don't matter it's all for fun...no one would've picked Italy and Netherlands to miss the WC altogether or Germany to lose to S Korea!...
Well ....... "Tiny", you say? Brussels has the whole of Europe in a choke-hold as we speak. Size has nothing to do with it.
absolutely it does, size matters!...assuming an equality of training expertise (which excludes population giants china and India)the smaller the country with a smaller talent pool to choose from are at a disadvantage vs the large countries that have more depth on the bench(you're only as good as your weakest player)...a successful team requires a few exceptional players to lead them and a solid supporting cast, while countries like Brazil, Germany, or Spain will always have a few great players, nations with smaller populations like the Netherlands will not have a steady supply of exceptional players to make a difference...there are anomalies like Greece that have employed a successful game plan that worked for one competition but those are exceptions and not the norm...after Ronaldo retires Portugal becomes just a good team not a WC title contender...Uruguay are only contenders now because they have a solid core with a few exceptional players who can be considered game changers, Belgium is also in this situation...there's a reason why the WC has only been won by 8(7 large populations) countries, the small outlier Uruguay won it in the early days of the WC when not every country competed...
yeah and Nigeria did have the opportunities to put Argentina away for good...I think there's a closing of the gap for many smaller countries, better training methods and organization is bringing up the standard of play in those countries so they're no longer the the guaranteed win they used to be for the established elite nations.
I don't follow? Zlatan is done, past his due date...Sweden is a solid team but would be better with him Zlatan in his prime... now they don't have an exceptional player that can take them to a championship...that's just my opinion...
tiny? does size matter?? I have always found it interesting that a small country like New Zealand can produce enough athletes to defeat Australia, England, and South Africa in rugby while at the same time it can defeat them along with India & Pakistan in cricket. Kiwi athletes are generally quite big & strong and highly skillful as well. True, that good coaching and access to facilities greatly improve athletes and the chance of their successes on the playing field. But I believe it boils down to quality, size, and strength of athletes as the biggest factor in a team's success. We baseball folks have an old adage that you probably never heard before which is, you can't make chicken soup with chicken feathers. Thus, to us it is our recognition that winning players make winning teams. As we also say, good players make coaches into geniuses. And that, to me, explains why small countries like Belgium, New Zealand, Ireland, and Serbia enjoy so much international success in so many sports.
The point is, a nation large or small the Lord God made them all. (Sorry, couldn't resist quoting Alexander). Zlatan has played for several nations, some larger than others. He is still from "little" Sweden and has played for large countries but he could just as well have come from a large country and played for smaller ones. Size doesn't matter. A good opinion thinks I.
That's my point. Size of a country does not matter. You need to read my previous response. Me personally .... I calls 'em as I sees 'em ... but you've probably never heard that one before.
but you need to take into consider how many countries play at the highest levels of a sport and the cultural importance they put on that sport...Rugby is only played by a handful of countries at a high level, and in those countries it's also a culturally important sport...if the USA switched it's cultural preference from NFL to rugby they'd be the dominant nation assuming equivalent technical expertise, population/talent pool is a winning combination...just as the USA dominates Baseball and Basketball, it's hard for smaller nations to match the enormous depth of talent the USA has ...Canada does the same in Ice Hockey, dominant but then not many countries play the game or place as much cultural importance on it...Cricket? the power is India, culturally important and massive population is a hard combination to beat...China dominates Table Tennis for the same reasons...the rest of the world should be pleased China and India haven't taken to Soccer like they do Cricket and Table Tennis...
there's a oft used saying in soccer "Golden generation"...basically it's what's required for a small nation to excel in soccer...a core of technically solid players led by two or three exceptional players in their prime years in the same time period...that's what Belgium has now and they didn't before, one WC from now that could all be gone and they could struggle struggle to just qualify for the tournament... Netherlands is a perfect example of being being between generations, at the moment it has a couple aging stars and many youngsters, no exceptional dominant players in the prime 26-31 year age range, a traditional top ten power that didn't even qualify for WC...
Cuba is very small but routinely defeats the USA in baseball. In the Pan American games, tiny Puerto Rico has defeated many countries in a wide variety of sports despite its small size and lack of resources as compared to the others. Again, the quality of athletes produced by those countries is often the key factor as to those successes.
Cuba has never played and defeated the USA's best MLB talent...a small country occasionally winning one in ten match ups with larger nations doesn't mean it's on par with that bigger nation...S Korea defeated Germany doesn't indicate that they're better or on par, that's a one match in a hundred occurrence...Canada played Brazil to a draw once, Canada is no where near Brazil's quality, Brazil could send it's third best squad and still beat Canada 19 out 20 matches...
Belgium vs England is a sleeper the fans are vocally displeased, neither side wants to win the match, trying to avoid tough competition in the next round...the winner goes to the tough side of the knockout stage, loser has the easier route....
I'm game. This England and Belgium game is turning out to be a real dud - I wasn't expecting 0-0 at the half... EDIT: No sooner do I start complaining Belgium scores.
