WC 2014: What big team(s) will croak in the first round and really let down this fans this summer?

Discussion in 'World Cup 2014: General' started by 00Kevin, Dec 7, 2013.

?

What big team will REALLY croak in the first round?

  1. Brazil

    6.3%
  2. Spain

    25.2%
  3. Netherlands

    27.0%
  4. Colombia

    6.3%
  5. Uruguay

    9.0%
  6. England

    39.6%
  7. Italy

    8.1%
  8. France

    10.8%
  9. Argentina

    3.6%
  10. Germany

    4.5%
  11. Portugal

    14.4%
  12. Ghana

    9.9%
  13. USA

    23.4%
  14. Belgium

    16.2%
  15. Russia

    6.3%
  16. Mexico

    12.6%
  17. Cote D'Ivoire

    5.4%
  18. Other

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  19. I don't think any big teams will do exceptionally bad

    1.8%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    After their first 3 matches, Colombia had one defeat (to Argentina at home), one draw (to Venezuela at home) and one victory (to Bolivia as visitors). The main reasons to their overall changes of their team, came together with the replacement of their former coach (Leonel Alvarez), whom was in charge of their team for their first 3 matches, with their current coach (Jose Pekerman), under whom came the rest of their defeats, all as visitors (to Ecuador, to Uruguay and to Venezuela).
    ;)
     
  2. grandinquisitor28

    Feb 11, 2002
    Nevada
    thanks :).

    Pekerman is whom I wanted to coach team USA :(.
     
  3. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    #278 Iranian Monitor, Apr 21, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2014
    I don't agree with that analogy. I am not quibbling with the fact that S.Korea has achieved more than Iran internationally. But as counter intuitive and, hence, annoying as it is for outsiders to accept, Iran was typically rated above or at the level of S.Korea within the AFC throughout the 2000 period (2000-2010) and its results against S.Korea during that time were not at all aberrational. In fact, given that despite our superior H2H record against them, we actually lost a couple of games (after regulation or on penalties in AC 2000 and 2007) that we should have won, facing them at the time as favorites to win the Asian Cup trophy while the Koreans had even struggled to make it to the stage where we faced them, even those losses to S.Korea were more like an underdog beating the favored team not the reverse. It was mainly in the last World Cup qualifiers that Iran beat S.Korea twice where Iran was ranked (at the time) below the Koreans and was regarded as the underdog team in some ways.

    As for Sweden/England being analogous to S.Korea/Iran? Hardly:

    First, on H2H, England actually edges Sweden, both historically and recently, while Iran edges S.Korea both historically and recently. Hence, the analogy doesn't even work on this level.

    Second, in continental achievements, England have twice finished 3rd and twice as quarter-finalists in the European championships while Sweden has managed only one 3rd place finish and one quarterfinal finish. In other words, England gets the edge. By contrast, Iran has won the Asian Cup 3 times (1968, 1972, 1976) compared to 2 times for South Korea (1956, 1960). Iran has finished as a semifinalist 5 other times (1980, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2004) while South Korea has been runner up twice (1980, 1988) and semifinalist 3 times (2000, 2007, 2011). In the overall Asian Cup rankings and standings in terms of wins/points and averages, whether recent (since 1996) or historically, Iran ranks above S.Korea (Iran ranks #1 in the historic pts/wins table of the Asian Cup well above everyone else). Iran has also done better in the other Asian championship, namely the Asian Games, where Iran has 4 gold medals compared to 3 for S.Korea. All in all, Iran gets the edge in continental titles and achievements compared to S.Korea.

    Third, England ranks #6 according to ELO and 11th according to FIFA, while Sweden ranks 2oth according to ELO and 25th according to FIFA. In other words, England edges Sweden clearly in the rankings. Iran, on the other hand, ranks well above South Korea according to both ELO and FIFA right now. Iran ranks #31 according to ELO while South Korea ranks #36 and Iran ranks #37 according to FIFA while South Korea rank 56. Historically, on average, England is #5 in the ELO rankings while Sweden is #13. Iran is historically on average #30 in the ELO rankings while South Korea is #31.

