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

Nah, part of the entertainment value of the World Cup is some shitey team like Saudi Arabia getting cuffed 8-0 by a middle of the road European team, or the tears and snotters when some 'pish' country never heard of causes an upset (nae lady's front bottom had ever heard of Costa Rica at the time).
 
The World Cup has a greater sense of occasion and carnival atmosphere but poorer teams on average. However I think it’s down to individual tournaments to judge what is best. For example I thought the World Cup in Brazil was outstanding and others have been not so good.
 
World Cup is better. There are quite a few European nations that are very clever about what friendly games they play and how many just to score extra points to make their qualification group easier.

Every country deserves the chance to make regardless of size for example Iceland only has a population of around 300000 people but for the past few years have been a damn sight more entertaining than Scotland.

Far too many European nations in the World Cup for me from that list you provided there are 12. The next continent has 5
 
BrooklynBlue said:
From 2026, the WC expands to 48 teams. It’ll be a test of endurance to get through such a long tournament.
Click to expand...
Didn't know about this until now. They're going to do 16 groups of 3 teams in the group stage, 2 qualify to make last 32. Possibly with no draws allowed. Sounds like overkill.

I've enjoyed the return of a 24 team tournament, the way the World Cup used to be, and the revival of third placed qualification. It keeps the groups interesting right up to the last round of games, which is often lacking in the 16 and 32 team tournaments. Was thinking it would be great to bring that back in the WC, either by returning to 24 or expanding to 48 (12 groups of 4, top 2 and 8 third placed qualifiers). But 48 for the World Cup starts to seem unwieldy, especially if the format they've chosen means only playing two group games.
 
MrBearightside said:
Here is a reminder of the World Cup teams of 2018




The fact that Panama were there and Italy were not there makes it laughable

Yes I get its the 'best nations from each continent' and Italy should have qualified like Panama did, I don't care.

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)


However if they had a new way of picking teams for the world Cup and said "top 24 nations will be selected for the world Cup" then that would be better than the Euros

Anyone want to change my mind?



Only 8 out of the top 24 nations are non European
Click to expand...
Honestly bud,
Most of us have known this for decades now.
 
So we deny the Panama fans the right to go over the top with excitement about their teams participation in the World Cup (similar to what we have just witnessed with Scotland at the Euros) because they are not as good as Italy.Not sure that is in the spirit of the World Cup.

For me ,the early stages of the World Cup are more about the spectacle,occasion and the entertainment value of watching the smaller nations trying to create a shock rather than the quality of football ,the business end comes later.

Euro 2020 has been great so far with 24 teams so no reason to think the 48 team World Cup won’t work well including giving Scotland the chance to qualify.
 
This euros has actually reminded me of an old school World Cup, I’ve felt very nostalgic about that, I was watching the other day and thinking I wish the like of Brazil, Argentina, Columbia we’re playing. It’s made me miss the way the World Cup used to be. I’ve enjoyed the games being spread out over Different countries. It’s been a good tournament
I also think the 3rd place think is excellent, adds more excitement to the last round of group fixtures. The games last night were brilliant drama.
 
As a pure sporting contest, then I agree. The Euros is a far more tense tournament. As a spectacle though, the World Cup is better by almost every other metric.

The World Cup feels like a proper festival of football. The Euros is a bit like when a bunch of similar big name acts come together and do a run of stadium tours together. Good fun and still exciting but lacks that diversity. Doesn't have that element of randomness either.
 
Pretty much every big European team makes the World Cup anyway, don't get the harder to win argument, if they were any good you'd have to beat them anyway. There is still that element of surprise with some central American, Asian and African teams.

South American and Mexican fans are also brilliant at it, love hearing a different style of crowd. Love the fact it's in countries outside Europe with random times, except Qatar obviously. Still something exotic about watching Brazil/Argentina/Uruguay/Colombia/Chile at the World Cup!

It's my dream to go to one, thinking USA and Mexico as I'll be 40 that year!
 
