Brazil best in the world and has been forever. Their style of play is superior to Europe.
-
bird bird da bird's da wordComment -
Brazil has the advantage that the World Cup is played in the summer. When it's really hot, they don't mind, but a lot of Euro teams struggle. Play the tournament in the cold winter, and Brazil won't be nearly as successful over the long run.Comment -
[quote=Dark Horse;1961868]Brazil has the advantage that the World Cup is played in the summer. When it's really hot, they don't mind, but a lot of Euro teams struggle. Play the tournament in the cold winter, and Brazil won't be nearly as successful over the long run.[/quote]
- should they play it in anatarctica. That is one of the dumbest quotes i have ever heard from a guy that has as many posts as you. I have watched 9 world cups.
Comment -
Using the weather as factor in handicapping must be new to you.Originally posted by lakerboy- should they play it in anatarctica. That is one of the dumbest quotes i have ever heard from a guy that has as many posts as you. I have watched 9 world cups.
Nine world cups, and still just a boy? Oh well.Comment -
I won't try having an intelligent conversation with lakerboy, but anybody else interested in the weather, which can greatly impact soccer, may recognize why Brazil - apart from one very early victory in 1958 when the tournament had only a few participants -, hasn't won one World Cup in Europe. The simplest explanation is that European teams can handle European summers, but not excessive heat.
In spite of being the clear favorite in 1982 in Spain, Brazil hadn't won a World Cup since 1970, with Pele, until a very hot World Cup in 1994, in the US. I remember the Dutch team in a game with temperatures around 110 degrees. Not only is it impossible to run for 90 minutes, but dehydration is a serious risk, and recuperating after the game takes much longer.
Some here may remember a game played by Argentina at the last Olympics. The players could hardly run at all. They simply walked for most of the game. Heat.Comment -
Weather is irrelevant on Brazil's inability to win in Europe. 1982 was in Spain and 1990 was in Italy. Everyone knows that the summer heat is as bad in these two countries as everywhere else. Brazil didn't have a good team in these WC's and that's why they lost...not because of the weather.Comment -
Originally posted by reno cool
i highly doubt that their play is superior to European teams lolComment -
It is widely accepted that Brazil had the best team in 1982. Remember Socrates?! Italy as winner was a complete surprise. I was in Spain in 1982 and can assure you that it wasn't nearly as hot as in the US in 1994. In addition, many of the games in Spain were played at night, precisely to avoid the worst heat.Originally posted by pavyracer
TV scheduling has a lot to do with the timing of games. Europe has the biggest market, and they don't necessarily want to watch live games, from the other side of the world, at 2 AM in the morning.Comment -
Weather has an impact and different places have different kinds of heat in summer. Like in the Korea-Japan world cup the humidity was ridiculous. Brazil doesn't really have too much an advantage over say Spain or Italy who can have very hot summers but it can have an effect against the northern European teams or Russia.
These reasons arn't enough alone for a team winning or loosing, any team that blames the weather will not have their complaints taken seriously however, it can be one of the reasons for them loosing.
The best place to cap games based on climate is teams who play in the mountains, Ecuador and Bolivia have great home records, they've beat everybody in their stadiums above the clouds, recently Argentina got embarrassed 6-1 by Bolivia and was beaten easily by Ecuador. Argentina could barely move by the 60th minute, they were finished. Unless you've grown up with it, its hard for anybody to play a 90 minute match 2000 metres above sea level.
Then there are teams who know how to play on snow or in heavy rain. Dark Horse's point about using the weather and climate to cap games is an important one.Comment -
Brazil vs. Italy!!! intense!!!!Comment -
Italy is old and slow...........Comment -
Thanks for the input Karayilan9.
Just for the hell of it, here's a breakdown of the latitude for the city of the final for each World Cup since 1962 (Personally, I would use 1966 as, roughly, the start of 'modern soccer').
1962 - Santiago - 33S27 (winner: Brazil)
1966 - London - 51N30 (winner: England)
1970 - Mexico City - 19N24 (winner: Brazil)
1974 - Munich - 48N08 (winner: West Germany)
1978 - Buenos Aires - 34N36 (winner: Argentina)
1982 - Madrid - 40N24 (winner: Italy)
1986 - Mexico City - 19N24 (winner: Argentina)
1990 - Rome - 41N54 (winner: West Germany)
1994 - Los Angeles - 34N03 (winner: Brazil)
1998 - Paris - 48N52 (winner: France)
2002 - Yokohama - 35N27 (winner: Brazil)
2006 - Berlin - 52N30 (winner: Italy)
Summer heat didn't apply in 1962, because it was winter in Chili. Nevertheless, the four world cups won by Brazil in this time span are all within 35 degrees of the equator! Beyond that, they are 0-6 for the tournament.
Weather not a factor?
--------------
-------------
----------------------------------------------Comment -
I think you are confusing weather with longitude i.e time difference and home court advantage.Comment -
I saw Romania play in the World Cup in 94' in LA. I recall it being one of the hottest, most miserable days I have ever experienced.Comment -
Whoa. Stubborn.Originally posted by pavyracer
Closer to equator is hotter. You know that, right? As to your earlier argument, consider Rome and Madrid...Comment -
So many European teams were suffering from the heat during that World Cup. In Florida, Texas, etc. Meanwhile, Brazil had one of the best climates during its group stages, in northern California. They were nice and relaxed, enjoying themselves between games, while European teams were just trying to get replenished.Originally posted by blittydeuce
Teams were complaining left, right, and center that games couldn't be played later in the day. But European television prevailed...
I would suggest that playfulness with the ball is easier maintained in the heat than discipline and structure. And that this is why the heat favors Brazil.Comment -
There is such a thing as homefield advantage, France won in France, Germany won at home too. The cup is only played every 4 years. And just because the best team overall (Brazil) didn't happen to win in Europe yet, doesn't mean they can't or that it's due to the weather. As per your example, they're 0 for 6. Considering a world cup fav is only about 5-1 that's not exactly a surprisingly bad record.
Of course, I'm not saying your theory is wrong, just that Brazil's record in Europe hardly proves anything.bird bird da bird's da wordComment -
The longstanding familiar theory is that Brazil can't win in Europe and European teams can't win outside of Europe. But I thought there had to be more to it, because that seemed too simple. The weather angle made more sense to me.
Yes, home teams have a big advantage. I've long felt that home teams that reach the final should play two games, instead of one. One home game for both finalists.Comment
