Better judge of international soccer: World Cup or Olympics?

[Hitman21ST]

With the Olympics starting up, international soccer is being played again. With both the Olympics and the World Cup being played every four years, the argument can't be made that one is better because it's played more often.

For the question, you can use any criteria you want: level of play, length of competition, whatever you want.

The reason I'm asking is that there's a lot of emphasis that is put on the World Cup, but you don't really hear much about the last Olympic gold medalists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For me, it's the World Cup (kind of anti-climactic, huh? :ols:) I just think the level of play is a little higher, and the World Cup has the round-robin round prior to the elimination round, so each team has to play a greater number of games to get to the finals.

[Warhead36]

Aren't only players under the age of 23 allowed in the Olympics? I don't think Olympic soccer has anywhere near the level of prestige that the World Cup does.

[Hitman21ST]

Aren't only players under the age of 23 allowed in the Olympics? I don't think Olympic soccer has anywhere near the level of prestige that the World Cup does.

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure there have been players over 23 years old in the Olympics. Don't quote me on that though.

[Predicto]

World Cup. Without a doubt.

[Sticksboi05]

Olympic soccer is irrelevant. All eyes are on 2014 Brazil.

[herrmag]

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure there have been players over 23 years old in the Olympics. Don't quote me on that though.

You can have 3 players over 23 on the squad. Everyone else must be 23 or under. Kind of a dumb rule, and not sure I understand the logic. If you want to showcase young talent, then go all out. Don't half ass it.


And WC is obviously leaps and bounds a better judge.

EDIT: Or, maybe it's you can have 3 players 23 and older, and everyone else must be under 23. I'm seeing conflicting results from different articles.

[Warhead36]

You can have 3 players over 23 on the squad. Everyone else must be 23 or under. Kind of a dumb rule, and not sure I understand the logic. If you want to showcase young talent, then go all out. Don't half ass it.


And WC is obviously leaps and bounds a better judge.

Yeah that's it. It is a silly rule. Even if it didn't exist though, how many big time pros would play? Their domestic seasons start in August and the top European players just played in Euro.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

World Cup. No debate.

The Olympics is nothing more than a glorified mini youth WC (Under-23, with a maximum 3 over age players.). Many Country's don't take it seriously. The British Nations never have a team as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own separate associations, and ergo the all important singular vote for each on the FIFA council. If they entered under a British banner (special dispensation this time around for that due to London hosting the games); then the chances are UEFA and FIFA would say 'screw your separate independence, you can now enter everything as GB.'

H21ST, you watched the best National tournament this summer with the European Championships, which nine times out of ten is a far higher standard than a WC due to it being only 16 teams. And as such far harder to win than a World Championships, with all Europes top Nations there 9 times out of 10. (Although that dick Platini has ruined that by going down the money route and expanding it to 24 next time out. It'll become as sanitized as a WC, but I digress ..... )

And if you want to see the best depth of quality across the board, you don't have to wait every 4 years man. You've got the European Champions League every year, which is full of all the Worlds best players, and beats a WC tournament hands down for quality and excitement.

Hail.

[ixcuincle]

World Cup AINEC

[Buford]

You can have 3 players over 23 on the squad. Everyone else must be 23 or under. Kind of a dumb rule, and not sure I understand the logic. If you want to showcase young talent, then go all out. Don't half ass it.


And WC is obviously leaps and bounds a better judge.

EDIT: Or, maybe it's you can have 3 players 23 and older, and everyone else must be under 23. I'm seeing conflicting results from different articles.

correct. only 3 over 23. The rest at or under I guess. This is easy. WC for Mens and Olympics for Womens.

/Thread

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

um, the World Cup.

[Spaceman Spiff]

My uneducated response is World Cup.

I'd probably even put the Euro Cup ahead of the Olympics. It's not completely international as it leaves out several countries, but it's a giant deal for the Europeans and the countries involved.

[Hitman21ST]

World Cup. No debate.

The Olympics is nothing more than a glorified mini youth WC (Under-23, with a maximum 3 over age players.). Many Country's don't take it seriously. The British Nations never have a team as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own separate associations, and ergo the all important singular vote for each on the FIFA council. If they entered under a British banner (special dispensation this time around for that due to London hosting the games); then the chances are UEFA and FIFA would say 'screw your separate independence, you can now enter everything as GB.'

H21ST, you watched the best National tournament this summer with the European Championships, which nine times out of ten is a far higher standard than a WC due to it being only 16 teams. And as such far harder to win than a World Championships, with all Europes top Nations there 9 times out of 10. (Although that dick Platini has ruined that by going down the money route and expanding it to 24 next time out. It'll become as sanitized as a WC, but I digress ..... )

And if you want to see the best depth of quality across the board, you don't have to wait every 4 years man. You've got the European Champions League every year, which is full of all the Worlds best players, and beats a WC tournament hands down for quality and excitement.

Hail.

Thanks GHH, I knew I could count on you to set me straight re: soccer ;) :ols:

I wonder how the 24 countries will work in the Euro Championships. I guess 8 groups of 3?

