Best and Worst International Tournaments

[Stan]

49 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

Also this.

I want to like African football but the matches always end 1-1 or 1-0. Any high scoring game is an anomaly there. It's a shame because it could be tons of fun otherwise.

Just checked this for AFCON tournaments...

AFCON 2019 - 23/50 games ended 1-1 or 1-0. 46%.

AFCON 2017 - 13/32. 40.6%

AFCON 2015 - 13/32. 40.6%

AFCON 2013 - 12/32. 37.5

 

For what it's worth, I don't usually enjoy AFCON either but that's mainly because of low quality for the most part. Some games can be quite decent though especially when there are familiar players on show.

[Azeem]

1 hour ago, Michael said:

It was also the Euros where the Irish national team came of age and made a name for themselves, with some respectable performances.

And England haven't beaten them since losing to them at Euro 88.

[Azeem]

I was seeing the highlights of Euro 84 looked an exciting tournament especially the semi final between France and Portugal.

[Stan]

3 minutes ago, Azeem said:

And England haven't beaten them since losing to them at Euro 88.

Yeah but how many tournaments have they played against each other since then? Bit of a skewed stat, that...

[Michael]

10 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

2006 world cup, 2014 world cup, euro 2012 I actually kinda liked 2010 world cup too. 

Shit ones. 
Any AFCON
Any Asian cup. 
I assume any Oceanic cup. 

You can add the CONCACAF to that list in terms of competitions of mediocre quality. In fact, it's arguably of lower quality than the AFCON and the Asian Cup.

The Copa America has some quality sides, but it's a small competition which also has several teams that are really poor, such as Bolivia. 

The Euros though, despite being a large tournament, is mainly made up of quality sides. Even the so called weaker sides have several players that play their club football at a high level in one of the major leagues. For that reason, it's not so surprising that this tournament is played at a higher level than most of the others.

[Azeem]

5 minutes ago, Stan said:

Yeah but how many tournaments have they played against each other since then? Bit of a skewed stat, that...

6 

1990 WC, twice in euro qualifiers and three friendlies, decent record

[Michael]

4 minutes ago, Azeem said:

And England haven't beaten them since losing to them at Euro 88.

Yes, we have only drawn with them since we lost to them in 88. We drew 1-1 with them at the 1990 World Cup and then drew with them 1-1 twice, during qualification for Euro 1992. From then on, we've just drawn with them in friendlies. In fact we played with them in a friendly in 1995, but after they took the lead, the match was cancelled due to rioting by our fans. 

 

[Stan]

3 minutes ago, Azeem said:

6 

1990 WC, twice in euro qualifiers and three friendlies, decent record

Apologies, thought you meant not beaten them at tournaments.

[Azeem]

Confederations Cup 2013 was good for Confederations Cup standards. 

Brazil was taking it a bit seriously 

[Azeem]

Oh and i enjoyed South Asian Cup 2018 where we got to play after a year because of our ban and made it to the semis 

[Azeem]

This might not ever materialise but i think AFCON should be played around the year during international breaks.

It would be better for players and clubs and might make the tournament bit more interesting

 

[Mpache]

53 minutes ago, Michael said:

You can add the CONCACAF to that list in terms of competitions of mediocre quality. In fact, it's arguably of lower quality than the AFCON and the Asian Cup.

The Copa America has some quality sides, but it's a small competition which also has several teams that are really poor, such as Bolivia. 

The Euros though, despite being a large tournament, is mainly made up of quality sides. Even the so called weaker sides have several players that play their club football at a high level in one of the major leagues. For that reason, it's not so surprising that this tournament is played at a higher level than most of the others.

That’s not true at all. CONCACAF for as shit and predictable as it can be is still infinitely better to watch than AFCON.

[Mpache]

58 minutes ago, Michael said:

The Copa America has some quality sides, but it's a small competition which also has several teams that are really poor, such as Bolivia. 

Also false. There is no bad team in South America. Just because not everyone plays in Europe doesn’t mean they are “really poor”. Bolivia are really the only ones and I can still name several sides that are worse...

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

Also false. There is no bad team in South America. Just because not everyone plays in Europe doesn’t mean they are “really poor”. Bolivia are really the only ones and I can still name several sides that are worse...

No teams in South America are bad but only 3 are that good and can compete with decent European teams

[Mpache]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

No teams in South America are bad but only 3 are that good and can compete with decent European teams

I disagree.

I'd say 5 can give the best European teams a game. But if we're talking about "winning the World Cup", I wouldn't even say 3 to be honest. Just Brazil. (Argentina will be back soon)

[Michael]

5 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

That’s not true at all. CONCACAF for as shit and predictable as it can be is still infinitely better to watch than AFCON.

That's your opinion, it depends what you class as better to watch. Poor defending from the really poor sides in the CONCACAF, that leads to goals? In terms of quality, there many more stronger sides in the AFCON region than there are in the CONCACAF region. Who do you have? The USA, Mexico and Costa Rica, then you have improving sides such as Canada and Jamaica. But most of the rest of the sides in that region are very average at best. 

