World Cup 2014 - Group F: Preview & Analysis

Discussion in 'Group F: Argentina, Bosnia, Iran, Nigeria' started by jimmi_moh, Dec 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    How did Spain "luck" their way to the title? I'd say Spain's path to the 2010 title was more impressive than Italy winning in 2006 on PKs, or Brazil's string of lackluster opponents in taking the Cup in 2002.
     
    Mani repped this.
  2. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Iranfootie

    Iranfootie Member

    Dec 20, 2006
    Nah! Dooset NADAREEM agar bebazee!
    So Spain winning Euro 2008, WC in 2010 and Euros in 2012 is irrelevant? Until Spain loses in the WC, Spain is the team to beat. Not even CLOSE to being a "second tier" World Cup side.
     
  4. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    I don't think there is any comparison between Spain winning Wc2010 and Italy winning Wc2006. And I am surprised that Zahzah think Spain were lucky to win the title in 2010.

    The truth is that while France won the World Cup in 1998 (as hosts) and won Euro 2000 thereafter, their peak was shorter and less emphatic than Spain's. Spain's peak began with winning Euro 2008, then they won Wc2010, and then won Euro 2012. During this period (2008-12), and probably until the Confederations Cup final, I think Spain were regarded as the "undisputed" #1 team in the World.
     
  5. zahzah

    zahzah Member+

    Jun 27, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    The Euro is irrelevant for deciding world dominance.
    Spain is second tier historically, not currently.
     
    Rickdog repped this.
  6. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Not exactly.
    Their win in the 2008 Euro was important, but afterwards in the Confederation cup, they failed horribly, losing absolutely to the USA. Till quarters of last WC (2010), the team for everyone to beat was Brazil, and when Netherlands finally defeated them, there was a gap with no superior team in the world and the place was vacant, that ended when Spain won the WC, which lasted till their recent defeat in the final match of last Confed cup. Since then, they may be the team to defeat from Uefa, but the team that I believe no one wants to face now, is next WC host.

    France's reign, lasted almost all the way from one WC to the next, where they won everything, as they also won the Confed cup of 2001.
     
  7. teammellieIRANfan

    Feb 28, 2009
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    This thread is packed!
    Most active thread among all World Cup threads, I think.

    This is because it has Iran. I am absolutely positive that this thread would have had no more than 3 pages, had Iran not been in the group.
    Its always we Iranians that generate passion, excitement and heated discussions.
    This has been the case in almost all threads involving Iran. Check it out.

    Even internationally we stick out from the pack and create controversy. For good or for bad, wherever there is Iranians there is action.

    What would the world be like, if we werent here?

    Boring, pale and rainy, thats what.
     
    Iranfootie repped this.
  8. locoxriver

    locoxriver Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 22, 2005
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    CA River Plate
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
  9. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark

    "What would the world be like, if we werent here?

    Boring, pale and rainy, thats what."

    That's right, because, unless Iran is involved, the World Cup is a dull, useless affair, and nobody watches. :D
     
    Bosnian Diamond and locoxriver repped this.
  10. Iranfootie

    Iranfootie Member

    Dec 20, 2006
    Afareen.
     
    teammellieIRANfan repped this.
  11. Iranfootie

    Iranfootie Member

    Dec 20, 2006
    I'll partly agree with that. In terms of results, yes. But not in terms of ability. They always had the ability...they just never really came through until recently.
     
  12. grandinquisitor28

    Feb 11, 2002
    Nevada
    #1762 grandinquisitor28, Apr 23, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2014
    1. No it isn't. The Euro's are considered by many to be an even more challenging tourney than the World Cup (until the new changes happen). There are rarely any easy outs, and typically only 1-2 groups that feature even one team that is clearly and emphatically weaker than all the rest, as there is in the World Cup. I know many will dispute this, but the fact remains that for the bulk of European Powers and nearly elite powers, the World Cup adds for them, 16 teams, only 2-4 of which they're typically concerned with, and in the past it was usually just 2. Secondly, in my argument, I was considering international teams and their standing in the world. If your credits include:

    12 World Cups: 4 failed qualifications (2 in the fifties when format was weird), 3 group stage exits, 3 round of 16's or equivalents, 4 quarterfinalists, 1 semi-final, 1 final and title. So in 6 of the 12 tourney's they've made the final 8 or better. And in more recent times they've gone: R16-QF-GS-QF*-R16-F. Pretty impressive other than the '98 pratfall. Maybe not quite elite world power impressive, but close.

