I guess we all agree that recent World Cups are more valuable than World Cups in the 1930s. I tried to quantify that effect and claimed that a World Cup loses 10 % of its value every time a new World Cup has been played. For example Uruguay 1930 now counts as 0.9^19=0.14 World Cups. Germany 2014 counts as 0.9^0=1 World Cup. Following this thought I created a adjusted World Cup winners ranking. Obviously the 10 % loss is debatable, I just picked it at random. What do you think of this method?
Brazil: 2.12 adjusted World Cups
Germany: 2.09 adjusted World Cups
Italy: 1.56 adjusted World Cups
Spain: 0.9 adjusted World Cups
Argentina: 0.87 adjusted World Cups
France: 0.66 adjusted World Cups
Uruguay: 0.32 adjusted World Cups
England: 0.28 adjusted World Cups
>>64413915
>Spain over Argentina
Nah, you fucked up
I think that you just wanted to surpass Italy with this
does a second place count as 0.5 world cups?
10% is a dumb arbitrary number. A better way would be by adjusting it for total number of teams who entered to qualify in that year.
Furthermore memes are the better way of quantifying wc winners now, which is why France won 06 and Germany won last year regardless of the final
>>64414078
>A better way would be by adjusting it for total number of teams who entered to qualify in that year.
Most of those teams just clog up the competition, they aren't real contenders.
>>64413915
i understand where you are coming but 10% is kinda dumb.
If 2nd place counts then we are above Uruguay, England and France lel.
It counts.
We are above England, Uruguay and France.
>>64414118
>neverlands
>>64414144
stay butthurt
3x 2nd place during two peaks of football glory > 1x first place in an irrelevant era
>>64414078
>France won 06
>>64414118
>>64414146
>>64414022
deep in your heart you know 10 second places aren't worth 1 world cup.
>>64413915
So when sports are over and and us Americans are asleep. You guys bring your autism to the forefront. I rather have the bro posting
>>64414118
>>64414146
you still won fuck all
>>64414281
we won 2014 and 2010
Majority of both teams were practically hand-picked by Van Gaal in Bayern and Barcelona when they were irrelevant toddlers in the academies.
2010 and 2014 are both Dutch achievements, 1966 is known as... an irrelevant fluke against the legendary team of the era that deserved the cup.
>>64414118
>>64414146
>>64414357
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
I now added 2nd place as 0.5 WCs in the year they were won and 3rd place as 0.25 WCs. In 1930 there was no 3rd place match but wikipedia awards the bronze medal to the USA which is what I did as well. People criticize the 10 %. What would you prefer?
>>64414643
1.Germany 2.84
2.Brazil 2.68
3.Italy 2.14
4.Argentina 1.7
5.France 1.24
6.Netherlands 1.07
7.Hungary 0.93
8.Spain 0.9
9.Uruguay 0.32
10.Sweden 0.31
11.England 0.28
12.Czechoslovakia 0.2
13.Poland 0.19
14.Turkey 0.18
15.Croatia 0.16
16.Portugal 0.07
17.Chile 0.06
18.Austria 0.05
19.USA 0.03
>>64414643
according to your criteria winning a world cup in 1986 is less valuable than being second in 2014.
>this thread
>>64414643
>hungary won 1990
>>64414660
Yeah. 10 % value loss is probably a bit much.
>>64414771
Oops. Germany's lead increases and Hungary and Spain switch places.
>>64414660
A-at least we're both those things
>>64413915
I think that solid 10% increase doesn't really apply...
The main difference, if anything, should be made in terms of those amateurish, pre 70s years (with farmers and teachers going "lol ok, let's play for the NT"... tactical clusterfucks starring -for the laaaargest part- slow, unathletic, unprepared and generally poorly skilled players) vs modern era football
>2nd and 3rd places
>worth this many points
Nah. No trophy, no dice.
2nd should get 0.3, 3rd 0.1.
>>64414822
>argentinian "education"
football is professional since 1938.
Modern football started in 2010.
ITT: Germany obsessively tries to come up with stats to claim they're better than Italy, when they have never defeated them officially in their whole history.
>>64413915
>modern footballs
>>64414822
I don't see the point assigning a value to WC winner. Your premise of "recent World Cups are more valuable than World Cups in the 1930s" is a complete nonsense. Sure, you might not care about the 1930 WC but I'm sure there are other ppl in the world who considered that as an important world cup. What about the 1950 WC where 200,000 spectators in the Maracana were stunned with the final result. How do you even begin to quantify the "value" to such a tournament?
>>64414836
>Give a monkey a computer and this shit happens
Amateurish
Amateur
Read those words a couple dozen times until you see the difference.
Also, if you don't understand the turn football took around the 70s, mainly tactically and phisically, and actually think modern football started in 2010... well, I'm lost for words... how fucking clueless are you
>>64414896 meant for OP
>>64413966
Not him but factually speaking we are already better due to having won more ECs.
>>64414901
>liberos
>zone defense
>4-4-2
>no pressing
>modern football
You're a retard.
>>64414896
Two reasons: quality of play and number of participants. The level of play in 1930 was a lot lower than the level of play in 2014. In 1930 many European teams didn't participate, in 1934 many South American teams didn't participate.