    Finally, while S.Korean clubs have achieved more than Iranian clubs and I ready concede that, the difference is not at all like comparing the EPL to the Swedish league! In fact, in its last evaluation of the leagues in Asia, Iran's league officially earned more points from the AFC than the Korean league with Iran's league ranked #2 in Asia behind only the J-League. In any case, even if you rate their league above Iran's (which would be reasonable notwithstanding the AFC ratings), the differences are marginal not substantial. It is not EPL v Swedish league at all.

    I know that Asian football didn't rate much at all until very recently, starting with the 2002 World Cup hosted by S.Korea and Japan, and that the main achievements internationally in recent years from Asia are from South Korea and Japan (and new members Australia). But this insistence on treating Iran as some second class member of the AFC compared to these teams is genuinely misleading. It misinforms people who are already apt to be misinformed, about the true picture of things.

    The truth is that S.Korea's relative success at the World Cup since 2002 notwithstanding, the only time the Koreans ever finished above the best teams from West Asia (whether in the Asian Cup or World Cup qualifying) was in the 2010 World Cup qualifiers. Otherwise, S.Korea always finished behind the top West Asian team. Thus, while Saudi Arabia might have been an embarrassment for the AFC after Wc94, and they certainly were, until more recently when they began to fade (since 2010 specifically), they just owned South Korea. They finished above them in WC qualifying when they were in the same group (1994, 2006). Beat them when they faced them in the Asian Cup (1988 and 2000 Asian Cup) and won the Asian Cup trophy 3 times (1984, 1988, 1996) and finished runner up twice more (2000, 2007) which is a lot more than S.Korea can claim. In fact, to be frank, never mind Iran, the other the top West Asian teams (Kuwait in the 80 and even 90s, Saudi Arabia in the 90s up to 2010), all used to beat S.Korea more often than not. To pretend S.Korea, which has managed to win the Asian Cup since 1960, is some sort of a superior team compared to the rest of the AFC, is seriously wrong.

    South Korea has always been one of the best teams from Asia. Almost never the very best and, except for the 2010-12 period, almost never as good as the very best teams from W. Asia. That is the truth.
     
  4. grandinquisitor28

    Feb 11, 2002
    Nevada
    I don't either, it's an idiotic analogy. Sweden has made the Final Four or better 4 times, once in the modern era, while England has done so twice, once in the modern era. Iran hasn't left any imprint on the WC, and S. Korea's imprint has only been left over the past 25 years, and more particularly in the past 12.

    I don't know what the fair analogy is, and I know we'll never agree on any of it anyway ;).

    My point was simply that Iran and Sweden both have a strong history against a foe typically regarded as superior to them by most observers (in S. Korea and England respectively), but the analogy still falls flat because historically Sweden has a more impressive WC track record in terms of overall quality performances, while in the case of Iran, that clearly is not true.

    No matter, the analogy was poor, period :).
     
  5. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    Until 2002, South Korea had not won a single match in the World Cup, whereas among West Asian teams Saudi Arabia (Wc94) and Iran (Wc98) had done so. Whatever "impact" South Korea had made at the World Cup, it was in carving the kind of reputation of a team that had made the World Cup numerous times, including suffering some of the worst defeats in World Cup history, and never winning a game.

    Until 2002, the only time South Korea had done better than the top finishing West Asian team in any tournament was in the 1989-90 period when it finished above the UAE in the absence of Saudi Arabia and Iran in the final World Cup qualifiers and did better than the UAE at the World Cup. Otherwise, ever since Iran won the 1968 Asian Cup, until World Cup 2002, S.Korea had never once finished above the top finishing West Asian team in any major tournament. Not in the Asian Cup. Not in World Cup qualifying. Not at the World Cup either.

    In the Asian Cup, the top West Asian team from 1968-1976 was Iran with 3 consecutive titles. In 1980, the Asian Cup title was won by Kuwait who beat S.Korea in the final. In 1984, the title was won by Saudi Arabia with S.Korea finishing dead last in the group stage behind all of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Syria! In 1988, the title was again won by Saudi Arabia, beating South Korea in the final. In 1992, South Korea didn't even qualify to the Asian Cup. In 1996, South Korea was beaten 6:2 by Iran in the quarterfinals and title was won by a West Asian team, namely Saudi Arabia. In 2000, South Korea was beaten by Saudi Arabia in the semifinal while the Saudis finished runner up beaten by Japan in the final. In 2004, South Korea was beaten by Iran in the quarterfinal. In 2007, South Korea lost the semifinal to Iraq, which won the title.

