Is the difference betwwen big nations and smalls nations in internationals closing ?

Big Ears

tonights results seem to suggest so(well in Europe anyway) , very few hammering :

WC 2006 qual. - Europe (Group 1)
March 30
FT Andorra 0 - 4 Czech Republic
FT Rep. of Macedonia 1 - 2 Romania
FT Holland 2 - 0 Armenia
WC 2006 qual. - Europe (Group 2)
March 30
FT Ukraine 1 - 0 Denmark
FT Georgia 2 - 5 Turkey
FT Greece 2 - 0 Albania
WC 2006 qual. - Europe (Group 3)
March 30
FT Estonia 1 - 1 Russia
FT Latvia 4 - 0 Luxembourg
FT Slovakia 1 - 1 Portugal
WC 2006 qual. - Europe (Group 4)
March 30
FT Switzerland 1 - 0 Cyprus
FT Israel 1 - 1 France
WC 2006 qual. - Europe (Group 5)
March 30
FT Moldova 0 - 0 Norway
FT Slovenia 1 - 1 Belarus
WC 2006 qual. - Europe (Group 6)
March 30
FT Poland 1 - 0 Northern Ireland
FT Austria 1 - 0 Wales
FT England 2 - 0 Azerbaijan
WC 2006 qual. - Europe (Group 7)
March 30
FT Bosnia-Herzegovina 1 - 1 Lithuania
FT San Marino 1 - 2 Belgium
FT Serbia & Montenegro 0 - 0 Spain
WC 2006 qual. - Europe (Group 8)
March 30
FT Croatia 3 - 0 Malta
FT Hungary 1 - 1 Bulgaria

Internationals - Friendly
March 30
FT Italy 0 - 0 Iceland

noteable results are:Estonia 1-1 Russia , Switzerland 1-0 Cyprus , Israel 1-1 France (not much of a shock but if you look at the rankings it is) , Moldova 0-0 Norway , San Marino 1-2 Belgium , and Italy 0-0 Iceland :eek: , theres lots of other mini-suprises in there .

So do you think the difference between the big and the small is clsoing ?
IMHO yes .

PHB

I think if any of those small teams played Brazil, they would get beaten 5-0 or so.
France and Israel for example.

If France played Brazil, they could raise their game to a much higher level and maybe even win it.
Israel will not beat Brazil, might get really really lucky and draw.
I think this is the difference between big and small nations, ability to raise their game.

Its just like thre premiership.
Man City might be able to scrap a draw against Chelsea in the premiership, but you put em against Barca in the CL, and they would crumble. Chelsea can raise their game when they need to

The Muppet

Yes , the standard of Football is higher than what it was . Probably because the training techniques diet and fitness of players is pretty much the same the world over.

astrofool

exactly. With everyone training to the same high level, the gaps narrow. Its also what allows countries with a small population (such as Ireland), be competitve with the likes of england, despite at least a 15 fold pop. difference.

MrJoeSoap

This is going to sound very cliche-ridden, but at the end of the day, all these internationals are 11 against 11 (almost always professional footballers). No matter how hard you try, it can be very difficult (a la England last night) to break down a team with so many players behind the ball. The main reason Poland did so well was because Azerbaijan came out attacking and they couldn't cope defensively.

Most teams who defend in massive numbers will lose, but not by a massive number of goals.

Pigman II

I don't think the gap is narrowing. I agree with the points above about fitness (and better tactical awarness imho) but I mainly put the tightening in results down to the fact international fixtures these days are invariably double headers and the top teams are either rationing their efforts over two games or have just run out of steam by the 2nd match in some cases. I think club commitments are also weighing on players minds and once their country hits the magic '2-0' they are perhaps not as eager to put the boot in as they may have been 20 years ago.