Is the 2009 FIFA U-20 World Cup a Proper Tournament or Not?
I have several good reasons for asking. First is the absence of certain eligible big name players. Bojan Krkic, Jack Wilshere, Mario Balotelli etcetera. But I’ve already had a rant about that, so won’t do so again.
Second, as you can see in the above image from the Trinidad & Tobago vs Paraguay group game, several game are being played on artificial turf. There is a FIFA Quality Concept for Artificial Turf, and Sepp Blatter and co. have decreed that pitches meeting this standard are acceptable.
And I completely understand this in places where it’s a necessity. But it’s not so understandable for a supposed showpiece international event, where proper grass fields could be grown for the occasion. We’re pretty sure FIFA has the money.
Third but not least, it is apparently impossible to get knocked out of this tournament.
Italy finished third in Group A, behind Egypt and Paraguay. But because the format allows for four of the six third placed teams to make the knockout stage, the Azzurrini still went through to the round of 16 and today beat Spain (who finished first in Group B without conceding even a single a goal) 3-1, in what looks like a pretty exciting game:
Well done to the young Italians, and I don’t want to take anything away from their performance. But can we really take this tournament seriously if the best players aren’t there, the games aren’t played on real grass and teams can finish third in a group of four and still go through?
 |
Soccer Forums | International Results |  |
 |  Travel |
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share        |
Comments
By Tommy Wong | October 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pm 
I love these youth tournaments. Young players that might not have had a chance to shine get to play with players their own age. There’s always tons of energy, mistakes, but also tons of creativity that you don’t always see in the senior tournaments. As far as the knock out system goes, yeah I agree – it’s a bit odd. But youth tournaments always have a feel-good aura about them. As far as no big names being included… well that gives these players a chance to make themselves a big name provided they give a stellar performance. Synthetic pitches are a nightmare, but sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette. :]
By David C. | October 5th, 2009 at 4:18 pm I understand the point about the best players not being there, but unfortunately a youth tournament at this time of year will never get top division players. As to the tournament format, if my memory serves me correct, the ‘94 world cup followed the same format. Was that tournament improper?
By Daryl | October 5th, 2009 at 4:46 pm You’re right about World Cup ‘94 having third place teams qualify for the knockout round David C. I had completely forgotten about that.
However, I’m not suggesting that this U-20 WC is improper for that reason alone. In many ways that’s the only way to organize a 24 team competition (it’s a terrible number for a tournament really).
I’m more suggesting that there are too many problems happening at the same time. That the third place qualifiers, plus the absence of big name players, plus the presence of artificial turf, might be too many negatives all in one tournament.
By Sam | October 5th, 2009 at 6:31 pm Will the 2010 World Cup not be proper if Cristiano Ronaldo, Leo Messi and Zlatan Ibrahimovic aren’t there? I wouldn’t think so.
By daryl | October 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pm That’s not a fair comparison Sam, because I’m assuming you’re suggesting Ronaldo, Messi, Zlatan won’t be there if/when Portugal, Argentina, Sweden fail to qualify.
The difference here is that Bojan, Balotelli and Wilshere are all eligible to play for nations that qualified in Spain, Italy and England but had more important things to do than play in the tournament.
If somehow Portugal, Argentina and Sweden all qualified for the 2010 World Cup, but then Messi, Ronaldo and Zlatan decided not to bother playing because they had something more important to do, then the answer to your question would probably be yes.
By star_bury | October 5th, 2009 at 9:17 pm 1) Hosting a U-20 tourney during the domestic season makes no sense, although playing in June/July in Egypt would kill some people….
2) Canada 2007 had artificial turf, and that tourney was a success. Maybe because they had people like Gerard Pique, Diego Capel, Martin Caceres, Luis Suarez, Carlos Vela, Gio Dos Santos, Marcelo, Pato, Jo, Michael Bradley, Altidore, Adu, Dawid Janczyk, Jan Simunek playing… And let’s not forget a U-20 Argentine team that could beat quite a few top flight squads. I’m not up on my Argentine league footy, but all these players have made their way across the pond at one point or another with (in most cases) great success!
Sergio Romero
Federico Fazio
Emiliano Insúa
Éver Banega
Mauro Zárate
Sergio Agüero
Damián Escudero
Maximiliano Moralez
Ángel Di María
Pablo Piatti
Lautaro Acosta
3) Agreed. Cut it to 16 teams, or expand to 32. 24 is silly.
By star_bury | October 5th, 2009 at 9:25 pm PS….Yes, I’m Canadian and was at as many Ottawa/Toronto/Montreal matches as I could make. I didn’t miss a single Argentina match, and although Kun Aguero won the Golden Ball AND Shoe, Maxi Morales (Silver Ball/Bronze Shoe from midfield) was the driving force. They had no weak links and were fascinating to watch….Imagine Gago, Higuain and Messi showed up too??
By Sam | October 5th, 2009 at 10:35 pm Heehee, oops. Good point Daryl.
