I know my brain is decaying in my dotage now that I went and turned 40 earlier this month, but when did Ilyumzhinov's illegitimately inserted candidates event turn into matches? Well, I've been busy. Without any explanation on the page, FIDE has announced the regulations for "Candidates Matches 2010" on its homepage. That is, instead of a tournament, as had been mentioned repeatedly if not actually written down -- and of course instead of the original plan to have a candidates match between the winners of the World Cup and the Grand Prix. I love candidates matches the way the US football team loves choking against Brazil, but this still doesn't change the fact that this additional candidates phase is entirely unnecessary -- especially if sponsorship isn't already lined up.
The event schedule shows that the first two rounds of matches are only four games long, with the final lasting just six games. Tragic. The invitation list of eight remains the same, as discussed here many times. Kamsky (as loser against Topalov in the last candidates match), the loser of the upcoming (inshallah) WCh match between Topalov and Anand, the winner of this year's Nov-Dec World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk, the top two finishers in the Grand Prix, two by rating (avg. Jul 2009 and Jan 2010 lists), and the preposterous "nominated player by the Organizer."
Unless UEP comes back into the organizing picture and makes Kramnik the obvious wildcard selection, it could be interesting if it comes down to the former world champ or the new hotness, Magnus Carlsen. But Carlsen, who dropped out of the Grand Prix, has the inside track as a rating qualifier. He'll be third on the July list behind Topalov and Anand, who don't factor in. Ivanchuk's horrific plunge on the upcoming rating list looks set to make him an unlucky loser again. Radjabov and Grischuk lead the GP standings right now, with two tournaments to play, but Aronian is in excellent position. He's also 4th on the rating list.
Maybe they can include a clause that says if they don't get sponsorship for these matches before a deadline they revert to the original plan and play a match between the GP and WC winners. Some day they will learn that having a predictable and transparent system is worth more in the long run than trying to make a buck on this ad hoc basis. By then we'll be picking feathers out of our bacon.
Speaking of the World Cup, I've been following the Latin American qualifying events over the past few days. So far Morovic of Chile, Rodriguez of Uruguay, Bruzon of Cuba, and Iturrizaga of Venezuela are in. Proud to say I've lost to two of them! (Coincidentally, Rodriguez won his key final game, a lovely one (see below), with 1.d4 d5 2.Bg5, which is what I played against him in my loss in 1994.) Cuba's Dominguez is already in by rating. The Pan American individual championship will send three more in July.
[Event "zt 2.5"]
[Site "Asuncion PAR"]
[Date "2009.06.18"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Rodriguez Vila, A."]
[Black "Cubas, Jo"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D00"]
[WhiteElo "2524"]
[BlackElo "2434"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[EventDate "2009.06.10"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "PAR"]
1. d4 d5 2. Bg5 h6 3. Bh4 c6 4. c3 Qb6 5. Qb3 Bf5 6. Nd2 Nd7 7. Ngf3 e6 8. e3
Be7 9. Be2 a5 10. O-O a4 11. Qxb6 Nxb6 12. c4 Nf6 13. c5 Nbd7 14. b4 axb3 15.
axb3 O-O 16. b4 g5 17. Bg3 Ne4 18. Nxe4 Bxe4 19. Ne5 Nxe5 20. Bxe5 Rfc8 21. b5
f6 22. bxc6 bxc6 23. Bg3 Kf7 24. Rfc1 e5 25. Bg4 Rxa1 26. Rxa1 f5 27. Bh5+ Ke6
28. f3 Bd3 29. Ra7 Rb8 30. Bxe5 Rb1+ 31. Kf2 Rb2+ 32. Ke1 Rxg2 33. Bd6 Bxd6 34.
Bf7+ Kf6 35. cxd6 f4 36. exf4 gxf4 37. Ra8 Bf5 38. Rf8 Be6 39. Bh5+ Kg7 40. Re8
Kf6 41. Bg4 Rxg4 42. fxg4 Bxg4 43. Kf2 h5 44. h4 Bd7 45. Re7 Bg4 46. Rh7 1-0
In their initial 'regulations', didn't FIDE give the (potential) organizer the option to choose between a candidate tournament and a series of candidate matches? Aren't they now forcing the (potential) organizer's hand?
All this is of course redundant, guessing FIDE's next move is sometimes more difficult than winning the lottery.
Yah, I was looking around for the various versions of the rules and they've announced over time, but lost hope. Too tired. Several versions were just announcements or interviews with Ilyumzhinov.
Having the matches last just four games is just the poison icing on the cake of this totally unnecessary event. Why bother?
@Mig
Maybe someone has said this already, but the last pic of you jolted me psychologically (the one w/ sunglasses kid in arms.)
It's the first pic in which you no longer look the 20-something frat boy or carefree doctoral student, but some middle-age dude adding a few lbs.