    In World Cup qualifying, South Korea finished behind Saudi Arabia and qualified as the 2nd team from Asia for the 1994 World Cup. While South Korea had a credible showing in the 1994 World Cup despite failing to win a game, it nonetheless didn't do as well as Saudi Arabia which made the knock out rounds with 2 wins. In 1998, South Korea won a group that didn't include any of the top West Asian teams, neither Saudi Arabia (AC96 champions), Iran (AC96 semifinalists) or Kuwait (AC96 semifinalists). They won that group ahead of Japan. At Wc98, they finished with 1 point behind the best West Asian finisher, Iran in the standings which finished with 3 points. In the process, South Korea had suffered a 5:0 defeat at the hands of Holland.

    Until 2002, there was nothing that made South Korea anything but one of the better, but almost never the best, team from Asia. Until 2002, in fact, South Korea was almost always behind the best West Asian teams.

    The 2002 World Cup was clearly a magnificent achievement for both South Korea and Japan who hosted the tournament. South Korea in particular, making the semifinal albeit with a lot of referee controversy along the way. After World Cup 2002, the familiar patterns in Asian football more or less asserted themselves as far as South Korea is concerned, while the new rising power in Asian football (Japan) did continue its climb up the ladder close to the pinnacle of the game in Asia. For S.Korea, however, a rude reminder that they still weren't all that special came in the 2002 Asian Games tournament they hosted. Although the Asian Games had become age restricted by 2002, following an Olympic U23 + 3 overage player format, this was a tournament South Korea hosted and was determined to win fielding 6 of its World Cup players. It failed, losing to Iran in the semifinal with Iran winning the gold medal. What was basically South Korea's Wc2002 team then lost to Iran in the quarterfinals of the 2004 Asian Cup and the Koreans didn't do much better in the 2006 qualifiers, losing home and way to Saudi Arabia.

    From 2009 onwards, however, South Korea did begin to show itself better than the best West Asian teams, even if only for a very short time. That year, in the qualifiers for the 2010 World Cup, South Korea finished above both Saudi Arabia and Iran. In World Cup 2010, South Korea advanced to the knock out round while no West Asian team was even represented in that tournament. The relative decline of west Asian teams compared to South Korea seemed confirmed by the 2011 Asian cup as well, where South Korea beat Iran in extra time in the quarterfinals and even though it didn't finish better than 3rd, it nonetheless finished above the top finishing West Asian team none of whom made the semifinal of the Asian Cup that year. So for a few years, specifically from 2009-13, South Korea was ranked above any one from West Asia and looked like it might claim to be alongside Japan (and Australia) better than the rest of the Asian teams. But that was short lived, since South Korea reverted to its typical place finishing behind the best West Asian finisher when it finished behind Iran in the 2014 World Cup qualifiers, losing to us home and away.
     
    Mani repped this.
  6. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Actually Saudi Arabia played in the final group of AFC qualifiers for the WC of 1990, which was played in Singapore, under a single round robin, where it ended 5th among 6 teams. Iran also played those qualifiers but were eliminated by China, (whom btw ended 4th in the final group), on the previous phase.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(AFC)

    From 1968 to 2002
    At the WC :
    In 1986, SK ended 20th; Iraq ended 23rd
    In 1990, SK ended 22nd; UAE ended 24th
    WC qualifiers :
    1990, SK first; UAE second
    1998, SK won its group, where UAE ended 3rd, and where Japan ended second, having to play the final playoff against the other second placed team from the other group( "you know who" lost there :p).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(AFC)

    O yeah they lost to Saudi Arabia in that semifinal, but, guess whom they defeated at quarters to get there.
    I'll give you a "clue" : it was the same team whom lost to SK in the last Asian Cup, from 2011 at Qatar, once again at quarters. And it also, was the same team whom lost to SK, once again at quarters of the 2007 Asian cup.

