• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Retired US Soccer / World Cup Thread (RIP)

siff said:
As well as the dozens of meaningless "Philips Milk of Magnesia Cup," etc... matches played throughout the year. Saying that friendlies have a major effect on tired legs is silly.
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure what you are talking about here...but I'm guessing it is about the worthless Carling Cup.


The same competition that the top clubs in England don't use their top players but instead play their reserves....
 
deacvision7 said:
A lot of players would rather win the CL than the WC. There are a few that wouldn't.

On the whole the CL is a lot harder to win than the WC. That is why it is more prestigious, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yay, assertions without any way to back it up or refute it!

And a competition that is played every 4 years is obviously tougher to win than one played annually. Hell, to win a World Cup you have to get lucky about where you're even born. There's absolutely no possible way to argue that the Champions League is a tougher trophy for a player to win.
 
And to go back to the 2008 argument, it's not that hard to remember that we played England, Spain, and Argentina all in a row in friendlies. It just comes down to that you don't value the national team as much. That's fine, no one is asking you to. I certainly don't know who Wake Forest played in non-conference games that year because I don't value that information either. But it's certainly something that you could probably remember because you are a committed fan.
 
The fact that you have to rely on how often the WC is played to say it is tougher to win, means you know it is easier to win in a one-off competition.

The Final 16 at the last WC:

Uruguay
South Korea
United States
Ghana
Netherlands
Slovakia
Brazil
Chile
Argentina
Mexico
Germany
England
Paraguay
Japan
Spain
Portugal

The last 16 of this year's CL:

Roma
Shakhtar Donetsk
AC Milan
Tottenham
Valencia
Schalke
Inter
Bayern
Lyon
Real Madrid
Arsenal
Barcelona
Manchester United
Marseilles
Copenhagen
Chelsea



Which of those groups of 16 have better players?
 
If that's a 32 team tournament then Spain wins. With brazil as the runner up.
 
The same Brazil that was knocked out in the QF of the World Cup?

Interesting pick.
 
Oh, and no chance that Barcelona isn't the favorite for that hypothetical 32 team tournament.
 
Yeah to the runner up. I think brazil wins 4/5 agains holland. Snijder (SP) was genius that day.
 
The best players in the world get 2, maybe 3 chances to win a World Cup. They get up to around 10 chances in the Champions League.

And both those sets of teams have plenty of players that wouldn't crack some lineups in the other set.
 
Youre right. I overlooked Barca. I change it to a Spain vs Barcelona final.
 
dv7, you may be right that CL is more difficult to win than a WC (assuming for the sake of argument that they're played with equal frequency), but don't confuse difficulty with prestige. I'd be impressed if you could prove there is a bigger honor than winning a WC, even if isn't the most difficult challenge. Add to that the fact that the WC only happens every 4 years, and only 2-3 times during the peak of a player's career, and the WC looks a lot more difficult.

The point someone made about the luck involved in being born in a specific country is a great one, too. Didier Drogba is going to have a hell of a lot easier time winning a CL than a WC, I'd say.
 
I'm surprised you're arguing that the champions league is actually a better tournament than the world cup.

I realized you liked club soccer, but I guess I didn't realize that you liked it THAT much. The UEFA Champions League makes a ton of money, but that alone doesn't make it a great tournament.

Also, if you want to cut back on games to avoid exhaustion, cut back on club games, not national team ones.
 
Money can buy league cups, country cups, and the CL. Money can not buy the world cup.
 
Screamindemon3 said:
Money can buy league cups, country cups, and the CL. Money can not buy the world cup.
Click to expand...

LOLZ


Let me know the next (and first) time that a country that doesn't put a lot of money into their football team wins the World Cup.
 
Obviously his point was buying players, which is a much more direct investment then putting money into the national squad's training and support.
 
ZDeac said:
dv7, you may be right that CL is more difficult to win than a WC (assuming for the sake of argument that they're played with equal frequency), but don't confuse difficulty with prestige. I'd be impressed if you could prove there is a bigger honor than winning a WC, even if isn't the most difficult challenge. Add to that the fact that the WC only happens every 4 years, and only 2-3 times during the peak of a player's career, and the WC looks a lot more difficult.

The point someone made about the luck involved in being born in a specific country is a great one, too. Didier Drogba is going to have a hell of a lot easier time winning a CL than a WC, I'd say.
Click to expand...

That is why I would argue there is more prestige in winning the CL.


George Best is easily one of the top 10 players to ever play the game. He never had a chance to win the World Cup because where he was born (lowly Northern Ireland.) He did, however, have a chance to win the Champions League. And he did.


Prestige is defined as, "having status or glamour; impressive or influential."
Nowhere does "time" come into mention. Just because the WC comes along fewer times than the CL doesn't make it more prestigious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top