Happens to the worst of us. Been at this a while now, I suppose. The lbs were added long ago though, unfortunately. But I figure I was fat as a kid, thin in my 20s, fat in my 30s, so it's time for a thin decade. I'll post the "after" pic next year, I hope.
Actually now that I read the option could have been on the table. Chessdom reports it here http://reports.chessdom.com/news-2009/world-chess-championship-2010 and mentions both possibilities. This as far as I remember was the first info to come out? While later Chessbase translated some interview from Sport Express and who knows if in the telephone call or the process of writing or in the translation things messed up.
Just doing a quick search http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=candidate+matches+2010+chessdom shows they use the words "matches", "tournament", or "candidate 2010" interchangably. This suggests the format was probably not decided.
And going on there is a good quote from "kaleid" of an earlier FIDE statement (the quote is here http://forums.chessdom.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27&start=50 the statement is http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/3837-presidential-board-meeting-1st-quarter-2009) where FIDE calls for the two options.
I again guess it was a problem of wording as English does not seem to be the strong side of the FIDE website. So they might have used "tournament" to refer to the event. No harm done, as far as they find money (which time will show).
"By then we'll be picking feathers out of our bacon." - LOL
I don't think the US team choked!!! They played out of their skins and got a 2-0 lead, but Brazil came back at them hard. I think they had too much class in the end, rather than US choking!
Can't believe the USA has a half-decent soccer team. The end of the world is nigh, repent ye sinners!
They looked really good to me. The Donovan (may have got his name wrong) goal with transfer from right foot to left foot wrongfooting his marker followed by a rifling shot was first class, worthy of anybody playing in La Liga, Serie A or the Premiership. The commentator suggested that at half time Dunga must have said in his team talk they could not go back to Brazil having lost to the US, hence the turn-around in the 2nd half! On that showing though, US are better than most European teams! Lets hope they keep it up till the World Cup.
Good for the US team, but the Confederations Cup is not the World Cup. It's just a dry run for the host nation to see how their stadiums and organization hold up for the real championship the following year.
I don't mean any disrespect, especially since this year most of the big players played, so the US run was more impressive than usual, but there is a major difference between the level of intensity in these tournaments. Their level of play remains a good distance below that of Spain or Brazil. You just have to look at the best American players who can't manage to make their way to the top European level. There's too much money involved in the game for it to be simple prejudice. The same way the best European players overcame that prejudice to star in the NBA, the best American soccer players would as well, if they had the level.
Still, congratulations to them, they had a very impressive tournament.
¨Their level of play remains a good distance below that of Spain or Brazil¨
Spain is not the best example of higher power in soccer , only countries like Brasil, Argentina , Italy or Germany can claim to be top of the top.
just to add in the latin american qualifiers section: Alexandr Fier and Rafael Leitão, both +2600 GMs from Brazil qualified in the zonal 2.4 for the world cup that ended june 16th.
the site for the event (portuguese only): http://www.cxg.org.br/zonal2-4/zonal2.4.htm
there was also a MERCOSUR olympiad in the end of this month, dominated by the brazilian squad. spanish version of chessbase reports here: http://www.chessbase.com/espanola/newsdetail2.asp?id=7270
Manu wrote: "Spain is not the best example of higher power in soccer , only countries like Brasil, Argentina , Italy or Germany can claim to be top of the top."
Hah. Ok. Yeah. World #1, was unbeaten for quite a few years, and just won Euro 2008, beating Italy and Germany along the way.
Yeah, Spain is not a higher power in soccer.
Yeesh.
The US soccer team has a long way to go.
Their defense is porous (Brazil/Spain just slicing through), and midfield can't control the field. The number of shots taken on goal are indicators of how bad the team is.
Their mediocrity has forced them to become an extreme counterattacking team, relying on luck.
They suck.
Yep; Spain is no good at all. Just see Barcelona, half their team is just coming from their own juniors. And they really played bad against USA. Come on, USA had a good run as the new Italy: nice catenaccio, no play at all and defense against a superior opponent. It worked against Spain (they had their share of luck, but you can't win without) but not so well against Brazil. I don't expect them to perform particularly well at the next WC but it may give soccer a nice push in USA.
Any team that can go 2-0 up against Brazil, I don't care what event, can't be all bad!
some nice chess puzzles at http://chesspuzzles4uall.blogspot.com/
What Manu might have meant: The four teams 'singled out as top of the top' were, historically (in a long-term context) the most successful ones at major tournaments. Spain generally had brilliant individual players, could play excellent and attractive matches but (until the 2008 Euro) failed to win when it matters most. Several other teams may fall in the same (sub-top!?) category: Netherlands, Portugal, Nigeria, Cameroon, ... .
