The Euros are better than the World Cup - Change My Mind

Imagine you have money to spend and that there are two upcoming international football tournaments featuring the greatest players of all time at their absolute peak.

You can only afford to attend one of those tournaments.

Both tournaments have the best Europe has to offer - Cruyff, Ronaldo, Zidane, Best, Puskas, Platini, Eusebio, Baggio, Gento, Beckenbauer, Muller, Gullit, Van Basten etc.

One tournament, however, also has Pele, Maradona, Messi, Di Stefano, Ronaldo (orig), Garrincha, Ronaldinho, Rivellino, Jairzinho, Kempes, Roberto Carlos, Carlos Alberto, Luis Suarez, Neymar, Aguerro, Tevez and Riquelme.

Which one are you paying to go and watch.

All tournaments have dross at the preliminary and early rounds/groups. It's all about the quality at the business end and any tournament that denies access to the best players in the world cannot seriously be considered the best tournament.

If it could then you could make a case for any tournament, Scottish Junior Cup for example, being the best tournament because, although not featuring the best players, it was very competitive.
 
1288Bear said:
Imagine you have money to spend and that there are two upcoming international football tournaments featuring the greatest players of all time at their absolute peak.

You can only afford to attend one of those tournaments.

Both tournaments have the best Europe has to offer - Cruyff, Ronaldo, Zidane, Best, Puskas, Platini, Eusebio, Baggio, Gento, Beckenbauer, Muller, Gullit, Van Basten etc.

One tournament, however, also has Pele, Maradona, Messi, Di Stefano, Ronaldo (orig), Garrincha, Ronaldinho, Rivellino, Jairzinho, Kempes, Roberto Carlos, Carlos Alberto, Luis Suarez, Neymar, Aguerro, Tevez and Riquelme.

Which one are you paying to go and watch.

All tournaments have dross at the preliminary and early rounds/groups. It's all about the quality at the business end and any tournament that denies access to the best players in the world cannot seriously be considered the best tournament.

If it could then you could make a case for any tournament, Scottish Junior Cup for example, being the best tournament because, although not featuring the best players, it was very competitive.
Click to expand...
I noticed a grammar error in your post so I am ignoring it.

Not because it is a good point you are making.
 
There aren't so many duff teams in the Euros. Put it this way, if the World Cup was being held in Europe and you compare it with the Euros then I would rather watch the Euros. The World Cup tends to do on too long. I like the World Cup in South America though as this gives the South Americans a chance to shine, they tend not to do so well in Europe. Euro 2020 has been pretty good so far, the officials have let the games flow and VAR is being used sparingly and quickly.
 
1288Bear said:
Imagine you have money to spend and that there are two upcoming international football tournaments featuring the greatest players of all time at their absolute peak.

You can only afford to attend one of those tournaments.

Both tournaments have the best Europe has to offer - Cruyff, Ronaldo, Zidane, Best, Puskas, Platini, Eusebio, Baggio, Gento, Beckenbauer, Muller, Gullit, Van Basten etc.

One tournament, however, also has Pele, Maradona, Messi, Di Stefano, Ronaldo (orig), Garrincha, Ronaldinho, Rivellino, Jairzinho, Kempes, Roberto Carlos, Carlos Alberto, Luis Suarez, Neymar, Aguerro, Tevez and Riquelme.

Which one are you paying to go and watch.

All tournaments have dross at the preliminary and early rounds/groups. It's all about the quality at the business end and any tournament that denies access to the best players in the world cannot seriously be considered the best tournament.

If it could then you could make a case for any tournament, Scottish Junior Cup for example, being the best tournament because, although not featuring the best players, it was very competitive.
Click to expand...

I am unsure if my previous reply will be taken as the joke it intended to be.

Anywho....

Yeah, that's a good point, but may I attempt to counter it.

If I want to see these players play... I will watch the Champions League.

I will probably struggle to think of many players who are known as 'great players' at a world cup who don't already play in the Champions League.

In fact there are many extraordinary talents who play at a great level but may never get to a world cup or euros as they play for a very poor nation.

So, if your MAIN point is about watching the very best talent, I will watch the Champions League.
 
MrBearightside said:
I am unsure if my previous reply will be taken as the joke it intended to be.

Anywho....

Yeah, that's a good point, but may I attempt to counter it.

If I want to see these players play... I will watch the Champions League.

I will probably struggle to think of many players who are known as 'great players' at a world cup who don't already play in the Champions League.

