From: car@public.BTR.COM (Carlos Rimola-Sarti  car@btr.com)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer
Subject: Re: FIFA propoesed changes to (OCEANIA) Southern America
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:36:40 GMT
Organization: Connective Strategies, Inc. (CSI).  Mountain View, California

In article <1992Aug24.081433.23519@fuw.edu.pl> michals@fuw.edu.pl (Michal Szleper) writes:
>In article <7773@public.BTR.COM> car@public.BTR.COM (Carlos Rimola-Sarti  car@btr.com) writes:
>>Well, I do try to keep the tone down and try to keep the postings at the
>>discussion level and not the argument level.  However, there are certain
>>statements like yours that are simply incorrect.
>
>Can you pick up just one of them, please?
>Or is it a bluff, like all you've said so far?

I will but first let's get something clear.  As of now, I have not 
advanced an opinion as to how many places South-America or Europe should
have in world cup competition.  My objection was to your (and I quote
myself "simply incorrect statement") that Brasil and Argentina were
the only countries that matter in South-America.  Your original statement
was actually more extreme as I recall.

I later posted a reply to Radu Tomescu, who appears to share your views,
in which I re-emphasized my point and named ways in which Uruguay and
other South-American nations have shown that their level of play has
matched or surpassed Argentina and Brasil.  I am sure you read this so
please don't play dumb and pretend that I am "bluffing" and not giving
you specifics.  I am sure the article is still around buf if you can not
find it I will be happy to mail it to you.  BTW, in that article I 
incorrectly stated that Uruguay last won the Copa America in 1985 when
it really was in 1987 and came in 2nd place in 1989.

>
>>                                                  I think that 
>>your assertion that Uruguay and other South-American countries have not
>>amounted to much in world cups and other international competitions
>>have been clearly refuted by more than a handful of people on both
>>sides of the ocean.  However, you still appear inclined to believe that
>>only two countries in SA could play a significant role in a world cup.
>>I don't think anything I can say factual or opinion based would change
>>your mind at this point.  
>
>From the historical point of view you're perfectly right that Uruguay
>has played a crucial role. But what I'm talking about is not history
>of soccer, by the status for today. You can only change my mind by
>showing facts, and these you lack. The facts are, that within the
>last 3 World Cups (1982, 1986, 1990) neither of South American 
>teams (except for Brazil and Argentina) has ever won any single
>match with any european team! Neither has Uruguay, Peru,
>Chile, Colombia, nor Paraguay.
>

Let me give you a little tidbit here, why go back all the way to 1982.
That's tooo far away by your standards, no?  So, if we look at only
1986 and 1990, where does Poland fall?  Well, in 1986, according to
my sources it finishes #14 right behind Paraguay and just two places
above the Uruguay.  1990?  Not much to talk about!

Now look, I don't bring out this example because I think that Poland's
soccer is degrading, I don't know this and frankly I don't care but my
point here is that one can chose as narrow a set of statistics as one
needs to make a case.  This is what appears to me you are doing when
you only want to include world cups and at that only the last 3.

However, if as you wish, we only look at these last 3 cups then we
will see that in 1982 the two other South-American teams, Peru and
Chile did poorly but in 1986 Paraguay finished #13 ahead of the following
European teams in the general standings:

	Poland
	Bulgaria
	Portugal
	Hungary
	Scotland
	Northern Ireland

Uruguay finished #16 ahead of Portugal and bellow.  Note that some of these
teams may have actually tied for points and I will gladly be corrected
on that.

In 1990, Colombia and Uruguay finished ahead of at least:

	Austria
	USSR
	Sweden
	Scotland

And tied others.  Personally, I don't think this proves anything.  It's
just another narrow set of statistics.  The type that you seem fond of.

Incidentally, my personal opinion is that South-America's 3 spots with
the chance to fight a 4th is fair.  Europe's 13 I think is a bit high
and I suspect that as Africa and other continents continue to improve
it will be Europe who will have to give up additional spots.  Either
that, or we will have to go to a cross-continent set of ellimination
games.  I think that would be fair and should please all of those who
are confident in their teams.

>>And by the way.   Yes, I do have a couple of good references on soccer 
>>and its history.  Only, I don't need to check them before beting :-) 
> 
>Maybe you should. Check what I just wrote in the previous paragraph.  
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>My opinions are my opinions. Quite predictable.  
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
indeed!

>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Michal~ Szleper                          "All you need is love, love,
>(michals@fuw.edu.pl)                      Love is all you need..."


+---------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Carlos Rimola-Sarti                   |         email: rimola@csisdn.com  |
| Connective Strategies Inc.            |                      car@btr.com  |
| ISDN PRI Connectivity Group           |         phone:      415-903-2585  |
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| "Al compas del cha-cha-cha, del cha-cha-cha del tren..."                  |
+---------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer