeating it multiple times doesn't change anything.

The World Cup Final of 1954 was the only match Hungary had lost in two years and as your starting point was 1958, that rules out their achievement as well doesn't it.

I mentioned EPL because it started around the same time as your 20 years ago. It was a flippant comment illustrating the arbitrary nature of your starting point. The Copa has not been covered as you refuse to acknowledge that Uruguay's achievements in that alone prove they are not shit.

From Wikpedia on the World Cup

"In 1914, FIFA agreed to recognise the Olympic tournament as a "world football championship for amateurs", and took responsibility for managing the event.[7] This paved the way for the world's first intercontinental football competition, at the 1920 Summer Olympics, contested by Egypt and thirteen European teams, and won by Belgium.[8] Uruguay won the next two Olympic football tournaments in 1924 and 1928. Those were also the first two open world championships, as 1924 was the start of FIFA's professional era."

Olympics football in 1924 had 22 teams contest it, hardly comparable to 1908 or 1912. Note the time that FIFA agreed the Olympics was the World Championships of football - 1914! - i.e. after the Olympic successes that you mentioned. The World Cup had 16 until Spain in 1982. In other words there were more teams contesting what FIFA referred to as the World Championship and that Uruguay's first success was the start of FIFA's professional era.

You can think what you like; the facts show football existed at a decent level before your arbitrarily set era marking the beginning of decent football and that Uruguay's record is considerably better than you acknowledge and not just in the 1920s and 30s.

I hadn't decided which year I will take as a meaningful, so I used the word "possibly". If you want to jump on little bits of text as if it is the whole point, then jump on the word "possibly".

I have twice given my reason for saying 20 years. If you prefer I can say 30 years it has no connection to the EPL, so it doesn't confuse you, and Uruguay did nothing in the last 30 years <Ale>



So you've chosen 1914 as your starting point, well done. BTW How come Belgium doesn't have a star on their shirt?

Wel at least your comparing Uruguay's record with my top level of knowledge and you didn't compare it with your own low level, so you learned something.

Not even worth responding to that highlighted bit.

First of all 1914 was FIFA's starting point not mine. Check the text again. It just happened to be when FIFA, not me, accepted the Olympics as the World Championship. Belgium can have a star if they want. Uruguay chose to have them. They have every right to celebrate their great achievements. Hang them for it. By the way Suarez rates 1950 as Uruguay's greatest achievement in football - shame he's wrong as according to you it doesn't count.

Uruguay have achieved plenty in the last 30 years. I accept EPL has nothing to do with it. I said it was a flippant comment. Try as you might the Copa is an achievement, although from your point of view it has to be dismissed as accepting it would destroy your argument.

110%

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

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:50 pm

I have serious doubts about your version of what happened between you and glen.

You say:

Uruguay's record is considerably better than you acknowledge wrote:


I reply:

Wel at least your comparing Uruguay's record with my top level of knowledge and you didn't compare it with your own low level, so you learned something. wrote:

And you behave like I did something wrong, when in reality I only responded in kind.

So you and FIFA choose 1914. You know that if you agree with FIFA you're probably wrong geek
avatar
EMP

Number of posts : 7384
Age : 53
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 Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:19 pm

110% wrote:I have serious doubts about your version of what happened between you and glen.

You say:




I reply:



And you behave like I did something wrong, when in reality I only responded in kind.

I consider that patronising at best.

So you and FIFA choose 1914. You know that if you agree with FIFA you're probably wrong geek

And the reason I should care a whit about your opinion about Glenn is? I have proof of what Glenn did, including from him, which by the way is none of your business. I'm not in the least interested in your opinion on that subject. There are several people both on here and not who know for a fact what he did. You can believe what you want about that sociopath and also about me.

The fact that when I disagree with you and you talk crap about Uruguay and England's records which I point out is crap, you resort to talking further crap about Glenn when I actually know what happened and others know for a fact with documented proof what he did says everything I need to know about you. The fact is Uruguay's record is not shit except to Johnny come lately's and even then they are plainly wrong as Uruguay has had significant success in the modern era as well. You even ridicule them reaching the semi-final of the World Cup in 2010 (your reference to Turkey). What exactly do they have to do to not be considered shit by you?

I quoted what FIFA had said. It is not my starting point; it's FIFA's. I would not have chosen 1914. 1924 would be mine as it was a more inclusive tournament than any up to 1982. There 14 teams in 1920, but bar Egypt it was a European competition, but congratulations to Belgium for winning it. 1924 had majority European, but Egypt, Uruguay, United States and Turkey as well (unless you consider Turkey European then). It was a pretty representative tournament then, certainly more so than 1908 or 1912, which you effectively discounted because of the lack of participants. Now I have had enough of you wasting my time. Go and compare notes with Glenn.

110%

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

Re: A famous Event

Post by 110% on Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:25 am

OK so 1924 is the date you have chosen, so 4 years later than Mongrel who chose 1920, and mine is post 1950. And you're not accepting Belgium's olympic win after all the fuss you've made about uruguay lol!

I would now argue belgium's case if I thought I'd get any reasonable arguments from you. But I think it would just be a repeat about how you consider all my points crap, because you can't address them, e.g. the statistical probability of winning the copa when you start with 12 teams and there are only 2 good teams in it versus winning the euros or world cup (qualifying to even get into the top 16, having to finish in the top 2 in the group stage, having 6 or 7 good teams etc). It is easier to just say that's crap and not address than to actually address the point and realise it's valid.

For the record I don't actually care about what happened between you and glen (and I think that goes for most on here), but the fact that you make a comment about me and I respond in kind and you act all hurt about it, makes me wonder about your version of events in other cases. You tried to twist the situation in this case to make yourself out to be the victim when in fact you were the instigator.

Sponsored content

Re: A famous Event

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:44 am