By Jose | October 5th, 2009 at 11:22 pm Spare a thought for CONCACAF, if you will. They got only one representative, Costa Rica, (out of 4!) into the group stage, and it was by qualifying as the fourth best third place team (that is, they are the “worst team” to get into the knockout rounds).
Trinidad & Tobago team fell absolutely flat, Honduras (which eliminated Mexico in qualification) was apparently fraught with instability after their opening win versus Hungary, and the United States team left with a solitary win and TWO 3-0 defeats to Germany and South Korea. The hell.
With Costa Rica set to face hosts Egypt, this will be a short, short tournament for a region that has often impressed at this level.
(Peep HexBlog post about this on my name.)
By tamim | October 6th, 2009 at 12:37 am i don’t get it…..the tournament is a success and the football has been fascinating….every single day had surprise results which made every match unpredictable.
concerning the absence of stars, well it is the problem of the clubs not the tournament; anyway, new stars were born here…..this proves many people follow football only because of the hype surrounding players like messi, ronaldinho or whoever!!!
artificial turf….i guess you didn’t watch the matches; only Al Salam stadium has artificial turf while all other stadiums have natural grass and i can’t see what is the problem with artificial one, didn’t FIFA approve it or does it hinder playing, no one complained about it!!!!
my point is, if you quit generalizations, you may find that the tournament is definetly worth watching.
By Jose | October 6th, 2009 at 1:09 am Tamim, nobody’s saying the tournament is not worth watching, just that it has so more problems than the previous U-20s. From what I’ve seen, it hasn’t been as interesting as the last one in Canada.
First, surprise results don’t simply equate to a good tournament. From all the crazy scorelines and from what I’ve seen, the tournament has been a case study on inconsistency for most of the teams.
The absence of stars is also problem with the tournament; that doesn’t mean it is the tournament holder’s fault. The “stars” mentioned aren’t Messis or Ronaldinhos… they are the youngest POTENTIAL FUTURE stars, and that’s why the tournament (which is about the future, in a sense) has been diminished in their absence.
Artificial turf sucks. It feels different for the players (then again, so dies introducing “special tournament balls” but no one seems to complain about that). I haven’t thought of this as being too big a factor though.
Don’t take these criticisms as an offense to Egypt (the hosts), rather the circumstances surrounding the tournament have, as Daryl pointed out, cheapened the tournament.
By Jose | October 6th, 2009 at 12:51 pm Costa Rica dumps Egypt out of the tournament! Costa Rica? COSTA RICA!
By Diego | October 6th, 2009 at 1:13 pm [quote=Jose]With Costa Rica set to face hosts Egypt, this will be a short, short tournament for a region that has often impressed at this level.[/quote]
[insert dave gaham voice here]: Wrong!
Overall an interesting entry Daryl, but I believe those arguments are not strong enough to bring down the tournament´s aura. Granted, Canada and Netherlands had higher quality and presented more interesting players, but aside from that Egypt 2009 is a proper tournament and I am enjoying it as such.
By Jose | October 6th, 2009 at 1:19 pm Happy to be wrong, Diego 
By Fernando | October 6th, 2009 at 1:48 pm It would be great if we in the United States could watch the fucking tournament on regular TV… Internet streaming is the worst way of watching any type of sporting event. I saw the Ghana/Uruguay match and could barely make out the faces. FIFA experiments with the Olympics & the Under-20 tournament but no one really cares who wins these tournaments, the World Cup is still the “stuff of legends” to quote the great movie, “The Maltese Falcon” — think about it, Argentina with Messi & Tevez won the 2004 Olympics against Paraguay! that’s no kind of final… its more of a joke. Argentina wins the 2008 Olympics and no one could care less. Its too over saturated, and then FIFA churns out the Beach Soccer World Cup & the Women’s World Cup, much to everyone’s boredom.
Everything with FIFA is MORE, MORE, MORE, but less is more in my opinion, 16 teams makes a tournament that much special… 32 teams does not! And for 2010 it will be 32 teams that do not include France, Portugual or the Czech Republic and maybe Argentina or Uruguay — the 2010 World Cup smacks of corporate micromanagement and all-around dullness.
Posted from 
United States
By Taiwo | October 6th, 2009 at 2:32 pm You haven’t seen anything yet, more dying teams will still drown top rated teams and shatter book makers predictions. As things are now, only God knows where the 2009 FIFA U20 World Cup gold prize is heading.No doubt Egypt 2009 is just a prelude to South Africa 2010.
By Gary | October 17th, 2009 at 10:16 am I’m following this argument with amusement.
Is this tournament meant for the big boys or for those upcoming? As for artificial pitches, I have played on them and it DOES NOT detract from the playing expereince. Perhaps the first 5-10 minutes would be for acclimatising.
In Africa every youth tournament is a big deal indeed because the continet uses these to market its biggest youth stars as opposed to Europe who bring their spare players.
And I dare say that these spare players come to the youth tournaments and explode onto the world stage by making names for themselves.
So let’s not lessen the value of these events
Comments are closed
