Correlation between Population, GDP and other stats and the Ranking of World Cup Teams

And you think any of the European teams would have made a difference in WCs 30 or 50? It's actually a bigger difference the absence of Uruguay and Argentina at WCs 34 and 38. Then again, Argentine players collected the WC winner medals at both tournaments.

 

It's a name. The name is likely of Scandinavian origin, but Sven Kramer is a Dutch speedskater (long track). Well, he is THE Dutch speedskater at the moment: multiple European, World and Olympic champion.

 

Impossible to say.

BTW, Argentina did compete at the 1934 WC. They went out in the first round.

 

In your case, (I don`t want to offend you) it is a little bit of ignorance on your part.
Paraguay at second round only achieved a draw against Japan, where a penalty kick definition was required in order to see whom passes to next round, but for everybody their game was a draw. At the same time, Uruguay defeated South Korea and won its right to be in quarters by defeating their opponent.

More so, in next stage, Paraguay lost to Spain in regulation time, while Uruguay had a draw with Ghana, which afterwards required a penalty kick definition in order to see who gets through. At that point, Uruguay had achieved lots more than whatever Paraguay had achieved by then. Only afterwards came the pk definition, which decided whom of both went to semis, where Uruguay won that right.
Uruguay did not beat Ghana, as they had a draw.
A draw in quarters is lots more than a defeat in quarters.

 

Not really, since the defeat was to Spain who is not only miles better than Ghana but also better than the team Uruguay would eventually get eliminated by. Good point about Paraguay's somewhat fortunate advance over Japan, but Paraguay's draw was just so much tougher I don't see how getting a mere one round further is "lots better".
Once in the final 4, Uruguay looked like a pretender among 3 legit contenders indicating that it was really the lucky draw that got them that far.

 

Tell that to all of those teams that ended third in any given WC, and whom lost in a semifinal game against whom ended winning the WC. Ask them if they would have prefered to end as finalists, instead.
Or
I'll rephrase : tell all of those who ended as finalists and lost the final game, whom got there by beating in semifinals, the team that ended 4th, and as they got to the final only by beating a weaker team to give up their finalist medals to the team that ended third, as these last ones played in semifinals against a much worthy opponent, than the one that they faced at that instance.


here is another one (very cruel, btw) :
Ask yourself, if you would've prefered that Argentina beat Sweeden in last match in group phase and by doing so, it were your team instead of them who passed to next phase in the 2002 WC. All that Sweeden achieved by having a draw that day was advance one more round than the one that Argentina reached.

Of course ending at one stage better than another team is much more important.

They looked as a pretender, because they were a pretender.
All semifinalists are pretenders until they lose next match, no matter how they got there, if they win both last games, they will be crowned as WC champions.

C'mon man, you are killing me with these remarks...

 

But they do rate as they rate in world football! And have done for some decades. Ergo, GDP and population size are largely irrelevant metrics when it comes to measuring the strength or quality of a nation's football. Like saying, if you look at the number of windmills in Holland, they should have been world champion at least twice by now.
However, the quality/strength of football does not depend on the number of windmills!
If a perceived patern of causality or a model does not fit reality, you'll find that the model is wrong. Reality will not adapt.
Holland in your view only punch above their weight because your scale is not measuring the right property! Just like measuring brightness of the colour will tell you nothing about the quality of the car's engine!

 

The culture is the most important thing imo. Population also plays a part but not that much as the most players you can field on the field is 11, it is just that it allows you the select the best for each position through a more rigorous selection process due to the difference in talent pool. When Brazil has a strong culture and a large population, it is no surprise they do well. Youth developement by the country's FA is also important.

 

And this last comment just shows as I suspected that you have no clue what you have been talking about, at least in respect to the early WCs.

 

N

Not really, take Mexico for an example. They have the population and the culture, but surprisingly, they are behind nations like Portugal and Netherlands. In terms of GDP, there aren't really much seperating them from Brazil.

 

The match against both Netherlands and Germany were close. In the semifinal match, Uruguay were missing their second best player of the tournament in Suarez, plus Lugano. Then Forlan had to leave in the first half, and you have a considerably undermined side.

Third place matches are glorified friendlies, so it's not appropriate to make too many conclusions from them. However, note that the German right back should have been sent off for that crippling foul on Perez, and Forlan hit the post in the last play of the match which would have sent it into overtime.

 

You can take a look at trends, not between Europe or South America versus Africa, Asia and North America, but within Europe or South America to dispel some of these conjectures:

(1) size of the player pool: all things being equal, the bigger the player pool, the more likely that you can find exceptional talents in that pool.

A quick comparison between, say Russia and unified Yugoslavia shows a significant difference in favor of the Slavs in terms of football quality, particular individual talents (Stojkovic, Djazic, Suker, Boban, Savicevic, Prosinecki, Mijatovic, Mihailovic, Modric versus Yashin, Dasaev, Bellanov and Arshavin). Similar love and tradition for football, similar GDP per capita, but Russia magnitudes bigger in population, size and influence. Still, the former Yugoslavian states have produced far more talents.

(2) the athletic abilities represented in that pool: all things, in fact, aren't equal and some people are just better atheletes and have better potential than others.

Could be true, let's leave it alone.

(3) organizational ability of a country, which determines how well or poorly a country identifies, develops, and utilizes the best players from its talent pool?

At face value, this statement should be certain, but there is hardly any difference in organizational ability between say, Chile and Uruguay, yet the latter have a far richer history of success in the sport. Tradition is not a factor here, as both Chile and Uruguay were with Argentina and Brazil, the initial participants of the South American international tournaments.

 

Chinese people in general aren't too tall, a major disadvantage in this game.

 

Are you going to elaborate, or just leave it as the nothing post it is so far?

 

No I won't, you can find out for yourself if you care enough for it, but you really should research a topic a bit more if you want to be taken seriously.

 

The Chinese in general are not good athletes, they win lots of Olympic medals in sports that are very niche and lack a significant cultural imprint, hence by sheer size they can put themselves as competitors. It's different though with soccer, cricket, baseball or hockey.

By the way, Argentina has beat the USA a few times in international basketball, I don't see China ever pulling that off.

 

How lame. Talk about not deserving to be treated seriously. If you have a credible argument, make it. Not just hint at your mysterious, superior knowledge.

 

Doesn't the US team have lots of concessions when they play in international (FIBA World Cup or Olympics) competition, like they don't have to take doping tests or some of the substances (I believe muscle substances, i don't know, maybe steroids that they use in traning or such) that other team are forbidden to take the US can get away with it cause the NBA doesn't forbid them and they agreed to that if FIBA wants them to present their best players?

Am i making all this up or is something like that true? Cause I know i heard sth like that before...