    (no wonder you don't like them, :p)

    Take a look at the link on wikipedia, a little up in this same post, for perspective, regarding the 1998 WC qualifiers of AFC.
    Interesting to say the least, how you conveniently try to hide facts about it.:rolleyes:

    In summary, of all this "crap" :

    Till now, at the WC, where things really matter and separates those who are somebody in world football, to those who don't exist, South Korea has been the most succesful team of whole AFC, where its numbers of appearances (9 times present, being uninterruptedly present last 8 editions), almost doubles whom comes behind as second (Japan with 5 appearances) and more than doubles everybody else within AFC (the rest of the asian minnows, :p).

    Besides they've made it 2 times past group phase, ending 4th in 2002, which till now is the only time an AFC team has ever made it to the semifinals, reasons why it is AFC's best result in the whole WC history.
    ;)
     
  7. Deand21594

    Deand21594 Member+

    Jan 24, 2012
    Club:
    AS Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
    I predict Netherlands & England

    England rely on their physicality too much and the high temperatures in Brazil will have them exhausted also they don't have any tactical awareness with Hodgson at the helm.
    Whereas Italy have a better tactical set-up and can use this to not over exert theirselves like they showed last year in the confederations cup. Uruguay will breeze through in my opinion.

    As for Holland...
    Chile are very used to the temperature in south america and Spain will dominate as usual by letting the ball do the work.

    You may think I'm going on about the climate a lot but it's going to play a massive part in the tournament.
     
  8. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    For our (Chile's), matches against both, Spain and Netherlands, temperature will not be such a big issue. We are playing them at Rio and Sao Paulo, respectively, which at winter aren`t extremely hot as other cities in Brazil can be (Sao Paulo can even be cool, considering the fact it has a subtropical climate, during June-July).

    Now most of Chile, is lots more to the South within the continent, so our local temperature during winter is lots lower than those of Brazil, so it will still produce some sort of shock to our players, once we travel there. In fact, most teams in South America hate to play in Santiago-Chile during winter, due to how cold it can get, so in our case, we will need some time to adjust to it in Brazil (from cold to heat).
     
    Deand21594 repped this.
  9. Deand21594

    Deand21594 Member+

    Jan 24, 2012
    Club:
    AS Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    Ireland Republic
    Thanks for the information. Lucky for Chile they have football skills also. I still fancy them to take on Holland at any venue in the world and get the win. Most of the Dutch squad have been having average seasons in Europe and with Strootman not being fully fit or even available after his injury it's a real blow for them.
     
  10. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    While you corrected on a couple of minor points, the facts I mentioned remain.

    1) Until 2002, South Korea had never won a World Cup match while two West Asian team, Iran and Saudi Arabia, had in recent memory.
    2) South Korea last won the Asian Cup in 1960. From 1968-76 Iran won. Afterwards, until 2011, S.Korea always and without exception lost and finished behind at least the top finishing West Asian team.
    3) Other than the 1990 World Cup qualifiers, until the 2010 qualified, S.Korea never topped a unified World Cup qualifying group that included any of the top West Asian teams. It finished runner up in such unified groups behind Saudi Arabia in 1994 and 2006 and behind Iran in 2014.

    You can highlight South Korea's World Cup achievements, but it is no coincidence those achievements began with the tournament South Korea hosted in 2002. Until S.Africa in 2010, no host had failed to at least advance from their group, even otherwise perennial losers like Mexico in 1970. Until Iran hosts, you cannot possibly compare that achievement to the record of teams that haven't hosted the tournament.

    Incidentally, the team I hate is not S.Korea, but Saudi Arabia. What I hate, however, are those who used to as recently as World Cup 2010 put down all Asian teams and now, since S.Korea and Japan advanced in Wc2010 and proved them wrong, they need to pretend that S.Korea and Japan are from some universe apart from the rest of the Asian teams like Iran. The truth is that South Korea's record within Asia is totally unremarkable compared to the teams you like to put down, with South Korea having a worse H2H not just against Iran but I think against both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (but you need to double check). At the World Cup, while the Koreans might have done better recently, the main distinguishing achievement is their record in the World Cup they hosted in 2002.
     