Now the question: Which chess players would be comparably 'brilliant but inconsistent'?
Exciting news. While we still don't know what the 2009-2011 WC cycle will really be like, at least now we know that it won't be an eight-player knock-out event held in the last quarter of 2010. Wonder which imaginative, random changes FIDE is going to make to these regulations? It is safe to assume that the next major change will happen sometime after 29 January 2010...
"the 2009-2011 WC cycle"
I think this should (now) be referred to as the 2008-2011 cycle, as it's based on the 2008-2009 GP series amongst others.
Similarly, the "cycle" ending with Anand-Topalov should probably be referred to as the 2007-2010 cycle, as it started with Anand winning the 2007 WC Tournament and Topalov NOT playing it, and with Kamsky winning the 2007 WCC.
The 2008 Anand-Kramnik "rematch" is special in the sense that it isn't really based on any "cycle" with qualification options for anyone but Kramnik - or it can be seen as an extension of the 2005-2007 "cycle" including the 4 (3) qualifiers from the 2005 WC Tournament and the 4 from the 2007 Candidates (which came out of the 2005 WCC and ratings stemming from as far back as 2004!) - making it the "extended 2005-2007 cycle" (or "the extended 2004-2007 cycle" if we're taking the rating qualifiers for the 2007 candidates into account).
For match purists, it becomes the end of the 2005-2008 cycle of course, with Anand as the challenger to Kramnik, except that this also means there must have been a much shorter 2005-2006 cycle (only one closed event, the 2005 WC tournament) where Topalov qualified to challenge Kramnik.
At any rate, at the moment I think FIDE lacks organizers of both Anand - Topalov and this candiate thingy, which both are supposed to happen sometime next year. Anand - Topalov first, of course - to allow the winner to play the other event too, with enough time for preparing for it. :o)
Wasn't that a piece of cake?! In a way it was much easier PRIOR to the so-called unification. Now we have - not one (1) - but 3-4 champions, winners and ex-champions, and nobody knows who's going to organize the next event. :o)
"to allow the winner to play the other event too, with enough time for preparing for it."
Duh. It's the LOSER that plays the other event. At least until FIDE changes the rules again.
No is not , how many world cups Spain won?
Yeesh.
Speaking of USA & soccer,
If you wanna learn how to 'park the bus', be sure to visit the USA, we have plenty of 'qualified' coaches to help you get it right..
" (only one closed event, the 2005 WC tournament) where Topalov qualified to challenge Kramnik."
Preposterous.
When you get older your brain learns to hide the annoyingly inconsistent little details of reality, so you can be more assertive about the main parts.
If I remember correctly the original request called it a tournament, but had some fine print that said it was up to the organizers if they would prefer mini-matches or a round robin. As long as UEP was the likely organizer, this was good enough. But with UEP out of it, there was the real danger that some other organizer would prefer the wrong option. You know, there's a player with good connections to influential politicians. He may have better chances in match play than in a round-robin tournament. So FIDE fixed the problem.
It will be all in vain , Kramnik never qualified for a WCH match and never will.
That's quite a bit of trolling for a single blog entry, Manu. Everyone who has a clue about football(/soccer) knows Spain is now the best national team in the world. How many world cups they won is irrelevant; barring major injuries. they, and not Brazil or anyone else, will be the favorites in the World Cup. So whoever you were responding to was right to mention them as an example of a team that is superior to the US.
We can argue about Kramnik, but one thing is clear - he will have decent chances to regain the title in the coming years. He may not win it - but his chances are way higher than US Football team's chances to win the World Cup :)
¨Everyone who has a clue about football(/soccer) knows Spain is now the best national team in the world. How many world cups they won is irrelevant; ¨
That post reveals that you understand nothing about soccer , it is like saying that being a chess world champion 15 years means nothing.
In fact Spain has a long history of doing well in between cups but NEVER winning one , what makes it a 2 tier soccer team .
Pls don´t acuse me of trolling when its you who dont know sxxxt about the subject.
In soccer winning the World Cup is EVERYTHING , saying that is irrelevant is trolling.
I agree that Kramnik chances are better than US football team , but i still believe that he will never qualify for a WCH match.
Cheers.
Both Manu and John Fernandez+Russianbear are right in a way ... . There seemed to be a curse on the Spanish team, it never won when it mattered most. Has this curse been broken at the Euro 2008? Or has it been reconfirmed at the Confederations Cup? Chess analogies??
BTW (I can't resist saying ...): Germany is now the first team ever to be simultaneously European Champion in the age categories under 17, under 19 AND under 21. Implications for the World Cup (2014, I would say)?
Is not a curse , they are just not as good as other countries.
They NEVER been in a world cup final , so the thruth is that they may be a tier 3 team at best.
