World Cup 2014 - Group G: Preview & Analysis

That's completely arbitrary criteria.

A group a death is a group where teams that should advance (aka top 16 teams) don't advance. Germany always advances, and the USA, Portugal, and Ghana have each advanced in 2 of the 3 most recent world cups. The USA, Portugal, and Germany are all top 16 teams by any statistical measure you could possibly conceive, and Ghana is probably a top 16 team on talent alone. These are all teams that regularly advance in world cups. That's what makes it the group of death.

 

Welll... Ghana based on results of the last 2 World Cups is a top 10 team (8th best team).

 

I see this as a tough group, not a group of death. Because its a tough group, teams that would have a good chance to advance to the round of 16 from an easier group, don't have such a good chance. For these, more marginal, sides this may indeed a group of death. But since Germany will almost certainly be alive, it can't be a group of death for the Germans. And if you really think Portugal have a 50/50 chance, then chances are pretty good that even Portugal will not die in this group but go on to live at least another match.

 

A 50/50 chance means 50/50. That's a coin flip. That's not a "good chance" to advance for team of Portugal's quality. This is a team that should probably be seeded, but has a 50% chance of not even advancing to the round of 16. In most groups, Portugal would have a 70% or higher chance of advancing.

 

There should only be 1 group of death. It is the most difficult group. All other groups should be easier for everyone involved (obviously everyone might not agree on which opponent is harder).

Would the US team swap places with Costa Rica or Australia? No they wouldn't.

It makes no sense to say there are 3 groups of death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup#Final_draw

I don't see anyone else being happy to swap places with someone from the same pot into Group D.

I think asking German fans if they'd rather be in B or D is the key. I don't think they would.

Your definition is arbitrary. It requires a time threshold and a threshold of what constitutes a team that should progress. Using data from 12 years ago is pointless.

What matters is the state of football now and people can generally agree on which group they'd rather not be in.

 

Yes, this is indeed a tough group. When I think of a group of death, I am thinking of a group which will trouble the top seed as much as the next seed. So, yes, this is a tough group, but I wouldn't call it a group of death and many others wouldn't either, for reasons similar to what I pointed out.
Anyway, this is really a semantic difference. It by no means suggests that teams like Ghana and the US haven't seen their prospects of advancing diminished by virtue of the draw. Although I don't think the US would trade places with Australia, or Costa Rica, this is probably the 3rd or 4th toughest group out there for them. Ghana, on the other hand, arguably got the worse draw among the Africans.

 

Exactly, saying nearly 40% of groups are groups of death is ridiculous. As we saw in this draw, the likelihood of getting a tough group is high.

The most difficult group to progress from is the group of death. How do you work that out? Simple, ask if any teams would swap into the group (remembering pots).

 

This isn't the standard definition of a group of death. This is:

A group of death in a multi-stage tournament is a group which is unusually competitive, because the number of strong competitors in the group is greater than the number of qualifying places available for the next phase of the tournament. Thus, in the group phase, one or more strong competitors in the "group of death" will necessarily be eliminated, who would otherwise have been expected to progress further in the tournament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_death

By that definition, there are two groups of death: Group D and Group G. Group G has the stronger teams on average.

 

Conveniently ignoring the other definitions given by Wikipedia I see.

That article was also probably written by people similar to those posting on this forum. There is no "standard" definition.

 

Really? There are varying definitions, but the one at the top of the article is by far the most common. That's why it's at the top of the article, and the other definitions are under the "debates and definitions" section.

 

Citation please.

I suggest you read the article in full. It is actually quite good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_death#Debates_and_definitions

I am of the opinion that there is one group of death. When you have 3 it just gets ridiculous. The tournament is difficult, groups won't be easy.

 

Sorry if I don't take these probabilities that you took out of thin air seriously. Portugal does not have a 50% chance of advancing. As I've stated in other threads, Portugal is the only team from Europe to qualify from the group stage in every tournament of the past decade. And they did it in a considerably more difficult group last year that included the Germans, a World Cup finalist in the Dutch, and the Danish who finished ahead of Portugal in qualifying. In addition to that, they're 3-0 in recent play-off series against quality sides such as Bosnia and Sweden. All actual stats point to the fact that this is a team that knows better than most how to qualify from the group stage and similar pressure situations.

