Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

China 0-0 India - Saturday 13th October, 2018


football forum

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

So you seriously think that a team like san marino has an equal chance with a country like Brazil to produce a world cup winning squad if they keep their players ?

Obviously not!  But THAT doesn't prove anything other than a normal conclusion based on logic.  Why don't you search for a country with a population of 1 to prove your point although they wouldn't be able to field a team...  The could resort to France's tactics though although conquering part of a continent with 1 person would be more of a feat than winning a World Cup with 1 person. O.o

 

 

 

xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, Harry said:

 Pretty much this. Money matters alot as does a few other things but statistically size of population base has a lot to do with it...

 

On 12/10/2018 at 17:50, Blue said:

Not a pop at Harry but I have never understood this mentality that higher population countries should have stronger teams. It's all about the football culture. 

Uruguay have a small population but a massive culture and passion to work. The percentage of interest in the sport is huge there and they have good development techniques and scouts unlike the USA. 

It makes Iceland's achievements more impressive as I'm pretty sure football isn't the most popular sport there.

I think it is in terms of participation. But I would imagine there is more interest in handball as they are very good at it. What is it that Uruguay do that makes so competitive? Correct me if I'm wrong but don't they have the smallest population out of south America? Do you feel they develop their players better than Brazil and Argentina?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Obviously not!  But THAT doesn't prove anything other than a normal conclusion based on logic.  Why don't you search for a country with a population of 1 to prove your point although they wouldn't be able to field a team...  The could resort to France's tactics though although conquering part of a continent with 1 person would be more of a feat than winning a World Cup with 1 person. O.o

 

 

 

xD

I have no idea what you are on about nor do I have any interest 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AMG said:

A proper game, this. 

 

And the level of football isn't half as bad as I thought it would be. 

I sometimes find games with poor quality entertaining like the A league

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Harry said:

 Pretty much this. Money matters alot as does a few other things but statistically size of population base has a lot to do with it...

I think financial factors are obviously important. India has massive poverty and I get the impression they see cricket as a way out of it more than football. I think Asian teams struggle with physicality. China has massive resources and a massive population so I'm sure it is a football culture thing. Not sure they are as passionate as the Japanese and Koreans etc. So I think that is why they struggle to qualify for the world cup.  I'm sure population size plays a part though. All things being even having more people will help. Although I think alot of other things are more important. I read about Croatia. Apparently their youth have incredble determination. Being a country that was involved in so much conflict they are very united. Countries like Ireland and Norway and Slovakia which have bigger populations have achieved far less. I think Scotland are the only European country smaller than them to have qualified for more world cups and they have only qualified for 1 since Croatia has existed. So when you look at countries around them in terms of population they have achieved a lot more with the exception of Uruguay. One country I can't understand is Mexico.  @Teso dos Bichos might be able to help with this. I don't know why they aren't better. Massive football country. Massive population but for some reason not a lot to show. I think  a lot of it is because they play in concacaf. I think if they moved to conmebol they could be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SirBalon said:

Obviously not!  But THAT doesn't prove anything other than a normal conclusion based on logic.  Why don't you search for a country with a population of 1 to prove your point although they wouldn't be able to field a team...  The could resort to France's tactics though although conquering part of a continent with 1 person would be more of a feat than winning a World Cup with 1 person. O.o

xD

 mate. Its a conclusion based on logic that you've been arguing flatly against for the last page or more. 

Either population is a factor or it isn't. If you accept the Faroes are less likely than Germany to win a world cup due partially to that with their population they are statistically much less likely to churn out 11 world class players then just hurry up and tell gunnersaurus you agree with him and move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SirBalon said:

Anyone that's any good in San Marino or Andorra will either end up playing for Italy or Spain respectively.

Within that piece of research you done you forgot that while writing you ended up saying that the biggest nations on earth haven't done well because they haven't got a football tradition or culture.

You also have Holland, Croatia and even Iceland lately if you like, not just Uruguay.  France don't count because they have a pick from their own country and another comtinent... They have been playing another game compared to everyone else, it just goes unnoticed.