A curse would be the case of Netherlands or Czechoslovakia , both teams were twice on the finals without winning any.
Chess analogies??
Of course , perhaps we should learn from soccer (as well as from the Olympiads ) that if you want the world title to be the most precious thing , then the organization of the event should take place regardless of the players involved .
That´s what makes those events so magnificent ,every 4 years the best players gather and decide who is best ,and IMO that´s the way to do it (i believe Anand feels this way too) .
We on the other hand worship the players over the event ,THEY decide (or have too much input on )where and when to play the match/tournament and its conditions.
Our world champions have way much influence on the WCH organization,and that is wrong , we should worship the arena over the players .
Mig, I don't understand your comment about the candidates matches and the US choking against Brazil. Are you saying you hate candidates matches, then? :) Really, if you look at our match history vs. Brazil, many of the games have actually been close. I see a number of 1-0 scores, for example, and in most of the cases that I'm looking at, the halftime score was either tied or Brazil was already ahead. So I don't think we 'choke' against them all that much. I wonder if it might be that Sunday was the first time we were *ever* up by two goals on them.
As to the running debate about whether Spain or Brazil or whoever is the best, don't make the mistake of giving too much weight to the World Cup. Manu, the WC is most emphatically *not* "everything" in football, not even at the national-team level. Please remember that it's _one_ tournament that happens every four years. There are other events in between. Of course it's important, but it is possible to exaggerate its importance. Euros, Champions League, Copa America, Libertadores, Club WC, Confed, African Cup, all these other international events fill in the time and give us a chance to see national and club squads from various perspectives. Now if you meant that the psychological and cultural significance of the WC for some countries is such that it's the main thing that truly matters to them, that would be a reasonable thing to say; but I think that says more about their attitude toward the event than the event itself.
I said (already in an earlier post) that you have a point from a historical perspective. However, two remarks:
1) Results from the past (certainly the distant past, more than 10 years ago) have little bearing on the _present_ strength of the _current_ team.
2) In the KO phase of world cups, you can be unlucky having to face a strong team relatively early on. And penalty shootouts (just like Armaggedon in chess) are more a matter of luck and nerves than anything else.
Focusing on Spain:
In the 2002 World Cup, they lost on penalties against co-organizer South Korea - and during regular time, the referee had discounted a regular Spanish goal.
In the 2006 World Cup, they faced the later finalist France already in the first KO round.
Regarding chess analogies: You have a point in your later comment, though I meant it differently ... : What about Russia 'underperforming' at the last two Olympiads? Does this make them a second-tier chess country? Of course there are differences: Russia had dominated at earlier occasions, and - as chess is an individual sport - the Olympiad is arguably not quite as prestigious as the football world cup.
And back to football: Russia's failures were ascribed to lack of team spirit, and this might also have appplied to the Spanish football team: Real Madrid and Barcelona are bitter rivals throughout the year, and then suddenly players are on the same (national) team .... .
¨Manu, the WC is most emphatically *not* "everything" in football, not even at the national-team level. Please remember that it's _one_ tournament that happens every four years. ¨
No other sport has a WCH as important as soccer , only Olympiads are bigger , you are clearly not very into football , at least not in the real world.
¨I said (already in an earlier post) that you have a point from a historical perspective. ¨
Don´t care , wasn´t talking to you , cheers .
:)
"Don´t care , wasn´t talking to you , cheers ."
Mostly, as here, this is true: you are talking to yourself.
I hope the US team develops even more, would be nice to see some fresh faces, and such transformations can happen, look at Turkey.
If you check the ¨reply to¨ from the posts you may realize that this is not true , but of course you really don´t mind about that , you just wanted to perform that paltry agression.
Agression is not your forte ,cat, in case you have one.
How come nobody mentioned France when it comes to major soccer teams? They have won both Euro and WC and been a force to reckon with since the 1980s.
France , like England have won only one World Cup , playing as local.They are both mayor soccer teams , i would say tier 2.
Particullary France style of play is rather peculiar in Europe , one of the few countries with ¨jogo bonito¨.
In case anyone had still any doubt about your lack of football culture, you had to say that. France and Italy are the ugliest playing teams in Europe. They really play defensively, which leads to great criticism to their coach. I really can't understand how they don't change him, he plays only for result (no "jogo bonito" at all) and they aren't getting them. But we all know how easily Argentina is walking their path to WC. And I agree you're better than almost anyone here at agression. Barras bravas never die.
BTW, France also won an Euro Cup, with basically the same team about Zidane.
My lack of ¨football culture¨ ?
You should do some research about this before throwing acusations.
Hystorically France has that kind of play (¨jogo bonito¨ is property of Brasil , lets say they play nice ),like in times of Platini for example.
Don´t be mad about the Spaniard team , maybe someday they get to the semifinals again ,though i doubt it.