I honestly didn't know about the "under 23" requirement. Had I known about that, I wouldn't have even started this thread. But that's a yank for ya :pfft:

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

.... I wonder how the 24 countries will work in the Euro Championships. I guess 8 groups of 3? .....

6 groups of 4 I'd imagine with the top two in each progressing to a round of 16, then quarter finals and so on.

It'll become sanitized with a whole bunch of mediocre dross like the World Championships, which is just ridiculous at 32 teams now ..... hardly worth watching until the last 16/ 8 on. I used to love it when it was 8 teams in the European Nations (up until 1992), with the top 2 in both groups progressing straight to a semi. You'd invariably get the 8 strongest European Nations, with EVERY group game having something on it and a real high overall standard of soccer.

But more games equal more money. And the mighty dollar rules all. What's nauseating is when the try pass it off under the B/S pretence of expanding the game and giving smaller Countries a chance. At least be honest that your a set of greedy ******* and stop insulting our intelligence.

Hail.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

The Olympics is nothing more than a glorified mini youth WC (Under-23, with a maximum 3 over age players.). Many Country's don't take it seriously. The British Nations never have a team as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own separate associations, and ergo the all important singular vote for each on the FIFA council. If they entered under a British banner (special dispensation this time around for that due to London hosting the games); then they are paranoids that UEFA and FIFA would say 'screw your separate independence, you can now enter everything as GB.'.
agreed with everything, but had to fix that for you. UEFA and FIFA have constantly said no chance they would be united but the English, Welsh, Northern Ireland, and Scotland press kept beating that drum.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

agreed with everything, but had to fix that for you. UEFA and FIFA have constantly said no chance they would be united but the English, Welsh, Northern Ireland, and Scotland press kept beating that drum.

True, but then UEFA and FIFA say one thing and do the exact opposite so often it's hard to know which end the sounds coming out of at times.

I understand why the British Nations are scared to enter the OIympics under the GB banner. They don't want to open themselves up to the chance of having the powers that be; or other meddling Countries that have bemoaned 4 of the very few FIFA votes belonging to one small Island for long enough now; jumping in and asking questions.

Like most things at the highest reaches, **** get's all political. I was actually surprised they've entered the soccer as GB this time out. (First time in 52 years that's happened.). And they only agreed after getting assurances it wouldn't effect them individually on the International stage. Paranoia's not the word. But with some justification.

And even within that, the Scots and Irish weren't interested in having their players involved. So it's just an English and Welsh team. More B/S politics.

Hail.

[renaissance]

Aren't only players under the age of 23 allowed in the Olympics? I don't think Olympic soccer has anywhere near the level of prestige that the World Cup does.

This.

Olympic teams can only have 3 senior players.

Not even a question.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

True, but then UEFA and FIFA say one thing and do the exact opposite so often it's hard to know which end the sounds coming out of at times.

I understand why the British Nations are scared to enter the OIympics under the GB banner. They don't want to open themselves up to the chance of having the powers that be; or other meddling Countries that have bemoaned 4 of the very few FIFA votes belonging to one small Island for long enough now; jumping in and asking questions.

Like most things at the highest reaches, **** get's all political. I was actually surprised they've entered the soccer as GB this time out. (First time in 52 years that's happened.). And they only agreed after getting assurances it wouldn't effect them individually on the International stage. Paranoia's not the word. But with some justification.

And even within that, the Scots and Irish weren't interested in having their players involved. So it's just an English and Welsh team. More B/S politics.

Hail.
those nations all need to get over themselves. Its paranoia to me because there has been no suggestion that UEFA or FIFA would do this or even thought about this. Its something seemed to have formulated out of thin air.

all of those nations have their own established histories and legacies. I feel like it only became a story to fill lines in the rags.

[Hitman21ST]

6 groups of 4 I'd imagine with the top two in each progressing to a round of 16, then quarter finals and so on.

It'll become sanitized with a whole bunch of mediocre dross like the World Championships, which is just ridiculous at 32 teams now ..... hardly worth watching until the last 16/ 8 on. I used to love it when it was 8 teams in the European Nations (up until 1992), with the top 2 in both groups progressing straight to a semi. You'd invariably get the 8 strongest European Nations, with EVERY group game having something on it and a real high overall standard of soccer.

But more games equal more money. And the mighty dollar rules all. What's nauseating is when the try pass it off under the B/S pretence of expanding the game and giving smaller Countries a chance. At least be honest that your a set of greedy ******* and stop insulting our intelligence.

Hail.

Wouldn't top two from six groups be only 12 teams? That's why I said 8 groups of three with top 2 progressing, that way there are 16.

[DCranon21]

World Cup and it's not even close.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Wouldn't top two from six groups be only 12 teams? That's why I said 8 groups of three with top 2 progressing, that way there are 16.

:doh: ..... Uhmmmm ..... :idea:

Top 2 and the four best third placed teams. :cool:

That's what I was thinking. I'm not Math challenged. Honest. :whew:

Hail.

