> i've explained that a country can't join a highly competitive sport internationally and rank above average without having tradition
You haven't explained it, you just stated it without justification (again), and without defining the vague term "tradition" (again). Hence the statement is meaningless. We could replace the word "tradition" with "magic" everywhere in this thread, and it wouldn't make any less sense.
> i also already defined tradition to what i'm assuming we were collectively defining tradition as in this context: "tradition in this context i would assume is referring to maintaining a culture of football."
Again "assuming". Why aren't you able to define what you mean? The whole point of your argument hinges on it! And "collectively"! Clearly we two (at least) don't have the same thing in mind, so to whom are you referring? At best, you've just replaced "tradition" with the equally ambiguous word "culture". Meaningless.
This whole discussion is redundant. You've already retracted half of what you were trying to say at the beginning, because it was patently nonsense. The remaining half is worthless because (a) you haven't given a worthwhile definition of what it means, and (b) even if we infer contextual definitions, the statement is so weak as to be practically inane. Hardly compelling.
There are also fundamental issues unaddressed, e.g.:
> Perhaps you could give some examples of countries which would *not* be as worthy (according to you), and their ranking positions.
(note: "worthy" was your own choice of word - there is no misrepresentation here)
> Why haven't you addressed the chronological inconsistencies I mentioned in my first post?
(note: if anything, I would expect the adjustments to strengthen your case, if you can be bothered to consider them)