World Cup 2014 - Group G: Preview & Analysis

One of the best signs for me that this group is up for grabs is the fact that I will need to consult my wrap up after the draw regarding this group to see which teams I predicted would advance from it! Except for picking Germany to advance form this group, I am not sure about the rest. But we all know that after Germany, Portugal are the favorites in this group. The US and Ghana, however, are both sides that can upset Portugal. Especially the US, while I see Ghana more likely to take points from the US than Portugal.

 

You mention the fact that the U.S. were denied a legit PK against Germany in 2002 and got a bogus PK against in the match with Ghana in 2006.
But you don't remember the PK denied to Mexico vs USA in the 2nd round in 2002 due to an O'brien handball ?? It should also be noted that both of your draws against European powerhouses England & Italy in WC were due to extremely lucky equalizers (a ridiculous own goal by Zaccardo in 06 and terrible blunder by the English GK in 10)

I hear often U.S. fan playing the victims, I'm not denying that they have been at the receiving hand of some ridiculous refereeing decisions against them but I also think that the USMNT is one of the most advantaged team in World football in general.

 

My further write up on Ghana for those interested in getting to know the team:
Midfield:
http://www.footballbettingodds.co.uk/ghana-week-part-2-the-midfield/

Attack:
http://www.footballbettingodds.co.uk/ghana-week-part-3-the-attack/

 

The only teams Portugal has lost to in their past five tourneys are 3 tourney champions (1 of those games went to penalties, and alll were relatively even matches), and Germany. That's pretty darn impressive in my view.

Their actual form often seems lousy, and you're right, they're attack is anemic, but I also wonder how dependent they are on Ronaldo, if they've generated these runs to the finals ('04 Euro), semi-finals ('06 World Cup and '12 Euro's), or lost to an eventual champion or runner up earlier ('08 quarters to Germany, '10 World Cup round of 16 to Spain), despite getting little to nothing from Ronaldo.

I think they're vulnerable because they seem to struggle so much to score when Ronaldo isn't on his game, but I also think they're scary because they show a remarkable ability to generate results even when literally nothing in the attack is going right.

 

I remember it, if memory serves it was a corner. Some argue that things balance out in the wash of history and tourney's, I dont think so, I think poor calls in soccer often can have a hugely distorting impact on games, in Mexico's case that certainly distorted thing, though it wasn't nearly as blatant in my view as the Frings handball where he was playing mr. invisible goal keeper with that ref, but yeah, both should have been called.

As for advantaged, i don't get that. Why? How? I haven't seen it, maybe I'm biased, but I dont get the perspective you're arguing from for that point.

And I can't imagine any fan anywhere being okay with the absurd goal waive off's that happened in back to back games in South Africa, other than Slovenian and Algerian fans.

 

Not entirely correct: They also lost to Switzerland in Euro 2008.

They lost 3 times to Germany (World Cup 2006, Euro 2008 and 2012). And they lost to Greece at Euro 2004 twice just to put it into perspective.

 

What is this based on?

Both the USA and Portugal have never beat Ghana in a match at any age level in the Mens game.

I hope you are not doing analysis based on inflated rankings or other biased things with numerous confounding factors.

 

Game against the Swiss was after they already qualified as group winners.

In 2006, it was a 3rd/4th place game in Germany that we didn't really care for.

2008 and 2012 are fair play but worth stating those games were pretty even.

Greece I don't want to comment on because I'll cry.

 

Too many simple facts and not enough analysis on your part. In 2010, Portugal played straight up defensive football. They suffered 1 goal in 4 games. That goal was offside against the team that were reigning European champions and would go on to be world champions. If you play a defensive style of soccer, yes, your attack will suffer. As Portugal lack a proper striker, it works in their favor to work toward their strengths which is their defense. As you failed to point out, against England and France, they only suffered 1 goal, and that was a sketchy penalty. Sure, Portugal may have "only" beaten Angola and Iran by 1-0 and 2-0, respectively, but to anyone who watched the games, they know Portugal was in control the whole time. There's a reason Portugal's B team was able to beat Mexico.

In regards to CR7, if you actually watched him vs. France in 2006, you'd know he was Portugal's best player. And don't just take my word for it, as the game was only a few years ago I'm sure you could find some "Player Ratings" online. In that same tournament he was injured out of the game vs. Holland and rushed back vs. England. In 2010, he was laughably misused.

I also don't agree with you that the Euros and the World Cup aren't comparable. Do you think its a coincidence that the Euro 2008 finalists were semi-finalists in 2010 in South Africa?

Where was Ronaldo in the rest of qualifiers? With the rest of his team. He, along with the rest of them, for reasons only they know, save their best for Portugal when it matters most. Also, I find it a bit disingenuous, again, how you keep referring to Portugal's lack of goal scoring when mentioning that Germany scored 9 against Sweden yet not even making a single mention of how Portugal suffered 2 goals against Sweden, while Germany suffered 7. So Germany scored 2.25 more goals than Portugal but suffered 3.5 more. So, essentially, Portugal was better than Germany over both rounds. And that isn't even mentioning that we won both home and away.