Soccer v Chess
Argentina is like Karpov. Was champ more than 20 years ago, now plays below average/expectation.
Spain is like Carlsen or Aronian. Has not won a world title yet, but with the current play strength has the ability to do so.
If "higher power in soccer" means 2 times plus world champ, then Manu's list of "Brasil, Argentina , Italy or Germany" is almost correct, lacking Uruguay.
If "higher power in soccer" means top teams by play strength, then the current Argentina and Italy teams have no place in the list. Italy showed its true color at Confederations Cup. Argentina is looking for a back door to qualify next year. Spain and the Netherlands play much better.
Not only 2 times plus champ , but several finals too , if you want a place in history you have to reach the finals once at least.
Your comparison with Anatoly is not very accurate , actually Argentina is more likely to be a strong candidate in the near futuree .
That´s the thing with the real strenght in footbal , the big countries are always candidates to the title.
Brasil had Pele , but also Ronaldo and Ronaldinho , we had Maradona and now Messi.
We never run out of names ...the greatest players of the game are on our ranks ,
can you say the same about Spain ?
Does Xavi and Iniesta ring a bell? Torres? Villa? Drop it, hooligan. You don't even watch the games. Just read the newspapers from your collection and come trolling on the internet. Anyway, i also think Argentina may be a strong team, but i don't think it's a good idea to have Maradona as a coach. Maybe he could help, but not as head coach. If Argentina doesn't qualify to WC despite having Messi and Tevez (amongs others) it would be like Russia from KK time not winning an Olympiad
So it's settled then. Two-time world cup winners Uruguay (who recently lost 4-0 at home to Brazil, but oh well) are clearly way better than Spain, and if the US had beaten Uruguay they might have something to brag about.
Nice trolling yet again, Manu. I am well aware of the importance of World Cups in general. However, the original point was about current strength, (and not about countries' rankings in historical perspective) and, since the latest World Cup was 3 years ago, the World Cups history can hardly tell us anything about Spanyard's strength now or their chances next year, just like the Uruguay example someone brought up.
"No other sport has a WCH as important as soccer , only Olympiads are bigger , you are clearly not very into football , at least not in the real world."
- You are, apparently, using the event's popularity outside the sport (that is, when you compare it to Olympiads) to make a point about about the event's relative popularity within the sport itself. But it is hardly logical. While it is technically true the football WC is the most popular - compared to other sports- it is probably also true that, say, European Football championships are bigger than a Euro championship in any other sport, etc. The fact that Football WC is bigger than pretty much anything only shows the popularity of soccer compared to other sports, not necessarily the importance of the WC event itself compared to other events in football. A case can be made that even an obvious, random example - chess- has a WC-ship that has relatively greater importance in the context of chess than Football WC has in the context of football. For example, many football fans would be able to name every single European Football Champion in their lifetime without thinking too long (I know I would), while I'd be surprised if many chess fans would be able to name the last few European Champions ( I know I wouldn't). Or, even if we forgo the Euro Chess title and pick whatever we think is the second biggest title in chess - be it Linares or whatever- how many chess fans would be able to name last 5-6 Linares winners, for example? So, a case can definitely be made football's World Cup title is actually not as important as the chess World title compared to the respective Euro titles (or second most important titles). So, the Euro title that Spain has is nothing to sneeze at.
I didnt sneeze at it , but its nothing compared with a WCH (why would it be after all it is just a continent )and in football WCH are everything.
You acuse me of trolling again and then write nonsense , make up your mind.
Alez: Not one of the names you pulled can be compared with those i mentioned , maybe because they didnt achieve a world title until this day.
Maybe because they never were considered the best plyers of the planet .
Drop it ,zealot , Spain is tier 3 power in football and nothing more.
Again :maybe the point is that any achievement in between world cups is not very impressive for people whose countrie is a regular candidate for the major title .
But i understand why is so important to you , after all if your countrie never won a WCup and you love football,so you may need to be proud of something.
Argentina won the America Cup several times and yet you wont find an Argentinian talking about it , you know why?
Because we WON the world cup a couple of times and reach the finals a couple more , and we know very well that World Cups is the only thing that matters.
You will have the same experience with Brasilian people , in fact with any country that actually won the World Cup.
The Euro title is good if you want to impress people of that continent , but im afraid is not enough for South Americans.
It's pointless to debate anything with a troll, nevermind about football with an argentinian one. You will always win. And if not, there's always something to smash your opponent with. See you at the WC (It you get there) where you will be able to troll with people from everywhere in the world
He , he that would be the Spaniard way to say :
¨We never won a world cup , we only reach semifinals once , but it was a long time ago.¨
¨Si tu oponente tiene un temperamento colerico , intenta irritarle.Si es arrogante trata de fomentar su egoismo.¨
Sun Tzu.