The more globalisation continues, the more economic development equalises wealth into Asia, and the more football continues to gain traction in those markets the more significant a factor population will become in determining success. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Harry said:

 mate. Its a conclusion based on logic that you've been arguing flatly against for the last page or more. 

Either population is a factor or it isn't. If you accept the Faroes are less likely than Germany to win a world cup due partially to that with their population they are statistically much less likely to churn out 11 world class players then just hurry up and tell gunnersaurus you agree with him and move on. 

I'm not saying it's a massive factor its clearly not. Football culture is much more important. But I'm pretty certain most would agree Uraguay, Iceland, Croatia have done well for  their size. In fact those 3 countries have been applauded so clearly a lot feel the same. Iceland have a very strong sportong culture in general and have always been massive over achievers. However I don't feel France have achieved more than England because of population. The gap in population isn't that big. However the bigger the gap the more important it will be. A team like faroe islands will never compete with a team like Germany to gap in population is to big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Harry said:

 mate. Its a conclusion based on logic that you've been arguing flatly against for the last page or more. 

Either population is a factor or it isn't. If you accept the Faroes are less likely than Germany to win a world cup due partially to that with their population they are statistically much less likely to churn out 11 world class players then just hurry up and tell gunnersaurus you agree with him and move on. 

 

6 hours ago, Harry said:

The more globalisation continues, the more economic development equalises wealth into Asia, and the more football continues to gain traction in those markets the more significant a factor population will become in determining success. 

 

 

The population boom in Europe is a relatively new phenomenon by comparison to the official history of football. 

Like I said and I maintain... It's football tradition and football culture first and foremost!  Ultimately!

France is a good case to use as an example because they've never been historically embarrassed or ashamed on their use of past colonial players by bringing them in, nationalising them (a simple beaurocratical detail to execute) when it suits them.  Without going into the political side of things with our neighbours across the channel in terms of racism and xenophobia and the fact that it took this present French Prime Minister, Emmanuel Macron to apologise to the Algerians for manipulation and slaughter, they have had an eternal massive pool to choose from which they've executed throughout history without shame...

I'm just using the French African colonies because those are the ones they've dipped into the most...

  • Algeria
  • Morocco
  • Egypt
  • Tunisia
  • Ivory Coast
  • Sudan
  • Niger
  • French Guinea
  • Mauritania
  • Senegal
  • Nigeria
  • Gambia
  • Chad
  • Gabon
  • Cameroon
  • Eritrea

I won't go into smaller ones like Madagascar etc... because they haven't really produced footballer's or formed a football culture of note.

So with respects to the vast population pool they've had to choose from for practically the whole history of professional football, and the fact that pre 1984 they had never won an international tournament, then we can ascertain that there's more to this.  Indeed since African nation's have become more football wise, France's success has become more relative but here where're talking about a pool of selection much larger than even the population of the USA and the success in terms of relativity compared to numbers is questionable.

Of course numbers have a logical relevance behind it but OVERALL and the biggest, most important reason behind success in football is football culture, tradition and history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

 

The population boom in Europe is a relatively new phenomenon by comparison to the official history of football. 

Like I said and I maintain... It's football tradition and football culture first and foremost!  Ultimately!

France is a good case to use as an example because they've never been historically embarrassed or ashamed on their use of past colonial players by bringing them in, nationalising them (a simple beaurocratical detail to execute) when it suits them.  Without going into the political side of things with our neighbours across the channel in terms of racism and xenophobia and the fact that it took this present French Prime Minister, Emmanuel Macron to apologise to the Algerians for manipulation and slaughter, they have had an eternal massive pool to choose from which they've executed throughout history without shame...

I'm just using the French African colonies because those are the ones they've dipped into the most...

  • Algeria
  • Morocco
  • Egypt
  • Tunisia
  • Ivory Coast
  • Sudan
  • Niger
  • French Guinea
  • Mauritania
  • Senegal
  • Nigeria
  • Gambia
  • Chad
  • Gabon
  • Cameroon
  • Eritrea

I won't go into smaller ones like Madagascar etc... because they haven't really produced footballer's or formed a football culture of note.