In Africa you have Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Senegal, Nigeria, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Mali etc just to name some of the sides that are littered with players who play football at a high level. Teams such as this play at a much higher level than most teams in the CONCACAF region. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Inti Brian said:

I disagree.

I'd say 5 can give the best European teams a game. But if we're talking about "winning the World Cup", I wouldn't even say 3 to be honest. Just Brazil. (Argentina will be back soon)

No they cant. Peru qualified for the last world cup and they are shit. Put them up against a top European side and they will have no chance. And I don't know what you are on about with concacaf being better than afcon. Mexico are the only decent side in it.

[Mpache]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

Just checked this for AFCON tournaments...

AFCON 2019 - 23/50 games ended 1-1 or 1-0. 46%.

AFCON 2017 - 13/32. 40.6%

AFCON 2015 - 13/32. 40.6%

AFCON 2013 - 12/32. 37.5

 

For what it's worth, I don't usually enjoy AFCON either but that's mainly because of low quality for the most part. Some games can be quite decent though especially when there are familiar players on show.

African football is shocking and shouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it is. One of the worst finals I've seen was the 2015 AFCON final that had Ayew, Asamoah, Kolo Toure, Yaya Toure, Bony, Gervinho and Kalou on the pitch. That game should be way better but the quality was about as bad a Bolivian league game. Technical fallacies and dull attacking movement.

I can't quite pinpoint the problem because the players aren't the issue, and the managers aren't that bad either. That Ivory Coast team had Herve Renard who was then able to turn Morocco into a machine. Ghana had Avram Grant...

[Mpache]

Just now, Gunnersauraus said:

No they cant. Peru qualified for the last world cup and they are shit. Put them up against a top European side and they will have no chance. And I don't know what you are on about with concacaf being better than afcon. Mexico are the only decent side in it.

I remember outpossessing France and pinning them back in their own half in Russia 

So much for "they are shit and have no chance". I agree on CONCACAF but the football on display is way better to watch than AFCON.

[Rucksackfranzose]

10 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

Also false. There is no bad team in South America. Just because not everyone plays in Europe doesn’t mean they are “really poor”. Bolivia are really the only ones and I can still name several sides that are worse...

Remembering that you thought Croatia would be worse than Peru before the last WC, your judgement might be not as good as you think.

[Guest]

Just now, Inti Brian said:

I remember outpossessing France and pinning them back in their own half in Russia 

So much for "they are shit and have no chance". I agree on CONCACAF but the football on display is way better to watch than AFCON.

You lost to Denmark who are an average European side. You didn't create much against France. Having possession doesn't mean you are the better side. 

[Michael]

10 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

Also false. There is no bad team in South America. Just because not everyone plays in Europe doesn’t mean they are “really poor”. Bolivia are really the only ones and I can still name several sides that are worse...

You are funny, Bolivia are very poor, while Paraguay and Venezuela aren't much better. I have watched Bolivia play several times and I would class them as poor internationally. They are only half decent when they play at home at high altitude and use the thin air as an advantage over their opponents.

[Mpache]

2 minutes ago, Michael said:

In Africa you have Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Senegal, Nigeria, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Mali etc just to name some of the sides that are littered with players who play football at a high level. Teams such as this play at a much higher level than most teams in the CONCACAF region. 

You can't just look at quality on paper though. Senegal should be comfortably better than Mexico for example, and I'd take Mexico all day long as the winner of that. How about the total of 2 African sides who made it out of their group in the last world cup compared to the 4 from CONCACAF?

Africa has some banging teams on paper who are shocking on the pitch, and people will know I'm not talking out of my mind as I've been the biggest CONCACAF critic for the longest time. 

[Michael]

2 minutes ago, Inti Brian said:

You can't just look at quality on paper though. Senegal should be comfortably better than Mexico for example, and I'd take Mexico all day long as the winner of that. How about the total of 2 African sides who made it out of their group in the last world cup compared to the 4 from CONCACAF?

Africa has some banging teams on paper who are shocking on the pitch, and people will know I'm not talking out of my mind as I've been the biggest CONCACAF critic for the longest time. 

You'd take Mexico all day long? I know you would, because you are bias. Senegal would have every chance of beating Mexico, you are talking as if it's a given that Mexico would win, which is utter rubbish.

[Mpache]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

You lost to Denmark who are an average European side. You didn't create much against France. Having possession doesn't mean you are the better side. 

We genuinely weren't bad in Russia and I don't get this mentality that we did. Put Denmark with any other seed 3 team and I would have been confident in going through. We played well, but Denmark is just about even if not slightly better and we were picked to lose. Despite that we dominated that game and just failed to put away our chances.

I agree we didn't create much against France but you said we stood no chance when we only lost 1-0 and outpossessed them pretty much all game? That's not what I would class as "no chance"

Next year justice was served as we reached the Copa America final, so enough with this bollocks please.