Each group has its strengths and weaknesses: G: No weak team. Every team is competent enough to get to the last 16 and all have been good in recent tournaments. B: The group with more talent, perhaps. D: The group with more history and the toughest on paper.
So does Chile, where our only weak point is that we don't have as many substitute players as Spain does, but since our match against Spain will be our second match of the WC, it might not be as important as it can be, if it were the 4th or 5th match into the WC (where injuries or carded players might downgrade the first team). On the contrary, most of those teams were predominantly defensive in their style (Paraguay, Portugal and Netherlands), with maybe the exception of Germany, and definitively not in the case of Chile.
Portugal and Netherlands were never defensive minded teams. Germany maybe a little in the sense that often killed off teams by counter attacking them
USA and Chile are in harder to qualify groups, but England has as much quality as those 2 teams, I don't see England being better or worse than Chile and USA.
It wasn't their passing game, which for some reason is called tiki taka, that won them those tournaments.. it was their players which are a bit older now. Xaviesta, Puyol, David Villa and Casillas going through their prime that won those tournaments for Spain/Barcelona (casillas not being in Barcelona obviously but being a major part for Spain) But the 2011 Barca team and the 2010 Spain team was based off those 4 players going on their primes at the same time. Spain won't be able to replace them. And will likely be the Spain we know from the past, knocking on the door but just never winning.
Brazil was put on the same situation on the Confed Cup with Spain dominating possession and having them chase the ball, so was Italy. And in the Euros until the last game Spain was not convincing at any point, same at the WC. I know you guys want to say.. well they won a bunch so it has to be convincingly, but that's not true. Barcelona in 2011 won convincingly... They crushed everyone's dreams and hopes.. they held the ball and scored on you. That's a convincing tournament win.. If you can't see the difference between what Barca did in 2011 and what Spain did in 2010 I can't help you.
Chile is above England for sure, there arent any world class players of the level of sanchez and vidal on england roster. []__[]
Spain was never able to play their game against Brazil in that final, they were never able to dominate possession like they usually try to do. They did to a little extent against Italy but that was mostly during the extra-time. The difference between Spain in 2010 and Barca is Messi. Spain still hd teams playing inside their own halfs for most part (except against Chile)of the game until they scored, and those teams were forced to come out after then. Their main problem was that while Villa was a very good goal scorer, he was nowhere as prolific as Messi as a goal scorer or as a player in general especially against parked buses, so they often won by a single goal. During the euros in 2012, offcourse they were less dominant. But i don't recall any of their Opponents creating more goal scoring opportunities than they did, even CR7 who was having a good tournanment barely touched a ball inside the Spanish penalty box.
Whether you think he's defensive minded or not is not the issue, the issue is that his team didn't play a defensive minded football in the tournament. Well until they were really forced to defend through out the game.
I agree that Spain was not as good as Barcelona in playing the tiki-taka, simply because they had to include players not used to this system and they did not have Messi. And it is completely true that Xavi and Iniesta were the main engines of that team and will be difficult to replace. What I do not agree is that tiki-taka played no role in their victory in 2010. I think part of their success was due to not allowing the opponent getting the ball, by constantly keeping possession. Whether they should have won always at least by 2 goals margins is a personal criterium for defining their merit for winning the title. To me, it was sufficient that they won it. Along with the titles of Barça and their NT in the Euros, this leads me to believe that 2010 was not an unlikely outcome. That being said, I am convinced that Spain will not do so well in 2014.
For this season I agree Sanchez is on fire and better than Rooney (who suffered with a sinking ManU) - but not by much
^ Exactly. Recently Alexis has been better for his NT. But lets not get carried away. A year or 18 months ago if we asked who was better for their country, the answer would be 'Rooney' and it wasn't even close. So lets see... Alexis still has a lot to prove at the int'l stage.
Lol@ the Chileans hyping their team. Its an average squad. 2nd round at most and everyone knows it. B squad with one world class player, and he's nothing to write home about. Group G is the group of death. Ghana, Portugal and Germany, nuff said.
There are 3 groups of death, but the biggest group of death is group G because 3 of those teams have to deal with... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Its true what Boca says, Alexis right now is performing well in Barcelona. In the national team he has never been our most fundamental player. IMO in terms of importance he comes after Vidal, Medel and Valdivia.
Quite possibly tiki taka is derived from the Dutch 'tikkie tik' or 'tikkie tikkie (voetbal)' , which translates into something like 'tap tap football', i.e. one-touch passing football.
Depends on how you define "Group of Death". If you define it as a group with 3 top teams and one of them will inevitably miss the KO stage then its the England group. If you define it as having 2 top teams and 2 teams from the class just below capable of unseating those top teams, then it's the Germany Group. I think the Spain group is easier than both. The Netherlands are old and were almost as bad as Ireland at the Euro. Chile super inconsistent despite their talent on paper, and Australia is awful.