So with respects to the vast population pool they've had to choose from for practically the whole history of professional football, and the fact that pre 1984 they had never won an international tournament, then we can ascertain that there's more to this.  Indeed since African nation's have become more football wise, France's success has become more relative but here where're talking about a pool of selection much larger than even the population of the USA and the success in terms of relativity compared to numbers is questionable.

Of course numbers have a logical relevance behind it but OVERALL and the biggest, most important reason behind success in football is football culture, tradition and history.

Absolutely mate and you wouldn't find many that would disagree with that. Particularly in looking to the past where unquestionably you don't need to ask what the 1 billion people in China were doing when uruguay were winning world cups.  things were very different but many in China were still decades away from learning that a thing called a world cup occurred. 

That said i would argue that as football becomes more global and modernises further it will wind up coming down in the future more to similar aspects as determine the Olympic medal tallies. Money, politics and population size (aka depth of the pool) 

Still these will just be more important factors than now and whose to say what the balance will be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SirBalon said:

 

The population boom in Europe is a relatively new phenomenon by comparison to the official history of football. 

Like I said and I maintain... It's football tradition and football culture first and foremost!  Ultimately!

France is a good case to use as an example because they've never been historically embarrassed or ashamed on their use of past colonial players by bringing them in, nationalising them (a simple beaurocratical detail to execute) when it suits them.  Without going into the political side of things with our neighbours across the channel in terms of racism and xenophobia and the fact that it took this present French Prime Minister, Emmanuel Macron to apologise to the Algerians for manipulation and slaughter, they have had an eternal massive pool to choose from which they've executed throughout history without shame...

I'm just using the French African colonies because those are the ones they've dipped into the most...

  • Algeria
  • Morocco
  • Egypt
  • Tunisia
  • Ivory Coast
  • Sudan
  • Niger
  • French Guinea
  • Mauritania
  • Senegal
  • Nigeria
  • Gambia
  • Chad
  • Gabon
  • Cameroon
  • Eritrea

I won't go into smaller ones like Madagascar etc... because they haven't really produced footballer's or formed a football culture of note.

So with respects to the vast population pool they've had to choose from for practically the whole history of professional football, and the fact that pre 1984 they had never won an international tournament, then we can ascertain that there's more to this.  Indeed since African nation's have become more football wise, France's success has become more relative but here where're talking about a pool of selection much larger than even the population of the USA and the success in terms of relativity compared to numbers is questionable.

Of course numbers have a logical relevance behind it but OVERALL and the biggest, most important reason behind success in football is football culture, tradition and history.

That's what i said 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Teso dos Bichos said:

$$$ is more important to the FMF than winning mate. Mexico is one of the top, if not the top, when it comes to revenue. Why go play top nations away when the USA west coast is always ready to fill up the stadiums against small teams. 

Money is the reason why we left conmebol club tourney.

The fact that almeyda didn't get the job because he pissed of one club owners highlight how fucking retarded they are... Yeah, tata Martino is the answer :farmer:     

It's a shame really. A football loving country not developing like it should 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/10/2018 at 10:14, Harry said:

Given the populations at play they really should be the two strongest teams in football. Maybe in 20 years they'll get there... one will surely host a world cup in that time period. 

 

On 12/10/2018 at 10:14, Harry said:

Given the populations at play they really should be the two strongest teams in football. Maybe in 20 years they'll get there... one will surely host a world cup in that time period. 

I was actually talking to somebody about this the other day. He said that Chinese people on a whole don't tend to be as big as people from other county's. Even though Asian countries do tend to have smaller people China are pirticularly small. He's not a football fan so he doesn't really know about how they develop the game but maybe physicality does play a part with China. They have actuality produced some very decent women's sides before where maybe physicality isn't so important

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren't hugely different in stature from Japanese players though who have still found a way to be part of the conversation despite the smaller stature. 

Nationally they need to model themselves on a type of football that suits that. And make sure they know how to play against your stoke city teams that do the opposite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry said:

They aren't hugely different in stature from Japanese players though who have still found a way to be part of the conversation despite the smaller stature. 

Nationally they need to model themselves on a type of football that suits that. And make sure they know how to play against your stoke city teams that do the oppositionist. 

Not a massive  difference no. But maybe enough to make a small difference. Although yeah a lot of it is probably down to how they develop the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...