In fact there are many extraordinary talents who play at a great level but may never get to a world cup or euros as they play for a very poor nation.

So, if your MAIN point is about watching the very best talent, I will watch the Champions League.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that the Champions League is a better tournament than the Euro's as there are better players involved? ;)
 
1288Bear said:
Imagine you have money to spend and that there are two upcoming international football tournaments featuring the greatest players of all time at their absolute peak.

You can only afford to attend one of those tournaments.

Both tournaments have the best Europe has to offer - Cruyff, Ronaldo, Zidane, Best, Puskas, Platini, Eusebio, Baggio, Gento, Beckenbauer, Muller, Gullit, Van Basten etc.

One tournament, however, also has Pele, Maradona, Messi, Di Stefano, Ronaldo (orig), Garrincha, Ronaldinho, Rivellino, Jairzinho, Kempes, Roberto Carlos, Carlos Alberto, Luis Suarez, Neymar, Aguerro, Tevez and Riquelme.

Which one are you paying to go and watch.

All tournaments have dross at the preliminary and early rounds/groups. It's all about the quality at the business end and any tournament that denies access to the best players in the world cannot seriously be considered the best tournament.

If it could then you could make a case for any tournament, Scottish Junior Cup for example, being the best tournament because, although not featuring the best players, it was very competitive.
Click to expand...


However, there ARE some arguments that COULD change my mind.

Such as:

1) I am very familiar with the style of play in most European countries, however at the world cup I am often surprised at the tactics / formations of nations outside of Europe. Often these are still poor quality nations but their style can draw me in

2) Similar to number 1, there can be 'David v Goliath' moments at the world cup as better nations are unfamiliar how to handle unusual tactics or formations

3) Some players from lesser nations can shine and be future gems

These are arguments, which if someone were to point out examples and embellish more, I could legitimately change my mind.
 
1288Bear said:
Are you suggesting that the Champions League is a better tournament than the Euro's as there are better players involved? ;)
Click to expand...
Yes.

My main point is always been about overall quality.

The Euros have better quality overall as an entire tournament

But the CL has the highest level of quality overall in any football competition
 
Drumchapel-Bear said:
Can't believe they are extending the World Cup by so many teams. First I have heard of that. It should only be the elite teams at these tournaments and it just dilutes the quality by adding more teams.
Click to expand...
Especially when it gets to a point when you can't wait til the return of Club football which tops the lot. As you say it will be a longer slog with teams in it just to make up the numbers,rather than merit.
 
MrBearightside said:
Yes.

My main point is always been about overall quality.

The Euros have better quality overall as an entire tournament

But the CL has the highest level of quality overall in any football competition
Click to expand...
Surely the arguement that the CL has the highest level of quality as it features the best players from around the World would be an equally valid arguement for suggesting that the WC was superior in quality to the Euro's.

Both tournaments suffer from a desire, I assume for financial reasons, to open it up to as many nations as possible which leads to poorer quality in the group stages.

The emergence of the African nations and, more recently, Asian nations at the World Cup has been both fascinating and provided some moments of genuine quality.

Think of Owairan’s strike for Saudi Arabia against Belgium or Cameroon against Argentina.
 
The quality of the euros has been significantly diluted with the increase in number of teams. It’s enabled more dross (like Scotland) to qualify.

England potentially may get to the final having only had to overcome one “big team” (Germany) throughout the entire tournament. The rest of their opponents have been average.

The World Cup from the last 16 or quarter finals onwards (after the dross has been filtered) is a better/tougher tournament than the euros at similar rounds imo.

You’d prob be adding Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and/or Colombia/Chile at the expense of Sweden, Ukraine, Switzerland, Czech Republic to this stage of the euros.
 
Papasmurf said:
really? Didnt know that. I couldnt even tell you who competed in it this year (did it go ahead?)
Click to expand...
Can't remember last South American team that won it but it was within the last 2 or 3 years. But had it on TV, thousands waiting at the airport, stadium full going bananas as they paraded the trophy, players greetin and everything. Its pretty much 2nd only to the world cup.
 
1288Bear said:
Surely the arguement that the CL has the highest level of quality as it features the best players from around the World would be an equally valid arguement for suggesting that the WC was superior in quality to the Euro's.

Both tournaments suffer from a desire, I assume for financial reasons, to open it up to as many nations as possible which leads to poorer quality in the group stages.

The emergence of the African nations and, more recently, Asian nations at the World Cup has been both fascinating and provided some moments of genuine quality.