  11. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    #286 Rickdog, Apr 23, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2014
    Don't forget the achievement of North Korea from 1966, that till SK's achievement of 2002, was the best performance ever from an AFC team in the WC. I guess your H2H record against them also favours your team, but despite this fact they still managed to achieve lots more than whatever Iran has achieved, where it matters, which is at the WC (oh yes, also their first WC participation). Facts are, that only East Asian teams (NK in 1966; and SK on 2002), have made it at least to quarters in the WC, so I don`t know why you give so much credit to teams from other sides of Asia, as being superior, where only Saudi Arabia's performance in 1994, whom only made it to second round, comes close to them, but still is lower than the achievements of the other teams (only comparable to half of the achievements, of the other AFC teams who have made it twice each (Japan and SK) to the second round, which once again are East Asian teams).
    And now, since 2006, you also have Australia in the picture, from Southeastern Asia, and their second round achievement in the WC of that year, also puts them on par with Saudi Arabia.



    To be hosts of a WC, can give anyone a very big "boost", no doubt about it, but once the referee's wistle of the first match of the WC is blown to start the game, they must win games in order to advance. Fail to do so, and they will not get very far from where they started.
    SK won its matches to get to semifinals, where their route to the semis was by no way easy (maybe the most difficult one of all 4 of the semifinalists of that WC), as they had in front some of the top world opposition of the time, included the teams that were going to win in the near future, the next 2 WC's (Italy and Spain), besides of the USA, Portugal and Poland, at group phase, where they ended at the top of it.

    When you can't or it is hard for you to give credit to what they achieved there, only asuming that it was possible because they were hosts, you are basicly downgrading your own credibility in whatever you want to say or argue afterwards.:cautious:

    Ending in any WC, no matter if you are host or not, among the 4 semifinalists, is the GREATEST achievement any team can ever dream for.
    Oh yes, and very few teams, have at least ended once among them in history.
    Only 24 teams of the whole world have achieved it.
    (oh yes, we are in that list too)
    :cool:
     
  12. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    Although I am not happy that Iran have such a persistent detractor as RickDog, I guess I don't mind South Korea (and North Korea) having such a friend as they are both Asian sides anyway.

    I have covered the facts to show that regardless that South Korea had a magnificent World Cup as hosts and achieved a feat that possibly (although not necessarily) may not be duplicated by any Asian team for a while, their record in Asia and against Asian teams shows they aren't really such a "superior" team compared to the best West Asian teams. In the World Cup, South Korea did not win its first game until 2002, after Saudi Arabia and Iran had already won a game in the tournament. In the Asian Cup, while Iran ranks first in the overall standings historically in terms of wins/points, and has more trophies than S.Korea, the comparison that makes the point even more clearly in recent years is between another west Asian team (the one I hate), Saudi Arabia, and S.Korea. Until the 2011 Asian Cup, no comparison really. Saudis always did better than S.Korea in all these tournaments. They won the 1984, 1988, and 1996 trophies and finished runner up in 1992, 2000, and 2007. South Korea last won a title in 1960 and last made the Asian Cup final 2 in 1988. Since 1984, until 2011, South Korea had always finished behind Saudi Arabia in the Asian Cup. In World Cup qualifying, South Korea had also finished behind Saudi Arabia in both 1994 and 2006.

    To be fair, from 2009-12 (which would include the 2009 WC qualifiers, the 2010 World Cup itself and the 2011 Asian Cup), South Korea (and especially Japan) did seem to be distancing themselves (albeit marginally, since even at their height the Koreans still couldn't beat Iran really, not in regulation at least) from the best West Asian teams, but the last qualifiers for the 2014 World Cup ended like the one in 2006. South Korea lost home-away to the west Asian team that finished top of the group.
     
  13. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    This quote of yours, I will not accept it.
    I don't have nothing against Iran as a team. Maybe against some of its dellusional fans, whom repeatedly try diminish the achievements of everybody else, (not only on behalf of other AFC teams, but also from elsewhere as well), but nothing against their team in particular.
    With this said, I still believe they aren't preciselly among those who will win much next WC, and instead, they might be the candidate to achieve the worst performance next WC, despite the easy group they got in regards to the other candidates to that final spot. But, this is just my opinion, nothing more or nothing less than that.