Try to read it , Alez , it will prevent your ass from being kicked so often.
@ Manu, excuse me, but I happen to be into football enough to know that there's other stuff besides the WC every four years. How do you think I discovered the EPL, La Liga, my favorite teams DCU and Arsenal? I woke up to what was happening in between those four years. So your comment is off base, sorry to tell you.
Off course there is other ¨stuff¨ besides the WC , but not even close in importance.
"Off course there is other ¨stuff¨ besides the WC , but not even close in importance."
Except in terms of y'know, money.
It's a tournament once every few years where each team gets to play just a handful of games. If you want to ignore everything else that happens in those 4 years, I guess that's up to you. They still exist though.
¨Except in terms of y'know, money.¨
You really don´t know what you are talking about , and which part of this argument is about money?
¨If you want to ignore everything else that happens in those 4 years, I guess that's up to you. They still exist though.¨
Nobody said that they didn´t exist , they are just not even remotely close in importance to the World Cup , in fact (as said by many coaches) all that happens in between WCups are only a preparation for the World Cup.
People who knows about football would never even consider Spain as belonging to the same elite group as Brasil , Argentina , Italy and Germany.
Sorry but that is a fact and every poster who tries to tell another story knows nothing about football tradition and history.
But hey , that´s what they know so much about chess , cheers.
More money is spent/made in other events. The English League, for example, pays the players more money, will have more viewers throughout a season and will generate more sponsorship money. In just 1 year, never mind the other 3. I don't buy "the World Cup is the be-all and end-all, cause Manu said so" argument. Not everyone sits twiddling their thumbs for 4 years before watching another match.
These "people" who would never consider Spain as a top team seem to be limited to yourself.
Your comment about money makes no sense , comparing a league with a Cup is preposterous.
If you want to talk about money The World Cup is bigger than any other cup by a big margin , more so if you consider that the venue is pointed with 8 years in advance.
The broadcast rights only of the World Cup are enough to fully organize 3 or 4 Euro Cups .
About Spain ,i already make my point , please state why would someone believe that Spain is at the same level of Italy or Brasil (or Arg or Germany).
Because of the Euro Cup? Get real.
Money seems like a simple way to measure the importance of events. I'd love to use the manu-ometer to decide what "counts", but it's just not extensive enough. Could you provide a list of things you find acceptable, and those you choose to ignore?
Okay, so it went from the most important event in football to the most important cup. Progress?
Your argument is Argentina is a better team at the moment because they won a World Cup 23 years ago. I'll admit I don't know who the entire Argetinian squad is, but I doubt anyone from the 1986 team will be playing next summer. Why is Spain currently at the same level (or better) than any other team?
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html
Seems like a good place to start. I suppose FIFA knows nothing about football tradition and history either. Or maybe results 20 years ago have very little effect on what will happen next year. Who knows.
"please state why would someone believe that Spain is at the same level of Italy or Brasil (or Arg or Germany)."
Well, I don't remember Spain getting blasted 6-1 in a World Cup qualifier this year (if it really is all about the World Cup as you seem to believe). Hmmm...but who did?
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=2871&art_id=nw20090402055535428C533479
Oops , i got caught in censorship.
Anyway , (like i said in the missing post) wake me up when Spain actually wins something.
Manu, as people keep pointing out, Spain (deservedly) won Euro 2008. I don't know about the Copa America, which doesn't seem so serious (every 2 years until recently - with various guaranteed "qualifiers"), but the European Championship is pretty much on the same level as the World Cup in Europe. It has a full two-year qualifying cycle and much harder group stages than the World Cup (teams like Togo or Trinidad and Tobago can't qualify).
Of course Spain have historically underperformed given the strength of their club sides, but it's silly to suggest they're anything but one of the strongest international sides around at the moment. Though thanks for the spectacle of a Topalov supporter dismissing ratings and recent form.
¨the European Championship is pretty much on the same level as the World Cup in Europe¨
Not sure what you mean , but is not even close to the world cup , like decades of football history clearly shows...
¨Though thanks for the spectacle of a Topalov supporter dismissing ratings and recent form. ¨
If recent form and ratings dont make u win the world cup then maybe you are not one of the top countries at all.
Pretending that a continental win is on the same level of a world win is just silly.
I got tired of this argument though , if you cannot tell the difference between world champions and those who never could even came close to that , then it is just pointless.
But it was a lot of fun , though.
"Pretending that a continental win is on the same level of a world win is just silly."
Maybe not _exactly_ the same level, but - as far as top teams are concerned - the key difference between European and World championships is merely the additional presence of Argentina and Brazil. At the Euro, we are still left with England, Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, ... lots of teams having football tradition and/or potential.