 

Remember though that WC 2006 was over 7 years ago when CR was not even close to his peak and yet they still reached the semis. In 2010 WC their coach was an idiot(Quieroz, I believe)who forced an offensive Portuguese team by nature into a defensive one because that was his style/tactics. He got fired for this. Remember too Portugal was in the GOD and positioning themselves by playing for draws was a known tactic Queiroz used and scoring goals against Brazil and Ivory Coast was not as important as conceding.
As for the Euros, I actually think it's much stiffer competition than the WC and they did very well in the last one too coming out of the GOD yet again and only barely losing a very tight game to eventual WC and Euro winner Spain by PKs. Most liklely they would've gone onto to win Euro 2012 vs Italy given how easily Spain handled them if they had a bit more luck in the PKs. In fact, I consider this Portuguese team incredibly unlucky for not winning a couple of majors by now.
Like I said too Ronaldo (and Portugal) have a bad habit of not showing up against smaller teams or early on in long qualifications. However, they have come out of the play-offs really well many times showing that when they need to play they play. That's my point with this team. Being in a GOD again will only serve Portugal well because they play their best footy when they have to. They know they will not be able to drop points in that group and having watched this team for years now I can appreciate their threat to win when their backs are against the wall. I really believe this difficult group will bring the best out of them.

 

Germany obvious favorite. But I can see them having to work harder than many people think. A win in the first match should anyway be a crucial factor for gaining the pass to the knock out stages, as it probably will condition the outcome of USA-Ghana and of the following matches.
Portugal is a solid euro team, used to big competitions, probably the most experienced in group G. Good starters, worthy back up, and a star which on paper is more than Ghana and USA have to offer. Always seen them as a difficult team to play, as they are one of the most capable at slowing the ball. Will also probably be the one team which will play more "tactical", relying on defense and counterattack, trying to spare energies.
Ghana is all that you can expect from an african team: strong in 1 vs. 1, with some tricky players, but also some proven, longstanding workhorses in the midfield. Still they will be the most tactically naive team... expect chances to be conceded by defensive blunders.
USA is clearly the less gifted in term of quality but has proven they can make up with pride, fitness and a growing tactical awareness. Trying to outnumber the opponents in the midfield, outrun them and focus on set pieces can be a way to overcome the odds which see them last on paper qualitywise.

 

I just don't think this group should be called the group of death. It would be so if all the four teams had a near equal chance of knocking off any of the three teams but here the situation is just more difficult for USA and Ghana but not so for Germany and Portugal. Team USA will have to work very hard to have any chance of advancing and get some luck on their side. It's still one of the toughest groups to be in but not the group of death.

 

Did you ever watch Ghana play? Obviously not. Or you would never have used 'tactically naive' anywhere close to Ghana. Yes, the defenders can be prone to mistakes, but that has nothing to do with tactical naivety, only with quality of said defenders.

Typical racial stereotyping. Sorry for pulling the race card, but its typical bull hurled at African teams, just because they are African.

 

Portugal are shit the US not much better and Ghana are not too hot either. Stroll for the Germans thru the group and a battle for second.

 

Portugal and Germany to go through.

 

Exactly correct, people don't even realise their subtle racial stereotyping. African teams are always referred to as 'naive', as in ' a bit too stupid to get tactics', you rarely or never hear that mentioned when Asian or Concacaf teams play. Another cliche is that African teams have a lot of good individuals but they can't work as a team, another subtle nod at their lack of fully grasping the concept of teamplay or tactics.

 

I don't think it is about racial stereotyping so much as lack of information to explain what is otherwise an anomaly: African teams generally don't do as well as the talent they possess on paper. Any team that does worse than the sum of its parts will have people search for an explanation, and end up looking at lack of organization, tactical naivete, poor coaching, lack of proper team work, or perhaps some other noticeable holes, to explain the anomaly.

Otherwise, lets be clear: while I think Mexico is better than the sum of its parts and produces better results than it should just on paper, I don't think my view of them having the football equivalent of street smarts suggests any reverse stereotypes about Mexicans being particularly smarter than others street wise or any other sense. The same with my view of the Korean team. Or Uruguay, which nonetheless does have some top talent too. The stereotypes applied to these teams are similarly mostly to explain how they have done better than perhaps one would have expected form them looking at their talent.

There is also the fact that sides that have good offensive talent will generally adopt tactics to accentuate their strength and that by itself occasionally weakens the defensive part of the equation. Otherwise, just because Iran was indeed tactically naive in the 1996-97 period, playing a style that brought out the most from its good offense but left its defense exposed, doesn't mean Iranians were not smart then and suddenly became smarter when they switched their tactics and began emphasizing defense more before the World Cup 1998. (If that is the case, I am crossing my fingers and hoping we become a bit less smart right now, as I think Quieroz was suffocating the offensive potential of Iran's team until recently).

 

What if Portugal or Germany don't make it trhough? You don't think Portugal wishes they could play easier opponents? They drew one the the top 2-3 teams from each pot. That's pretty unlucky.

 

As expected, the Germans won't be ill-prepared:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...llowing-fifas-renting-procedures-9003580.html

 

With no ideas about the legacy of the project it looks like they are being backed big. Imagine the pressure the team is under.

 

That's the thing with zee Germans ... the more pressure you heap on them, the better they perform ... they play every match as if it were the final.

 

As I said it's one of the tougher groups and if Portugal or Germany fails to advance then it's either USA or Ghana that played the game of their life.

 

But you said:

You don't think playing the USA and Ghana makes it more difficult than playing Australia and Algeria?

Having the USA and Ghana in the group significantly decreases Portugal's chance of advancing. Germany has a 90% chance of advancing, so there's really only one spot up for grabs. Portugal has maybe a 50% chance of advancing, which is pretty low considering they're one of the top 10 teams in the world.

 

With the odds you gave, I think you just proved that this is perhaps a difficult group, but by now means a group of death. And frankly it isn't.

In a group of death, no team has odds of advancing anywhere approaching 90%. And the differences between the odds of the top team, the 2nd team, and the next teams wouldn't be this high either.