    No matter how you want to put it, South Korea has carved its name on stone in WC history, while no other AFC team has done anything similar or even close to it, and till that happens, for almost everyone, they are the best AFC team that currently exists. Their reputation precedes them.
    You don't like it ?, well too bad, have some sour grapes to pass it....
    ;)
     
  14. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    Btw, since RickDog has mentioned North Korea's run in the 1966 World Cup, I was curious to see how North Korea qualified in the first place. In theory, for the 1966 World Cup, all of AFC, OFC, and CAF would have only one representative in qualifying games pitting them against one another. In reality, all of the CAF and AFC teams other than North Korea eventually withdraw for one reason or another, leaving North Korea to have to only play Australia. Nonetheless, that North Korean team must have been pretty good: it thrashed Australia 6:1 and 3:1 to qualify for Wc1966.

    In the World Cup itself, North Korea lost to the Soviet Union 3:0 but drew Chile 1:1 (probably why Rick Dog likes to rate them:)) before inflicting one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history, beating Italy 1:0. They advanced to the quarterfinals as the 2nd team in their group behind the Soviet Union and then, in the quarterfinals, squandered a 3 goal lead to lose 5:3 to Eusebio's Portugal.

    That must have been one very good North Korean team, although for some reason that team quickly faded. Iran never played that exact team, although we did beat North Korea to qualify for the 1972 Olympics. In any case, North Korea's overall historic record against Iran in 23 matches is 0 wins-7 draws-16 losses. Even when they qualified to the 2010 World Cup, they had lost to us in the qualifiers (losing to Iran in Tehran, and barely drawing us by parking the bus at home in a game that ended scoreless). After they qualified, to prepare for the World Cup, they played us in a friendly which they lost as well and before their famous draw against Iran in Pyongyang in the 2010 World Cup qualifiers, North Korea had a 7 game losing streak against Iran, having lost all 7 of the last games they had played against Iran (all competitive matches).
     
  15. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    But only a fool would think that just because a team has carved its name in World Cup at some point, never mind as hosts, that means they are necessarily better at another point in time. But you fit the description.

    For instance, as you mentioned, North Korea made the quarterfinals in 1966. But right now, they are way down the list in the AFC and aren't even among the top 10. Barely top 20 if that. It doesn't matter that they have a bigger historical accomplishment.

    South Korea is still pretty good. But they are good not because in 2002 they made the semifinal as hosts, but because they are still one of the top teams in Asia and, on paper, for once their talent looks even better than their results. They might do well, but just because people rate teams based on what they know (and when it comes to Asian teams, what they know is often more or less what they have seen in the World Cup even its more or less ancient history by now), doesn't mean that is how teams should rank and rate! Pedigree is not irrelevant, but to confuse it with current merit and potential is nonsensical.
     
  16. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    The one issue you seem to not understand, is that in the WC, when things matter, you don`t necesarilly need to be the best.
    You must do what it takes, to achieve success.
    And those other teams did it. While Iran, couldn't.

    Here is where you draw the line that separates the best teams, in regards to the rest.
    And to your misfortune, Iran is among these last ones.

    There you have it in your own post :
    NK, last WC qualifiers despite not being even close to be considered among the best teams in Asia, and despite losing one of the games to Iran and achieving a draw on the other one, they still managed to end with more points than Iran, getting the WC spot, instead of the superior Iran. (Btw, in that group, 1st was SK, 3rd came Saudi Arabia, 4th Iran and 5th UAE, so East asian teams proved their superiority over top west asian teams).