    2. France's peak was clearly not better. Here's why: 2002 and 2006. In 2002 they were horrible, in 2006 they were horrible and would have crashed out in the group stage if it wasn't for the dire quality of the group (horrid Swiss team, middling S. Korea, and terrible imploding Togo, that went on strike during the tourney, and held France scoreless through a half in a game France had to win to advance, yes they woke up in the knockouts, but they played like utter manure before then). Add in the failure of '08, and what you really have is 1998, 2000, and a great knockout stage in 2006.

    Spain has Class of 2006 Group Stage along with Argentina, then losing to France, 2008 Euro, 2010 WC, 2012 Euro, in all three tournaments they played exceptionally well to boot, not having the let downs.

    Not sure how a threepeat fails the smell test, especially when bookened by a nice performance at WC 2006 and whatever may come in 2014 (and coming out of that group of death would be mighty impressive if they march deep into the tourney). France had a huge stumble in 2002, far worse than anything spain did between 2008-2012 and/or 2006-Present, and the Euro 2004 performance was solid, but not comparable either.

    Spain lucked their way to nothing. France required a group of life to BARELY make it to the knockouts in 2006, let alone the Final.

    3. I mentioned England because England is one of those sides that in the past fit snugly between the true world powers, and the third tier knockout round caliber sides. That tier is bigger now, but in the past it was a rather small tier with perhaps England and the Netherlands. People tend to separate England and the Netherlands from the rest of the worlds best sides (including Europe). Not so much England anymore, however.
     
  13. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    Zahzah doesn't respect the Euros because only UEFA teams are eligible. Maybe they should start inviting some CAF teams, the way the Copa occasionally invites CONCACAF sides. o_O

    Matter of fact, the US will host the Copa in 2016. That will be very cool to see. I hope the Bay Area gets some of the matches.
     
    Bosnian Diamond repped this.
  14. HowSpeak?

    HowSpeak? New Member

    Apr 23, 2014
    Club:
    --other--
  15. grandinquisitor28

    Feb 11, 2002
    Nevada
    You're in the bay area? Born and raised there myself (San Mateo), moved up to the Lake Tahoe area ten years ago.

    Maybe it's just a technical thing, thinking we're talking world cup history, but I wasn't, I was talking about genuine world powers in history, and Spain either fits the bill in that category, or comes very close to fitting it.

    Major Accomplishments:
    1920 Olympics: 2nd (Silver)
    1928 Olympics: 6th (Quarterfinalist)
    1934 World Cup: 5th (Quarterfinalist at WC) Kind of weird cups back then though.
    1964 Euro: 1st (Final)
    1968 Olympics: 5th (Quarterfinalist)
    1982 World Cup: 12th (Round of 16)
    1984 Euro: 2nd (Final)
    1986 World Cup: Quaterfinalist (7th Place)
    1990: World Cup: 10th (Round of 16)
    1992: Olympics: 1st (Gold)
    1994: World Cup: 8th (Quaterfinals)
    1996: Euro: 6th (Quarterfinalist)
    1996: Olympics: 6th (Quartefinalist)
    2000: Euro: 5th (Quarterfinalist)
    2000: Olympics: 2nd (Silver)
    2002: World Cup: 5th (Quarterfinals)
    2006: World Cup: 9th (Round of 16)
    2008: Euro: 1st (Final)
    2010: World Cup: 1st (Final)
    2012: Euro: 1st (Final)


    In recent years Spain has definitely improved markedly. Clearly they were a second tier side in soccer in Europe in the fifties-nineties, with a few major accomplishments including two trips to the finals with 1 title, an Olympic Gold, and a consistent record of qualification for the World Cup beginning in 1982 w/consistent quality performance only truly beginning in 1982 as well w/the one pratfall (1998). Starting in around 1996 you saw the building of a powerful Spain that would join the truly elite, collecting its major trophies in 2000, 2008-2012, and consistently finishing 6th or higher in every major tournament with the Exception of WC 1998 and a pratfall at Euro '04 (which was an abberration as a whole when it comes to tournaments).

    For me, from 1920-1994 Spain probably doesn't deserve consideration as a traditional world power, since 1996, I think for the most part they do, and since 2008, they've been the best team perhaps ever, considering their prime ('06-'12).