Think of Owairan’s strike for Saudi Arabia against Belgium or Cameroon against Argentina.
Click to expand...
unbelievablewalter said:
What were your feelings on the Super League?
Click to expand...
Good question

As the years have went on I have become less and less interested in elite clubs.

I've fallen away from the CL and even the PL... so the Super League held no interest for me

Its basically Rangers or nothing for me engaging in club football
 
MrBearightside said:
Good question

As the years have went on I have become less and less interested in elite clubs.

I've fallen away from the CL and even the PL... so the Super League held no interest for me

Its basically Rangers or nothing for me engaging in club football
Click to expand...

But in terms of quality, do you think the Super League would have been better than the Champions League or Premiership, no Krasnodars or Norwichs to suck it up?

Do you think maybe part of the reason the Champions League no longer holds the same draw is because it's the same teams over and over with no chance of an upset?

Do you think the World Cup would be improved by extending the number of European teams at the expense of North American, African and Asian?
 
Of course the World Cup is better than the Euros.

10 years ago it would be:

Champions League
World Cup
Euros
Uefa/Europa League

Now it's:

World Cup
Champions League
Euros
Europa League
 
The route for the finalists:

WORLD CUP 2018
France - Denmark, Peru, Australia, Argentina, Uruguay, Belgium.

Croatia - Argentina, Nigeria, Iceland, Denmark, Russia, England

EURO 2016
Portugal (finishing 3rd) - Hungary, Iceland, Austria, Croatia, Poland, Wales.

France - Switzerland, Albania, Romania, Rep of Ireland, Iceland, Germany.
 
Maybe you can argue the Euros is a higher standard on average but saying its harder to win is a bit daft when you still have the 13 best European nations at the World Cup. But you replace some of the also rans of Europe with better sides like Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia as well as some other countries which have potential to produce a good team like Mexico, USA or an African team.
 
unbelievablewalter said:
But in terms of quality, do you think the Super League would have been better than the Champions League or Premiership, no Krasnodars or Norwichs to suck it up?

Do you think maybe part of the reason the Champions League no longer holds the same draw is because it's the same teams over and over with no chance of an upset?

Do you think the World Cup would be improved by extending the number of European teams at the expense of North American, African and Asian?
Click to expand...
The super league wasn't inspired or driven by 'quality'

It was formed due to money

It wasn't the 'best clubs in Europe'

It was the richest

As for improving the world cup, I wonder if we are at the point where we can have global qualifications

24 groups of 10 or whatever

In a group would be equal nations from each confederation

Top team in each go through

Or top 2 teams depending on the size

That would improve the quality of the final tournament and keep it 'fair'
 
Wee guys you'd never heard of from some countries you'd barely heard of.

Some of the above making wild tackles.

Some wild strips.

Blistering hot weather.

Dodging work or sitting up really late at night due to different timezones.
 
MrBearightside said:
Did you read my opening post?

There are a small number of non-European nations who are clearly a cut above a lot of nations in Europe, which makes the world Cup great

But nation per nation, the Euros is harder to win and better quality (and therefor the better competition)
Click to expand...
Spain route to 2008 Euros------Spain route to 2010 World cup.

Russia --------------------------Switzerland
Sweden-------------------------Honduras
Greece--------------------------Chile
Italy-----------------------------Portugal
Russia---------------------------Paraguay
Germany------------------------Germany
----------------------------------Holland

I randomly picked 2 tournaments won by Spain, from that snap shot, it doesn't look to be any easier to win the World cup.
 
just depends imo

you can have an average world cup, followed by a decent euros or vice versa

on occasion a tourney will just come alive, nothing to do with the quality of the teams
 
MrBearightside said:
The super league wasn't inspired or driven by 'quality'

It was formed due to money

It wasn't the 'best clubs in Europe'

It was the richest

As for improving the world cup, I wonder if we are at the point where we can have global qualifications

24 groups of 10 or whatever

In a group would be equal nations from each confederation

Top team in each go through

Or top 2 teams depending on the size

That would improve the quality of the final tournament and keep it 'fair'
Click to expand...

Since Porto won the Champions League in 2004 there have been 17 CL finals, contested by 34 teams.

Arsenal (1), Chelsea (3), Liverpool (4), Man City (1), Man Utd (3), Tottenham (1), Inter Milan (1), Juventus (2), AC Milan (2), Atletico (2), Real (4), Barcelona (4) - these 12 teams have comprised 28/34 teams.