It's a tough group but to state Portugal's chances of advancing are as good as their chances of not is, largely for the reasons stated above, silly.

 

I read the entire article and feel that the article is saying something like I am saying, when read in its entirety. Even in the definition you have above, it depends on what you mean by "strong competitors"? Teams that would ordinarily be expected to make the Round of 16 but necessarily go much further? Or are we talking about something more?

In any case, my views on the issue are the ones I have stated. This is a tough group. But not a group of death. The group of death in this World Cup is the one with Spain, Holland, Chile and Australia.

 

I agree. I would put Spain/Holland/Chile/Australia above Uruguay/England/Italy/Costa Rica.

 

Assuming Ghana's quality is comparable to 2010 I'd say this is the Group of Death. You have two of the major European powers who were just recently Euro semi-finalists, in Ghana a team that got royally screwed out of not going to the semis last time around, and a good team in the USA. I can't comment on whether Chile is better than Ghana but I don't think I'd be incorrect in saying that if they were better, it isn't drastic. Meanwhile, the USA is a good team whereas Australia is arguably the worst team in the tournament. I'd say the mere fact that Australia is in that group, meaning the likelihood of them taking points from anyone is virtually zero, which is not the case in Group G, I'd say G is overall the more difficult group.

 

If it is such a tough group then why would the USA not switch to B or D taking the place of Australia/Costa Rica?

Surely you'd want to leave the Group of Death.

 

Lol, what?

 

The problem you have, and it might be unfair, is that most people don't rate Portugal as high as Holland. And so when they see Germany-Portugal, they aren't likely to react as when they see Spain-Holland (World Cup champions and World Cup runner up team). As for Chile, they are very good and playing in South America, they would be rated much higher than either Ghana or the US. I kind of agree with you about Australia though; I rate them better than Algeria, Honduras and Costa Rica but that's about the only teams I believe are worse than them. (While I see many rate Iran below some of these teams, I don't think that is right).

 

Would the USA swap places with either team? No, and hardly anyone would even debate that.

 

I agree with that. It would be foolish for the US to want to be in Australia's group instead. Or in Costa Rica's.

 

Because the USA is what makes it a group of death. If you removed the USA, it would no longer be a group of death. It's not the worse possible group for the USA, but it is the highest ranked group in the tournament.

 

And I agree but I don't care for the general opinion, largely also because it tends to be very uninformed when it comes to Portugal. The fact that they repeatedly surpass expectations at tournaments is testament to that. These are the same people that lambasted Ronaldo for not doing anything for Portugal and now call Portugal a "one man team", and this isn't even considering that Portugal has had Holland's number for years and years now.


I do agree actually with Chile taking advantage of playing in SA, which I had forgotten but still believe that having a team with limited potential of taking points from any team simply lowers the overall quality of the group.

 

I think 50% is being generous. The SPI, which I think is the most accurate statistical analysis of the game, gives Portugal a 40.3% chance of advancing, the USA a 39.4% chance of advancing, and Ghana a 28.6% chance of advancing.

http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1639248/?cc=5901

Portugal's percentage is low because of their extremely weak qualification group, the fact that the conditions in Brazil are expected to favor Ghana and the USA, and also the fact that they play Germany first. Looking at just the statistical analysis of the Portugal vs USA game in the Amazon, Portugal is more likely to loose or tie that game than they are to win it. The chance of them heading into their last game with 2 points or less is greater than 50%. That means that it's more likely than not that their tournament will rest on the shoulders of a must win game against Ghana in jungle heat and humidity.

 

What? If USA switched spots with Australia then Australia wouldn't be in there. The point I'm making is overall strength of groups, not the "Top 3" teams in the group.

 

Chile have an 80% chance of progressing with Spain and Netherlands in the same group? Yeh right.

Brazil 97% chance? That's generous as well.

Loads more as well, Argentina is really high, Italy is low.