    It's worth noting that you can see signs of this happening in the youth Tournaments with Spain registering 5 semi-final appearances in the last 12 U-17 World Cups (3 Silver, and 2 Bronze finishes) and 4 trips to the Semi-Finals of the U-20 World Cup Since 1985 ('85 runner up AET, '95 4th place, '99 Champion, '03 runner up).

    So perhaps they don't fit cleanly as a traditional world power, but I think since 1982 they've arrived, and since the mid-nineties have consistently been for the most part one of the best 4-8 teams in the world, in a different class for sure, if not quite belonging with Brazil, Germany, Italy or Argentina.
     
  16. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    The way I see it, Spain clearly showed itself the best team between 2008-12. Since then, real cracks have started to appear in their armor but they are still legitimately one of the favorites to win the World Cup in Brazil.

    Incidentally, except for the referee going blind, Spain would have been at least a semifinalist in Wc2002. And in Wc2006, they did do very well in the group stage before facing a France that had suddenly woken up with Zidane looking like he was determined to finish the tournament with the title. But until they won Euro 2008, Spain did have the reputation of basically not being able to win the games that mattered the most.
     
  17. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    One thing is to read an ignorant quotes from some people in the USA (somehow, we get used to it, coming from them), and another diferent thing is to also start reading them from European members as well.

    Copa is the translation in spanish to Cup.

    When you refer yourselves to Copa, you are actually not refering yourselves to anything at all, as almost every trophy that is being given to the champion ends its name with the word "Cup" ( or starts with the word "Copa", for spanish speaking people), as the trophy, usually is a cup :
    Some examples :
    english...........................................................spanish
    World Cup (which actually isn't a cup)......Copa del Mundo
    Jules Rimet Cup...........................................Copa Jules Rimet
    Gold Cup.............................................Copa de Oro
    Libertadores of America Cup.................Copa Libertadores de América
    so :
    America Cup.................................................Copa América

    However, usually when in the USA, they start refering to it as "Copa", they are actually refering themselves to the Copa América (or the trophy that is given to whom wins the Conmebol Continental tournament).

    As another very important issue concerning it, the tournament possibly to be held in the USA (not confirmed yet, and still without the status of a continental tournament by FIFA, which means that no team is forced to let go its players, if called by their FA's), is a diferent tournament which would get called as "Copa America Centenario" (makes reference to the 100 years age, of Conmebol).
    The official Copa America (recognized by FIFA), will be played in 2015 hosted by Chile, which will be followed by the 2019 tournament, which will be hosted in Brazil, and from here it will continue being hosted by the rest of Conmebol teams, till another cycle gets completed where everybody has hosted it, after which a new cycle would start presumely once again, in Argentina.
    At last, in our Copa América, invited teams are not restricted to Concacaf teams, as Japan has been invited and participated in it, in the past (1999 and 2011, which due to the earthquake they suffered, had to withdraw being replaced at the last moment by Costa Rica), the same way as China (together with Mexico), was invited for next edition to be played in Chile. Conmebol, at some point also invited Spain, but they didn't accept the invitation to come.
    ;)
     
  18. persianfootball

    persianfootball Member+

    Aug 5, 2004
    outside your realm
    the fact that random teams from other continents are invited for copa america make it a joke tournament. also, brazil and argentina dont always try their best to win it. it is the weakest continental tournament.
     
  19. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    #1769 Rickdog, Apr 24, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2014
    Whatever.
    Last time they both tried, but as they failed, it meant them both the heads of their coaches at the time (Meneses in Brazil and Batista in Argentina).
    .
    .
    They will still "kick the shit" out of your team next WC (to get back to topic)
    :p
     
  20. zahzah

    zahzah Member+

    Jun 27, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    No, the Euro is irrelevant SOLELY for this discussion about GLOBAL dominance, because it isn't a GLOBAL event. It only shows their UEFA dominance. And your focus on CAF is laughable - the biggest issue is that there is no Brasil or Argentina. Not to mention that in the recent past Spain has consistently fallen to teams from outside Europe and CONMEBOL (USA, Nigeria, South Korea).

    During this era of supposed dominance they lost two international tournaments out of three (2 x Confederations Cup). So their global dominance so far is limited to one singular event. There aren't even any achievements at global youth tournaments to speak of.

    And the Euro is tougher than the World Cup? Then how come Denmark and Greece are amongst recent winners, while the World Cup has no such freak winners (or even finalists)?
     