If purely having the highest quality automatically equates to a better product, then the Euro Super League should have been attractive to everyone. It wasn't. The Champions League should be the highest quality of football, yet the games are dull and we see a lot of repeating matchups.

The game is about the unexpected, stories, a bit of romance, and the occasion that surrounds it. The World Cup has all of that. There are too many to mention but the shock results are immortal memories - but just thinking back to the last one where South Korea beat Germany, or further back when Senegal beat reigning champs and (former colonial masters) France. Dare I say Ireland over Italy in NY too... Unfortunately in Scotland our best result came in 78 after 2 disasters, maybe we don't get to see that for ourselves.
 
I always preferred the Euros when it was only 16 teams.

There are only really a handful of sides outside of the European nations that I enjoy watching.

I never knew they were extending the WC to 48 teams. Ludicrous.
 
I actually think the euros expanding has been decent, has there been any dead rubber 3rd games this time around?
 
World cup is the biggest achievement in football and personally for me the one I look forward to most.
 
There is so much football on tap from all over the world now, WC and the Euros are losing their appeal IMO.
 
Papasmurf said:
Their are two euros that stick in my mind. One won by Greece and the other by Denmark. The danish one top of the list even though I was young. I still remember the Tomas brolin celebration. I was 11
Click to expand...

You don’t remember who he played for though, Brolin is Swedish ;)

I do know the celebration you mean however.
 
Papasmurf said:
Agree 100%

scotland fans go ok about how much of an achievement it was to get there. Was it? Really?
Click to expand...

It wasn’t. Euro 92 we’re one of only 7 teams to qualify (Sweden there as hosts), for this one we sneak in the back door and are candidates for the worst team in the tournament.
 
MrBearightside said:
Here is a reminder of the World Cup teams of 2018




The fact that Panama were there and Italy were not there makes it laughable

Yes I get its the 'best nations from each continent' and Italy should have qualified like Panama did, I don't care.

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)


However if they had a new way of picking teams for the world Cup and said "top 24 nations will be selected for the world Cup" then that would be better than the Euros

Anyone want to change my mind?



Only 8 out of the top 24 nations are non European
Click to expand...
I notice scotland aren't in that top 24...
Don't they know we drew with England?:mad:
 
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...
How can the Euros be harder to win? The top European nations will still be at the World Cup, plus Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, USA, South Korea, Japan and the best African teams of any given time.

4 of the top 11 ranked nations are non-European - surely you acknowledge that adding them makes the latter stages more difficult? You're giving too much credit to the rankings anyway with your 'average ranking' argument. The rankings are generally a load of nonsense.

You've also got third placed teams in groups qualifying for the knock-out rounds at the Euros - that makes it easier. You only have to look at a list of top nations that have fallen at the group stages in recent World Cups to see that they are far more difficult than the Euros, where it is almost impossible for one of the favourites to be eliminated.

You could also factor in that the Euros is European teams playing in Europe, which is nice and comfortable for them. Host a World Cup in a country with extreme heat, time difference, huge travelling between games, playing at high altitude etc and it immediately becomes more difficult to win.

The World Cup is better, more prestigious and harder to win.
 
MrBearightside said:
OK I will try another way

The average ranking nation at the Euros is higher than the world cup

Meaning the quality is higher

Do you understand me so far
Click to expand...
I felt compelled to shoot this point down.

If you look at the last 16 of the 2018 world cup, the average ranking is 11.56.

If you compare it to the rankings of the last 16 teams in the Euros, that average ranking is 13.25.

The last 16 is a good barometer of the quality of the tournament as the charity invites to the tournaments (scotland, north macedonia, qatar etc etc) are all removed and its just the core teams left in it.

It is of course highly possible that the euros could provide a better tournament, but thats just down to the luck of the games. A germany vs italy game could be a cracking game in the euros and a bore fest in the world cup. as an example.
 
Papasmurf said:
I felt compelled to shoot this point down.

If you look at the last 16 of the 2018 world cup, the average ranking is 11.56.

If you compare it to the rankings of the last 16 teams in the Euros, that average ranking is 13.25.