    Btw, as you like a lot to diminish the achievements of teams when they have hosted diferent tournaments. Of the 3 Asian cups that Iran won, whom was the host of those 3 tournaments back then ? (specially for 1968 and 1976)

    "It will always be easier to catch the fish with the biggest mouth"
    :ROFLMAO:
     
  17. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    The whole standings in that group, between 2nd and 4th, were decided by 1 point! Not that it matters, since actually the 2009-12 period is one where I mentioned S.Korea actually did manage to suggest it had become better than the West Asian teams. A suggestion which then found its answer when S.Korea went back to finishing behind the top West Asian side in the 2014 qualifiers, namely Iran.
    I don't diminish and Iran's example is actually a good proof of the benefits of hosting!! Until 1968, Iran was just another Asian team. When we hosted the Asian Cup and won the tournament beating Israel in the final, something we might not have achieved at the time away from home, our football as a whole got a major boost. We began to dominate Asian football from then on, winning the 1972 Asian Cup (in Thailand), qualifying to the 1972 Olympics; participated in our first World Cup qualifiers for the 1974 World Cup but while we topped our Asian group, we lost out at the end on aggregates to Australia; won the 1974 Asian Games gold medal (in Tehran); qualified to the 1976 Olympics (and made the 2nd round); won the 1976 Asian Cup (in Tehran); and qualified as the sole representative of Asia and OFC to the 1978 World Cup. In fact, between 1975 and 1980, Iran did not lost a single match to any Asian team.

    The benefit that a side gets from hosting is not just in that particular tournament. It lasts. Mexico was rubbish until 1970, when as hosts it made the quarterfinals of the World Cup. Mexico was still rubbish until it got to host the World Cup again in 1986. Since then, they have become a respectable side internationally and among the very few team that have made out of the group stage each time consecutively since then. Similarly, until 2002, S.Korea had never won a single World Cup match despite participating in 5 prior World Cups! But after they got to host the tournament, they not only did well in that particular tournament but seen a gradual improvement overall in their confidence and accomplishments. Still, that doesn't mean they dominate football in Asia; far from it. Until recently, they really usually finished behind someone else from West Asia and even recently they still finish behind someone else, whether it was Japan/Australia in Asian Cup 2011 or Iran in the 2014 World Cup qualifiers.

    Incidentally, Iran has not hosted a major Asian tournament ever since the revolution. That is one reason why we don't win as many trophies anymore, although another reason is that being a politically somewhat isolated and in dispute with the Western powers, and playing the game in a region full of Arab states, Arab officials and Arab referees, we suffer through a lot of weird things. Just recently, I again witnessed an Iranian club totally robbed in open daily light at the hands of a Bahraini referee picked to official a do-or-die match between an Iranian and a Saudi club (Esteghlal v Al Shabab). Even playing in Saudi Arabia, the Iranian club wasn't just leading 1:0 but was totally in control when a totally bogus penalty that can't be a mistake was called against us with 10 minutes left into the game...
     
  18. BatatasFritas

    BatatasFritas Member+

    Nov 29, 2004
    Toronto
    Club:
    FC Porto
    Brazil wil choke under the immense pressure ;) Just kidding.

    I think England and Argentina will be knocked out 1st round. Messi and Rooney will throw a massive fit in the middle of the field. :thumbsup:
     
  19. paulalanr

    paulalanr Member

    Nov 5, 2013
    New Orleans, LA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    pshew. y'all like to write a lot.
     
  20. MrOranjeBal

    MrOranjeBal Member

    Apr 7, 2009
    Club:
    AZ
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    Judging by the number of posts on Iran in this thread they must be considered the big team that will give under all the pressure of expectancy. ;)
     
    TigersOfAsia repped this.
  21. roverman

    roverman Member+

    Dec 22, 2001
    seeing as there aren't many English posters in this topic to defend my team, I will add my two cents

    yes we aint a great team, we know getting out of the group will be tough but the same could be said of Uruguay and Italy, there isn't a lot too choose between the three sides, a few months ago England fans would have been very downbeat about our chances of even winning a game but some things have changed:-

    1. the emergence of raheem stirling, who, given a chance at the world cup could light the tournament up, this guy has been amazing these last few months, his pace, skill and finishing ability, hes 19, I believe he will run the Italian and Uruguayan full backs ragged

    2. adam lallana has been an amazing find for England this season, the guy has two great feet, great technical ability and has an end product, hes been great for Southampton for years but now hes finally showing it at national level, he could play anywhere across the midfield and has good vision

    3. Daniel sturridge, I have rated this guy for years, technically hes as good as anything in Europe but had no end product, now hes second top scorer in the premiership, at Liverpool hes finally found his home where he can flourish, his movement and technical ability in the hole will cause Italy and Uruguay no end of problems and could hopefully have the same type of productive partnership with rooney as he does with suarez.