Anyway, of course you, Manu, write from a South American perspective - nothing wrong with that if you accept that other people have a different (broader?) view. Among other things, this includes that club football may be more important in Europe.
¨the key difference between European and World championships is merely the additional presence of Argentina and Brazil. ¨
¨nothing wrong with that if you accept that other people have a different (broader?) view¨
Is that your idea of a broader view?
Acting like if Asia and Africa(Nigeria! Camerun!)are unimportant?
I understand that you want to jump into this fight , but please leave the incoherence behind.
Please understand if i don´t answer any more on this subject , my feet hurts from kicking butts.
If Spain are 3rd tier then what are Nigeria and Cameroon? C'mon Manu, you can do better than that.
IMO Nigeria or Camerun have more chances to become WCH sooner than Spain , but since none of them did , i guess they are 3rd tier like Spain.
Although i would put my money on many African countries before even considering Spain .
Spain has one of the richer leagues of the world , gathering some of the best players from other countries .
And yet , they seem to be unable to take advantage of such lucky situation , they never came close of being world champions.
On the other hand , African countries despite being less lucky on that aspect have developed a lot the last two/three decades.It is very likely that their football grows enought to claim a place in the top sometime.
But considerations aside , this discussion is over , unless you use your energy on something more productive , like trying to learn from the mega succesfull mode of events like the WCup or the Olimpyads.
If we make the arena more important than the gladiators , we will atract a different type of attention and sponsorship .
A better one .
> this discussion is over
What a pity. Just when I wanted to join in :(
"Sorry but that is a fact and every poster who tries to tell another story knows nothing about football tradition and history."
Were you by any chance a debating champion at some point?
You ignored my earlier point that by your logic, Uruguay, with two World Cup wins, is a giant in world football: the equal of Argentina, and clearly superior to France and England, not to mention Spain. A point which, given that Uruguay currently suck and have done for several decades, illustrates the reductive nature of your argument.
If you are gonna quote , do it right :
¨People who knows about football would never even consider Spain as belonging to the same elite group as Brasil , Argentina , Italy and Germany.
Sorry but that is a fact and every poster who tries to tell another story knows nothing about football tradition and history.¨
That was the entire phrase , and i´ll stick to it.
I don´t know about comparing Uruguay with France (that was your idea ), but i have no doubt that they have achieved more than Spain , which was the subject of the discussion.
@Bartleby:
You are welcome to join in , the other side of the argument is getting a little short of ideas.
It's pointless to argue with him. Manu's logic is if you won a WC 20 years ago, you are a top team now. The current rankings mean nothing, current team means nothing, recent results mean absolutely nothing. Oh, and random non-top 30 teams like Nigeria are better than Spain, but this doesn't deserve an explanation. They're just better.
Wow , now (after 5 or 6 posts) you found that is pointless to argue with me , well , maybe after 5 or 6 years you find out that im right , you seem to be a slow learner.
And please , distorting what i said is not gonna help you make any point, i never said any of those things and anyone can check it by reading the thread.
It's also pointless to argue with a brick wall. That doesn't mean it's "right".
Actually, Manu, your original point was that it was wrong to consider Spain a top team, right now. Your argument against the idea that a team on a 35-game unbeaten streak was a top team was that they have never won a World Cup.
My point is that yes, Uruguay have achieved more than Spain historically--but that is not in fact the point under discussion. By your logic, their two world cups decades ago tops continues to make Uruguay a better team than Spain today. Can you see that that is ridiculous?
But you keep moving the goalposts. I'm done with you too.
Wrong, that was my original post :
¨Spain is not the best example of higher power in soccer , only countries like Brasil, Argentina , Italy or Germany can claim to be top of the top.¨
¨ Your argument against the idea that a team on a 35-game unbeaten streak was a top team was that they have never won a World Cup.¨
Before USA 94 , Argentina had a record of 33 games unbeaten (having won everything in between World Cups) and yet we were kicked out relatively early (thx in part to the famous doping of Maradona) from the event.
No need to say what a huge failure that was and
as you can see i my opinion is based on the concept that winning the World Cup is EVERYTHING.
Maybe you would understand this if you were from a country with a great football tradition , which obviously you are not .
But thx anyway , keep trying .
In terms of world-wide popularity, depth of talent, level of play (at their best), and historical achievement Brazil is now in a league of their own. Everyone else is 2nd tier.
Spain has a good team right now. They have won the Euro, and if they can top it with winning the World Cup, they will be remembered as the dominating team of their time, like France was 10 years ago. If the next generation of players achieve similar results, and the one after that, too, in 20 years or so we can talk if Spain has reached the same level of cockiness that right now is the domain of Argentinians, Italians, and (us) Germans.