The last 16 is a good barometer of the quality of the tournament as the charity invites to the tournaments (scotland, north macedonia, qatar etc etc) are all removed and its just the core teams left in it.

It is of course highly possible that the euros could provide a better tournament, but thats just down to the luck of the games. A germany vs italy game could be a cracking game in the euros and a bore fest in the world cup. as an example.
Click to expand...

But the competition doesn't start at the last 16

If it did I would agree

Many on here have mentioned the diluting of both the Euros and World Cup with adding extra teams

The teams added at the world Cup (soon to go up to 48) will have many more poorer nations

As a general competition, from opening game to the final, the Euros have better quality than the World Cup across the entire competition.

I agree the World Cup is great (I said so in my opening post) and from the last 16 its stronger than the Euros

But as an entire competition, the Euros have better quality
 
You’re talking about which has the the best teams. This elitist view is the reason modern football is shite.

Imagine someone in England having the same view about the Champions League and saying it’s shite because Rangers qualified.
 
bud_light said:
North Macedonia and Scotland cancel the Panama argument
Click to expand...
bit harsh on North Macedonia, certainly in their first two games with a chance but the better teams overpowered them

scored first on the Dutch but it was disallowed, then the Dutch scored and that was game over. From an article I read with Pandev, it seems most of their FA don't care about football and are only after the money, sounds a bit familiar
 
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.
 
MrBearightside said:
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...

But the Euros have been won by Greece, Denmark etc. - even last torunament's winner Portugal would never have a shot at the WC.

WC always throws up some surprises too - Germany finished bottom of that group with Sweden and Mexico!
 
How are the Euros harder to win?

If you are European it's harder to qualify for the World Cup than the Euros for a start.
 
Papasmurf said:
Wh

why?

I can’t remember the details but we were in some weird lower tier group, and won a couple of games against Israel and Serbia (or something like that) to get to the euros.

scotland benefited from an ever expanding number of teams and flexible way to get in.
Click to expand...
Yes.
that flexibility also applies to the World Cup qualification as well though.
 
unbelievablewalter said:
But the Euros have been won by Greece, Denmark etc. - even last torunament's winner Portugal would never have a shot at the WC.

WC always throws up some surprises too - Germany finished bottom of that group with Sweden and Mexico!
Click to expand...
Picking specific examples doesn't really change anything

I could point out how Germany destroyed Brazil 7-1

As a general competition, the Euros have better games
 
MrBearightside said:
Picking specific examples doesn't really change anything

I could point out how Germany destroyed Brazil 7-1

As a general competition, the Euros have better games
Click to expand...

You can't say it's easier to win the world cup if minnow nations can win the Euros but not the world cup.

There have been only 8 winners of the world cup to 10 different winners of the Euros - despite there being more teams and 6 more tournaments!
 
unbelievablewalter said:
You can't say it's easier to win the world cup if minnow nations can win the Euros but not the world cup.

There have been only 8 winners of the world cup to 10 different winners of the Euros - despite there being more teams and 6 more tournaments!
Click to expand...
And its been 2 decades since a non European nation won the World Cup (Brazil 2002)

The last 5 semis have had 15 European nations and 5 non European nations
 
MrBearightside said:
And its been 2 decades since a non European nation won the World Cup (Brazil 2002)

The last 5 semis have had 15 European nations and 5 non European nations
Click to expand...
4 of top 11 world teams are from out with europe. So the stats on those making to the semi's are what you would expect.

If you extend your fact search back to the last 10 tournaments, then 3 have been non european. Again, in line with the stats of the top nations of the world
 
unbelievablewalter said:
Which sounds about right given there are 14 European nations in the world Cup and 5 South american
Click to expand...
It sounds like we are agreeing here

We agree that Europe has better footballing nations than any other continent

We agree that there are other non-European nations who who better than some European nations

But the world cup has a limited slot allocated to European nations (only 14) which means nations like Italy don't get there but far weaker nations do.

Where is the disagreement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top