In fact, if not for the German teams and PSG declining (Bayern - 4, Dortmund 1, PSG - 1), It WOULD have been a super league comprised of effectively every team who had made a CL final in the last 17 years. But the comparison of not having those 3 teams that declined, just makes it more like Euros vs World cup, where Brazil & Argentina aren't included.

As for your example - the whole point of qualification is to bring the tournament down to a manageable size - 24 groups of 10 would result in an insane amount of games that nobody has time to attend or watch, before getting to the knockout stage. You could instead make that the qualification stage, but making players fly all around the world for qualification will dilute the enjoyment of the fans too - nobody wants to see Gibraltar flying to Vietnam for a world cup qualifier for example.

The format of the world cup as it is now is perfect, there are maybe at most 2 teams who make it there and are hopeless in every match, which out of a 32 team tournament isn't that bad. You could argue that both Turkey and North Macedonia (and Scotland!) were no different in this tournament.
 
I think the Euros overall is harder to win, taking the fact that the majority of European nations are a least half decent. The World Cup you have the addition of Brazil and Argentina when it comes to “top teams”, with maybe Uruguay and South Korea, which makes it difficult. In the Euros however even the teams that are least favourite who have qualified for the tournament are leagues above the “lesser teams” from other continents who make it to the World Cup.
 
DarthVader said:
The quality at the World Cup.has been compromised by FIFA's drive to have more teams from countries outside of Europe and South America.
Click to expand...
... at the expense of European teams. I know the South American nations are fairly strong, but they lost no places. Almost half of them qualify, which virtually guarantees the likes of Brazil & Argentina a place at the finals.
 
Blue114 said:
Always remember the World Cups from the mid 70s onwards, euros from 88 … definitely the World Cup for me … I’m in my 50s , probably an age thing
Click to expand...
Slightly older at 60 and the first World Cup I recall watching is 1970. Enjoyed them all through the 70's and 80's but the last one I truly enjoyed was Italy 1990. Since then have always preferred the Euros.
 
Fair point OP, what football fan is interested in watching the likes of Messi, Maradona, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Suarez, Roberto Carlos, Riquelme, Etoo, Drogba, Recoba, Neymar, Romario, Bebeto, Batistuta, Aguero and the likes? Absolutely pish, give me more of Lyndon Dykes every day of the week.
 
Each to his own, but the feeling and buzz around the world cup trounces anything from the euros. It’s about the entire experience, staying up to watch games, listening to the crowds, the photo cams of all the hot chicks, global focus, and being able to see countries that whilst maybe not in the eschelon of football rankings, have one of your clubs or favourite players.

Football’s not a game solely for the elite, nor a game to be watched with solely from a dispassionate, technical viewpoint. Fucks sake, we’re in a turgid league but have a global fanbase. Do we all watch and enjoy English football more?
 
one is definitive and the other is subjective .......

for four years you are greatest International footballing country in the World ( which contains the best teams from Europe) , for four years you can say you are greatest International country on a continent, there's no comparison
 
Papasmurf said:
Brazil and Argentina are in the World Cup.
Click to expand...
This for me.
The biggest difference between the two is wondering what kind of team these two have produced since last time.
Will Brazil have a team like the brilliant, yet unsuccessful, 82 or the thugs of 74?
Ditto Argentina.
The awesome sides of 78 or 86?
Or the rubbish that not even Mess can inspire?
 
bar72bear said:
The best tournament would be the top 8 South American teams and the top 16 euro teams
Click to expand...
There have been exceptions though.
Japan and South Korea weren’t a dilution of quality.
Neither we’re Cameroon or Ghana in the tournaments they participated in.
 
I was of the opinion that 24 teams would dilute the quality but I have changed my mind on that. The format has allowed the 3rd game in the group (which in the past was a dead rubber in a lot of cases) still mattering to the teams in it. I think only North Macedonia were totally out before they kicked off their 3rd game. Not gonna go overboard and say it is the best Euro's ever but I have enjoyed these groups more than I did Euro 2016.
 
tazzabear said:
The name doesn’t make the football better or more competitive.
Click to expand...

Of course not mate, but that isn't a prerequisite for a competition where the best from all corners of the globe compete against each other (I understand that 'best' is very subjective and standards vary).
 
I actually feel this Euros hasn't been as good.

It's lost a lot by 2 things imo. Covid restricted attendances, and the fact it's been spread over many countries.

There's something about all the teams descending on one nation to battle it out. The fans, the atmosphere... It just hasn't been the same.

There's not been as many moments that's blown me away. The best day by far was last day of group F. All 4 teams having a chance of going though. Great day of football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top