  21. Mustafa Filipovic

    Dec 11, 2013
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    #1771 Mustafa Filipovic, Apr 24, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2014
    @zahzah
    You make some very good points. However, what happens in Europe is relevant, because whoever dominates in Europe tends to be the best in the world unless Brazil or Argentina are better. This has been a clear trend for a very long time now. Also, it seams whoever has more and better players playing in the top European leagues and clubs, tends to have a stronger NT as well. Not the Euros, but league football has been the best global indicator on who's NT may be strong and who's may not.
    The team that won the world cup in 2010 might have been the best national team EVER. Spain won 3 tournaments in a row. Euros, then the world cup, then the Euros again. This has NEVER happened before. From 2007 till today, Spain was what the Chicago Bulls were in Basketball back in the 90s. A team that wasn't historically considered as great as the Boston Celtics or the LA Lakers, yet at their prime the Chicago Bulls and Spain might have been the best team with the best players ever.

    You ask "why did Greece and Denmark win the Euro's before?"
    Why did Wigan Atlitic win the FA Cup? It's a knock-out tournament where a single game, a single yellow card, or penalty, or a missed call have a much larger impact. Knock-out tournaments are not the best way of gauging team strengths since it involves too few games and teams simply get knocked out of the tournament. Most teams don't even get to play each other at a cup! Even between those teams that actually do get to play each other and even if the results are taken from multiple cups, the comparison might be misleading. Any cup will always be far more unpredictable than a league.
    Compared to a League tournament, a Cup tournament reduces the likelihood for teams to sort themselves according to their quality difference.
    The fact that someone like Spain or Italy got knocked out by someone like Korea and New Zeland at the World Cup, doesn't necessary indicate that Spain or Italy aren't the top dogs or that they are worse than those teams that beat them. It's the same how Wigan Atletic won the FA Cup despite teams like Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, Manchester United, and Everton, all clearly being the better teams. The main reason we know that those teams are better is because they do way better in the League. (League > Cup) We don't have a League tournament when it comes to national teams so it makes it more difficult to sort teams out. Just looking at 4-years-apart World Cups to see who is "better" Spain, Brazil or Germany is like looking at FA Cup's every 4 years to see who is currently better Manchester City, Manchester United, or Liverpool?
    The statistic become even more scrambled when you attempt to use mostly Cup results to compare teams that usually don't finish top like Portugal vs Ghana vs Nederlands or Schalke o4 vs Lazio vs PSG. You just don't have enough Cup games and consistent data from Cups alone to draw out and sort these teams out by current strength. Taking a look at league football is obviously very insightful.

    We can also see that individual players of each national team and their performance in league football may give us another strong clue on the strength of the NTs. All you need to do is point at how the success of players like Zidane, Henry, Vieria, and Lizarazu at their clubs and leagues correlates with the success of France in the same period of time. Or how the success in club/league football of Ronaldinho, Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Roberto Carlos also correlates with the success of Brazil in that same period of time. Or how the rise and dominance of Barcelona correlates with the dominance of Spain.

    We have been in this discussion before! This is something the Persian fans always divert from and go back into discussing world cup and friendly games from 1972, 1998, 2001 and 2009. They do that because league football clearly makes Nigeria and Bosnia look much better than Iran.

    @Iranian Monitor is going to respond with another long essay trying to skew things in Iran's favor and @persianfootball is still going to troll and insist on how Ghoochannejhad is way better than Džeko and Emenike and that Dejagah is much better than Lulić and Pjanić.

    @persianfootball Yes, the world cup is a "different beast" as you put it. It's an unpredictable knock-out cup! The quality differences between Džeko and Ghoochannejhad may never express themselves over only a few games. But, you are still ignorant and bias if you don't see that Džeko > Ghoochannejhad
     
  22. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    Iran has been in South Africa camping, without their euro players of course. They have played 2 friendlies against South African top division club sides.

    The first result was an Iran 5-0 victory over Moroko Swallows.


    They then drew 3-3 with Orlando Pirates.

    The South African league has 16 teams and currently Orlando Pirates are 5th and Swallows are 13th.

    The South African league is ongoing with games upcoming this weekend, so I doubt these teams would have fielded their top guys for these friendlies but I could be wrong, would be interesting to know.
     