    4. steven gerrard has been a phenomenon for Liverpool this season playing in a deeper role, very much like a pirlo type role, he can pick passes out from anywhere and he is the premierships second top assist maker this season.

    5. ross barkley, another one who has really come to the fore this season for everton, has great talent, hes been likened to gazza in his ability to go passed players and Martinez has utilised his undoubted talent, he still makes mistakes but the fact is hes only 20.

    6. we now have good options at fullback with the likes of glen Johnson and walker on one side and baines, cole and shaw (whos 18) on the other

    7. rooney has been in decent form for a poor man utd side this season and still has a good record for England, I think he will come good this summer (finally)

    we also have some bad points, we only have one decent, proven keeper, our centerbacks are mediocre at best (thought the everton lad stones, 19, is a star in the making) and jack Wilshire is still very injury prone,.

    I really don't rate Uruguay that highly, up front they have world class talent, but mediocre players everywhere else, Italy have a lot of much of muchness type players and I really don't think they will have the pace to match this potential England team, I believe we will get out of our group but it all depends on who takes points of who, all three teams are pretty equal when all is said and done.

    as for the post about England being ranked so lowly, get real, no way are any African teams anywhere near at England's level or Asian sided and England are certainly a lot better than the likes of Switzerland, Ukraine and the others you mentioned.
     
  22. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    "Italy have a lot of much of muchness type players"

    I've never heard that expression before, what does it mean? Mediocre, nothing special?

    Whatever it means, even though it went to PKs, Italy pretty much ran England off the pitch at Euro 2012 (the shots on target were like 20 to 4), so I think compared to England the Italians must have "much more than just muchness". :rolleyes:
     
  23. roverman

    roverman Member+

    Dec 22, 2001
    it means similar types of players
     
  24. grandinquisitor28

    Feb 11, 2002
    Nevada
    Would have been interesting to have seen Ghana Vs England in the Round of 16 if the group had finished as expected 4 years ago. I think Ghana would have shown exactly where England's level is. For Christ's sakes, the last time England made a serious dent in the World Cup, they needed two late PK's to escape a 1990 Cameroon squad. You don't think Ghana 2010 or 2014 could hang with England today? 1990 England was about 10,000x better than the current one, even considering the equally low expectations set before that tournament (very cool to have had my fav band do the 1990 cup song though ;) ).

    If these guys you mention are the difference makers you say they are, they will prove it, no doubt. The group is tough, with three legit sides for them to play, a Costa Rican side that has shown very well 3 of the last four times they've gone down to South America for major tournaments/qualifying and will be plenty comfortable, an Uruguay side that will be playing a short hop and a jump from their homeland, and feature some of the best attacking players in the world, and an Italian side that outplayed (or played heads up) with Spain in Euro '12 in their first match (I say outplayed because if Balotelli hadn't had a horrific moment of brain lock, Spain loses 2-1), and made the finals. To get out of that group will be very tough, and the R16 match will be deceptively difficult. There are no easy outs in C, no elite teams, but no true easy outs either. Ivory Coast, Colombia-healthy Falcao, Japan, and Greece are all good to very good sides that present unusual qualities distinctly different from one another, making for a very difficult bit of scouting for the assistants preceeding the knockout rounds.

    I expect England to crash out in group play, if they don't, at least they can take solace that they weren't in A, or H with regards to their knockout pairing, C will be tough, but if they'd been drawn into A or H, they would have been dead for sure if they somehow escaped their group.
     
  25. roverman

    roverman Member+

    Dec 22, 2001
    I have already said all three teams are virtually on a par, it will come down to who plays better on the day when the teams meet, Italy knocked England out on penalties 2 years ago even when England were awful, doesn't say much about Italy then, Italy are a good side no doubt, some of their qualification results were questionable, Uruguay don't have some of the best attacking talent in the world, aside from cavani and suarez, I couldn't really name an outstanding Uruguay player.
     

Share This Page