[Hitman21ST]

:doh: ..... Uhmmmm ..... :idea:

Top 2 and the four best third placed teams. :cool:

That's what I was thinking. I'm not Math challenged. Honest. :whew:

Hail.

Ah, ok. That makes sense, I guess. If you're baseball or football getting in on a Wild Card.

That was one thing I liked about soccer though. No "Wild Cards", just the top teams from each group. Now they're going and ruining it :mad:

Oh well, we'll see how it works.

[Corcaigh]

They have soccer at the Olympics?

:)

The world Cup is the most important sporting event on the planet. In any sport.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Ah, ok. That makes sense, I guess. If you're baseball or football getting in on a Wild Card.

That was one thing I liked about soccer though. No "Wild Cards", just the top teams from each group. Now they're going and ruining it :mad:

Oh well, we'll see how it works.

FIFA tried two different ways when they expanded the World Cup to 24 teams.

My all time favorite finals, Mexico in 1986, they had what I suggested. (6 groups of 4, with the top two and 4 best 3rd place teams progressing to a round of 16, and so on) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FIFA_World_Cup

They kept the same format in Italy in 1990 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_FIFA_World_Cup ); before the expansion to 32 Nations in the US in '94.

The previous tournament to both, also a memorable one in Spain in '82, they had the 6 groups of four, but with only the top 2 in each (12 Countries) progressing to form a second round of groups of three teams each, with the winners progressing to the semi-finals : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FIFA_World_Cup

So the blueprints there. But then after more Platini meddling in using the ridiculous UEFA co-efficient system as tie-breakers for the past European Championship groups, who knows what they'll come up with. With his latest dumbass idea to have a 24 team European Championship based over a multitude of Country's and 12 or 13 City's; heck knows what the future holds.

Hail.

[Elessar78]

those nations all need to get over themselves. Its paranoia to me because there has been no suggestion that UEFA or FIFA would do this or even thought about this. Its something seemed to have formulated out of thin air.

all of those nations have their own established histories and legacies. I feel like it only became a story to fill lines in the rags.

It establishes precedent for teams unifying (which has already happened Serbia Montenegro in 2006) and for others to split-off. A Catalan National team, anyone? Xavi, Iniesta, Cesc, Puyol, Pique, Busquets, Valdes? Naturalize a couple Brazilians and you're good to go.

[MLSKINS]

I have never seen a poll so lopsided :ols:

Yeah, even I know that nobody cares about Olympic soccer. For goodness sake, they put the women's soccer matches on before the opening ceremonies. That should tell you something.

[renaissance]

I have never seen a poll so lopsided :ols:

Yeah, even I know that nobody cares about Olympic soccer. For goodness sake, they put the women's soccer matches on before the opening ceremonies. That should tell you something.

He admitted the poll was ill-informed. Haha.

And they play before the opening ceremonies because there are so many games. The women's tourney finishes Aug 9, and the men's tourney finishes Aug 11. The games close on Aug 12.

[ixcuincle]

You watch US Olympic Women's Soccer because of Alex Morgan :)

Don't care about other

[grhqofb5]

Never been a huge fan of soccer, but the one thing I've always appreciated is how these guys play for free, mostly for the love of the game. Sure, there's some stardom/fame involved, but its not like these guys are getting paid or anything.

[renaissance]

Never been a huge fan of soccer, but the one thing I've always appreciated is how these guys play for free, mostly for the love of the game. Sure, there's some stardom/fame involved, but its not like these guys are getting paid or anything.

For the male soccer players at least, there is reward beyond the obvious representing your country. The olympics gives them international exposure which can lead to trials with better club teams, and with the senior national team. So while it is for free, there is more than just olympic glory at stake :)

[MLSKINS]

You watch US Olympic Women's Soccer because of Alex Morgan :)

Don't care about other
Not even Alex Morgan is enough for me to watch a game of Olympic Women's Soccer.

Of course there would be at least one person to go against the grain. :ols:

[grhqofb5]

For the male soccer players at least, there is reward beyond the obvious representing your country. The olympics gives them international exposure which can lead to trials with better club teams, and with the senior national team. So while it is for free, there is more than just olympic glory at stake :)

Yea, but those clubs don't actually pay them, do they?

[MisterPinstripe]

I want to know who voted for the Olympics. Bah.

[renaissance]

Yea, but those clubs don't actually pay them, do they?

not sure if serious...

[grhqofb5]

not sure if serious...

Ok, you got me. I like soccer.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure there have been players over 23 years old in the Olympics. Don't quote me on that though.
Was talking with my friends from Guatemala today, Olympic soccer is 23 years and under hence no Ronaldo or Messi.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Was talking with my friends from Guatemala today, Olympic soccer is 23 years and under hence no Ronaldo or Messi.

Portugal, and more surprisingly Argentina, never qualified. So it was never an issue.

But I get the general point your saying.

Hail.

[Elessar78]

I want to know who voted for the Olympics. Bah.

I did. Olympics needed some love.