For those countries, even in times when they only have mediocre players, the minimum requirement is to reach the semi-final of every tournament they enter. Brazil and Germany have indeed achieved this at the World Cup more often than not, and Italy comes close to it. So one can argue about Argentina, but Spain definitely isn't there.
"Maybe you would understand this if you were from a country with a great football tradition , which obviously you are not ."
Hi
Okay let's play this game. My country has a longer football tradition than yours.
Bye!
Congratulations! , then what are you crying about?
Manu, I don't know where you assume I'm from, but it's actually the country in which football was invented. Beat that for tradition.
Like i said , good for you , stop bothering then.
Read what Bartleby wrote and learn.
Manu, you may or may not come from a country with a great football tradition, but you don't seem to be from a place with a great logic tradition. Don't pretend you've proven anything to anybody. You got destroyed by anyone who bothered to talk to you.
¨Don't pretend you've proven anything to anybody. You got destroyed by anyone who bothered to talk to you.¨
You mean like u?
:)
DNFTT, even if he's having the time of his life trolling in this post
Stop crying , Alez , Spain will win the World Cup eventually and those cruel boys wont be able to tease you anymore.
Yes manu, we get it. Anyone who points out the stupidity in your posts is "crying". How dare they disagree with such well thought out arguments?
Ok ok, i'll put it this way , so no one gets offended:
Brasil , Italy , Germany , Argentina ,Uruguay ,France and England.
Ok now i'll ask you this:
Can we agree on saying that that list is a list of football World Champions?
Can we agree that (in spite of its current form ) Spain is BY NO CHANCE ON THAT LIST?
Should we call those who are/were World Champions the top of the top?
And now , my first post on this wonderfull subject:
"Spain is not the best example of higher power in soccer , only countries like Brasil, Argentina , Italy or Germany can claim to be top of the top."
Big hug.
And now, the controversial comment which touched off this firestorm:
"Their [the U.S. team's] level of play remains a good distance below that of Spain or Brazil. You just have to look at the best American players who can't manage to make their way to the top European level."
What a nice secretary .
chesshire,
How about making juvenile snarkiness your forte? (Replying to your own posts is optional.) Learn from the master:
"...you are clearly not very into football, at least not in the real world."
"Don´t care, wasn´t talking to you, cheers ."
"...but of course you really don´t mind about that, you just wanted to perform that paltry agression."
"Agression is not your forte, cat, in case you have one."
"Try to read it, Alez, it will prevent your ass from being kicked so often."
"Please understand if i don´t answer any more on this subject, my feet hurts from kicking butts."
"Maybe you would understand this if you were from a country with a great football tradition, which obviously you are not. But thx anyway, keep trying."
"Stop crying, Alez, Spain will win the World Cup eventually and those cruel boys wont be able to tease you anymore."
"Big hug."
From all the possible moderators , the guy who called retarded half of the web comes to make things right.
The return of the kink.
Having read The Hobbit, I try not to feed the trolls.
Are you a different person from the one who wrote this?:
chesshire cat | March 28, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply
"Like watching an idea fall down the stairs"
Your squabbles with Thomas don't interest me per se, but I am an English lit grad, and I gotta say, that really was quite pretty. Did you make it up yourself, or is it a translation from the Spanish? If you can insult ME at that language level please start the attacks.
I know a song from FatBoySlim called ¨the masochistic baby¨ , i´d like you to hear it.
"Like watching an idea fall down the stairs" is pretty good, I suppose, but with an English lit degree maybe you could aspire to the level of "my feet hurts from kicking butts."
You didn´t understand the post, greg , but don´t worry, the cat will explain it to you after he finishes the essay :¨that troll ate my cookie ¨.
Way to put everyone to agree. Way to troll (again, having a great fun) for days trying to make people come back so you can troll them again. Never thought it would go that far, but, hey, everyone knows pretending someone else is better than Argentina on soccer is a crime that must be punished by all means.
Let me rephrase: sometimes it's not good to feed the small child more sugar. Sometimes it amuses and others the attention-seeking hyperactivity induces migraine. Now I'll quietly withdraw and spare you any more broken toes, someone else might change your nappy.
¨Let me rephrase¨
Sure , take your time , Roma wasn´t built in a day.
I think England might actually have a good chance to win the world cup next year. The conditions will suit them in South Africa at that time of year (autumn/winter in the southern hemisphere). Under coach Fabio Capello they are playing some really good football. It's time that they stepped up to the plate and realised the potential that they have in a major finals.
Kirk,
Would you say that the level of play of the American team remains a good distance below that of England or Brazil?
¨I think England might actually have a good chance to win the world cup next year. The conditions will suit them in South Africa at that time of year (autumn/winter in the southern hemisphere). ¨
Like the fact that they tried to enslave their whole continent a couple of times?
:) , just kiddin , i saw the movie ¨Ghandi¨ the other day.