  23. Mani

    Mani BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 1, 2004
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    An interesting fact: Iran actually played parts of those matches, with 10 players, in order to simulate red card situations.
     
    locoxriver repped this.
  24. grandinquisitor28

    Feb 11, 2002
    Nevada
    Spain didn't give an expletive about the Confederations Cup, hence the performance.

    That is a minor exaggeration, but nowhere near as large as the argument that their dominance is supposed based upon this tournament. The teams that take the confed cup seriously are teams outside of UEFA. Only in UEFA can teams be guaranteed a serious, rigorous and true challenge from beginning to end. Even the Copa America has issues, especially when it was held too often and gave some silly cross confederation invites.

    Spain's priorities after following up the disappointing crash out in 2006 (after Group Stage dominance), was the Euro in '08 and following that the World Cup. For them, it isn't difficult to imagine that the Confed Cup was seen as schedule filler that would provide a preview of South Africa, but also congest an already exhausting schedule, considering the quality of their club teams AND, qualifiers and major tournaments being played. No international team in the world had players logging more games than Spain during the '07-'14 era. Not even close I imagine.

    Now look at the Confed Cup track record to see if I'm right about European Interest:

    In '97: Brazil, Urguay and Australia are 3 of 4 semifinalists.

    In '99: Mexico, USA and Saudi Arabia are 3 of 4 semifinalists.

    In '01 Japan, Australia and Brazil are 3 of 4 semifinalists.

    In '03 Cameroon, Turkey and Colombia are 3 of 4 semifinalists.

    In '05 Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico are 3 of 4 semi-finalist.

    In '09 South Africa, USA and Brazil are 3 of 4 semi-finalists.

    In '13 Uruguay, Brazil, and Uruguay are 3 of 4 semifinalists.

    Amongst the title winners you see no UEFA winners whatsoever beyond France twice in '01 and '03, and zero runner ups until 2013 with Spain.

    Does UEFA suck?

    No. They just didn't care.

    The rest of the world does care because the tournament is the only reliable way to play a World Cup warm up (since '05) against some of the very best teams in all of the worlds confederations. But Europe? They clearly don't care anywhere nearly as much as the rest of the world and that's because of the Euro's and their schedule/calender.
     
    Bosnian Diamond and Hayaka repped this.
  25. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    Grand inquisitor I think you are going a little too far to say UEFA didn't care about the Confederations cup. Maybe in the past when Germany sent a B+ team one year. But I would say the last 3 confed cups have been taken very seriously. They don't care is a cop out, sorry not buying it. If they didn't care why travel there to play with all their top players.

    2013

    Brazil beat Italy fair and square then demolished Spain. There was nothing Spain could do about it.

    2009

    Italy lost to Egypt. Italy was not that great, that was only a preview of their WC 2010 debacle. Spain losing to US was the US on a hot streak, and also Spain's ability to lose to inferior sides. Again we saw this with Switzerland in 2010. Again Italy and Spain were beaten fair and square, no excuses, nothing they could do about it,and as pointed out already we would see these tendencies in the upcoming World Cup.

    2005

    It was generally excepted that Greece were probably one of the worst teams ever to win the euro, and they proved it with a piss poor display on the world stage finishing dead last in their group. Not a damn thing they could have done about it. Germany finished behind Brazil and Argentina, nothing out of the ordinary there.

    2003

    France won the thing so u can hardly say they didn't care, they even beat a team in the final who had their captain die on the pitch in the previous match. If they didn't care they would have simply given Cameroon the match as a sporting gesture. Turkey finishing 3rd shows little evidence that they didn't care.

    2001

    France win, but they don't care right ?


    1999

    Germany goes out in the first round. I would say this is how far back u would have to go to even make the claim that UEFA didn't care about the tourney, but even looking at that squad it's not as bad as I thought. I think they were trying to bleed in some youngsters who were not superstars at the time but later would be.



    I'm sorry but the argument that UEFA doesn't care about the confederations cup is just a silly excuse to try and make UEFA dominance appear greater than it is. The last few editions have been highly competitive, with all nations taking it absolutely seriously, and I don't agree with zahazah by the way. Even if we include Spain's loss to the US and Brazil in consecutive Confederations cups, their dominance of the last 6 or so years is virtually unprecedented in the last few decades. They have absolutely established themselves as a top team, and perhaps one of the greatest soccer dynasties ever.

    Also the Euro is very relevant, however the World Cup will always trump any competition.
     

Share This Page