>>64414643
>adding second and third place
Why are you guys insisting on giving points to losers, this thread isn't about how valuable losers are, it's about how valuable old world cup championship victories are vs. modern day wc championships. Including losers gives a false illusion that they actually matter
Wut
>>64413915
Autism
>>64414896
Of course, this whole thing by OP is arbitrary, and no more than a game...
But I think the main point and keyword is: professionalism (and I don't mean "In what year did football became professional", you hue cunt)
To explain it quicker: you can throw in on a pitch today most players from the 70s onwards, and generally they will be able to defend themselves, both phisically and mentally (tactical notions).
You just couldn't do it with players from the 30s, 40s, 50s... it's just a different sport.
>>64413915
>I guess we all agree that recent World Cups are more valuable than World Cups in the 1930s.
No...
>>64413915
Who here /actual autism/
>>64413938
Lpl
>>64414919
Ok..if you want to quantify the "quality of play", you can start with number of professional players who took part in the world cup, as mentioned by one of the person. I'm guessing that this number would plateau around the 1970s.
Personally, that's as high far as you can go when it comes to quantifying the quality of play. New tactics have emerged for sure. But you can't say for certain that tactics deployed by a particular team nowadays can be used to win a 1970s team. Officiating have changed as well.
You can maybe begin to analyze how formations have changed over the world cups and how many different formations were in play during a particular world cup. This might be a better proxy for depth of play. Depth and quality are not the same.
You're missing a bunch of world cups
hopesolosmeatcatchersmitt.jpg
2014, quality wise, was one of the worst world cups.
>>64414910
"Modern" is not an ever-resignified term that will be applied over and over simply to the latest form of football.
It dictates a point in history when it generally consolidated regarding some key aspects; mainly its rules, player preparation, establishment of national and continental associations, leagues, cups...
Of course there has been changes in tactics; and surely systems will keep evolving... I guess in some years you'll say "2010? Lol, modern football started in 2030"
>>64415212
In your utterly mediocre and poor view of football history, there has only been one disruption, or "revolution" if you wish, in football, and it coincidentally happened in 1970.
- The radical changes promoted by Hungarians in 1954 (and imported by Brazil) don't configure a disruption, only progressive change.
- The change of rule that forbid goalkeepers from holding the ball with their hands after any foot pass from his teammaters, created in early 90s, don't cofigure a disruption, only a menial progressive change, despite it laying ground to the transformations we see a decade later related to pressing.
- The fact that all the terms used today of ACTUAL modern football (compactness, high-line defence, false 9s, line marking, "gegenpressing") weren't in use before 2008 don't configure a disruption, only a minor improvement upon previous mutations.
- The fact that all modern football books about tactics and training involve the above concepts, rather than on completely obsolete football from early 2000s, is irrelevant in your ridiculous conception of the sport.
>>64414651
On the board
>>64415707
Thanks for making my point:
Those are all breaking points, isolated revolutionary apparitions that were to be integrated later in some way or another (you forgot to add Cruyff's total football btw); they didn't meant a consolidation of the sport in the slightest.
Anyway
PEOPLE, MODERN FOOTBALL STARTED 5 YEARS AGO
There. I'm out. Cheers!
>>64415044
if you just watch your English NT lad...
>>64414896
>Sure, you might not care about the 1930 WC but I'm sure there are other ppl in the world who considered that as an important world cup
Yes, those people are called Uruguayans. Literally nobody else cares.
>>64415878
You think liberos are part of modern football. You're an idiot. Case closed.
>>64416078
shut up nigger
>>64416078
They absolutely, unequivocally are. An obsolete, outdated tactical concept in modern football.
>>64414906
Please tell me more how you have beaten Italy on your way to winning a WC or EC.
>>64413966
>>64413966
>>64413966
>>64413966
This.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YVznc0Qo0EI
Wolrd cup = x points
Cotinental cups = by ranking of cups in their respective confederation ( Uruguay 1 = x points , argentina 2 = y points...)
World cup performance = x points to the best NT by being group leader,goals scored,individual performance,..., y points to the second best,...
>>64416466
That gave me fucking chills.. I'm so grateful for experiencing that on tv
>>64416466
>>64416585
>t. 1/2048th Italian
>>64416601
No Italian in me at all, stay forever cucked by Italy in football and Syria/Turkey in everything else
>>64416601
>9 years ago
>current champions
>still assblasted
Your NT is literally traumatized by this shirt. Even german media recognizes it.
>>64414357
FURIOUS
U
R
I
O
U
S
delusionalposting
>>64416652
This post reeks of Jersey shore.
>still assblasted
Yeah, but not about Italy winning it, they did what they do best, play the clever game, stand steady and secure the win in the long run.
I'm butthurt about the brawling Argentinian monkeys who got Frings suspended by acting like bitches and starting shit because they can't handle a defeat.
We took revenge on them several times in the following tournaments so it's okay.
Also, since you're a muh heritage terroni, Germany-Italy is seen as a classic in Germany, like Germany-France or Germany-Argentina. Just another big game (that Germany will most likely lose). But in Italy they treat it like a fucking derby, for some reason they hate our guts or something.
Would make way more sense if they felt that way towards Austria considering history.
>>64416791
>he watches jersey shore
>w-w-we don't care guise
>unironically talking about Austria
>literally only won thanks to higuain
not even him but lmao
>>64413915
Well, did not changed much, except for this >>64413947
I've never seen so much autism in a single thread
>>64413938
jej
