Not true whatsoever. The overall quality of the Euros is greater because instead of getting weaker teams from Asia, Central/North America and Africa, you have European teams, who are of a much higher quality. Every World Cup 3 or 4 top quality European teams miss out. For example, 2014 has no Scandinavian teams, all of which are very good sides. So are teams such as Serbia, Ukraine and Poland. Just look at the FIFA rankings - the top 50 is usually dominated by UEFA.
I'm shocked none of the Scandinavian teams qualified, Denmark looked a decent team when we played them in a friendly. Sweden have Ibrahimović FFS.
Sweden missed out in the playoffs against Portugal, so no matter what one very good team was going to miss out. Denmark missed out despite finishing second in their group, but as they were the worst second placed team they missed out on the playoffs.
Just googled it, his dad is a Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) and his mother is a Croat, born and raised in Malmö like you said.
I'd rather have some South American teams in a competition than Denmark and Sweden anyway. The variety of areas and teams in the World Cup has to provide many more different styles to watch, and more challenges.
That's not what you said. You said the Euros must be weaker, when they clearly aren't. You say it provides more challenges, but how often do the knockout stages have a good number of non European or South American teams? List of non-European/South American teams to get into the Round of 16 2010 - 5 (Mexico, USA, South Korea, Ghana, Japan) 4 eliminated at R16, 1 eliminated at QF 2006 - 3 (Mexico, Ghana, Australia) - All eliminated at R16 2002 - 5 (Mexico, USA, South Korea, Senegal, Japan) - 2 eliminated at R16, 2 eliminated at QF, 1 eliminated at SF amidst allegations of corruption to get them that far 1998 - 2 (Mexico, Nigeria) - Both eliminated at R16.
Yes they did. Your point is? Haiti have won the Gold Cup. Bolivia have won the Copa America. Tahiti have won the OFC Cup. Just because they aren't one of the big teams doesn't mean it is impossible for them to win. If the best team always won, football would be boring and nobody would watch it. No I didn't. I clearly included them alongside European teams, because they are the only other continent who offer top class quality to tournaments.
The best team do always win by definition. The aim of football is to score more goals than your opponent, nothing more nothing less. By doing this a team has achieved the aims of the game better than the other one.
I was simply correcting him. I dont care about opinioons on who plays the nicer pretty triangles or is unlucky, it is literally impossible for the best team not to win.
Go on, then, answer this: who are the best team in the country? Man City, I guess? So why didn't they win the FA Cup if they're the best team?
I'd like to hear an argument against my point which is based entirely on logic. If one team achieves the aims of the game better, how are they not the better team in that match?
At Euro 92, probably Germany. Nice of you to avoid the point that they didn't originally qualify. Explain how you can call them the best when they didn't qualify.
