World Cup 2014 - Group G: Preview & Analysis

It's not too often I roll on the floor laughing but to your first question: HELL YES!!!!! Getting the second weakest seed, and a mediocre unseeded Euro Side (I think England would have been in 5th or the 6th among the unseeded Euro sides in terms of difficulty with only Croatia, Greece, and Russia being sides I'd clearly want more than England (Bosnia and France would be next up, but the are pretty close to England to me, France is better, but plays less consistently, while Bosnia is up and coming and might be a little scarier), and while I rate Italy higher than most (that euro '12 run impressed me), the US drew them under horrid conditions in '06 at the cup, got manhandled in the second half of their confed cup match with their very own American born and raised Rossi scoring 2 of the 3 Italian goals, and then drew Italy in Italy a short time ago. Italy is my second most feared unseeded Euro side, but I'd take England over Portugal every day of the week, and Uruguay 6 days, and twice on sunday over Germany.

I don't think anyone anywhere agrees with your sentiments, other than people focused on the accomplishments of Uruguay when Eisenhower was President, and England when the Beatles were releasing Rubber Soul, B and G are far worse situations for me to imagine than Uruguay's group, far far worse.

 

If the SPI didn't overate Chile, then Germany's chance of advancing in that group would likely be exactly the same as it is in the current group. Because of the way the draw works, Spain, Germany, and Brazil will always have a near 90% chance to advance. There aren't any non-seeded teams that can realistically compete with those teams regularly.

 

Just because you search for some indicator, whether SPI or otherwise, to fit what you want to prove, doesn't mean what you say is true. SPI might "overrate" Chile and "underrate" Italy, or it might rate them about right. What I know is that Italy is a team that gives Germany problems historically. Put them in the same group as Germany and many German fans will begin to worry about losing to Italy. And then a hot team like Chile, playing in South America. Not a good draw for Germany. Certainly, if they have to then face Japan, a side that is pretty good as well. A side that might not give the Germany as much trouble as say the US, but which is classier than the US team and can do better against Italy and Chile than the Americans. Putting this group all up in the air!

 

So basically you ignore Italy in any comparison and conveniently match up trams 2 and 3 against 1 and 2 in group G. A waste of a post.

Why you'd take Italy, England, Uruguay over Germany, Portugal and Ghana. The USA would likely finish bottom in Groups B and D.

The USA can only dream about having players like Suarez and Cavani. Suarez can win a game against anyone in the world by himself.

If we're recounting matches from so long ago it doesn't matter, Portugal twice failed to beat England in major tournaments managing it on penalties. The USA showed nothing against an awful England side in 2010 and were fortunate in the goal.

 

Agreed. He's an excellent goalkeeper.

But really: Uruguay is no better than Ghana. Germany is as good, if not better, than Italy (even though Italy is Germany's bane). Portugal is better than England.

Naturally Group B is the heaviest, as Spain and Holland are top dogs, while Chile is comparable to Ghana and Uruguay, but arguably been more consistent of late.

 

Swapping doesn't take place, because the rules of the draw doesn't consider them.
So stop talking nonsense on that issue.

In any case, If possible (which isn't), taking Portugal or England instead of Netherlands, would be like taking a piece of candy, from a 3 year old child.....

 

Ridiculous. I would not prefer Netherlands, but your comparison only serves the purpose of belittling two teams you don't like.

 

I think that you should calm a little bit about the Suarez bashing, it is true that he has been caught with some shocking behaviour onfield, but there's is no doubt that he's an amazingly skilled striker, that's not debatable...

In what is concernng Uruguay, I think that despite their potent striking pair, they might be the seeded team that is going out early, everybody is seeing England crashing out in their group, but I remember seeing an Uruguayan team during the last Olympics with both Cavani and Suarez upfront being eliminated early.
The fact they choose these very important for their european clubs, "overaged" players, to the tournament showed that Uruguay were taking the Olympics very seriously. They had two losses including, against a GB team that was arguably worse than the english team that they'll face in Brazil.They were also led by the same coach than their national squad.
That was my 2c...

 

Of course you wouldn`t prefer Netherlands. They are a couple of steps above you guys.

They should have been one of the seeded teams this time around, but weren't due to the stupid formula that FIFA decided to use this time. For facts, at most you guys should compare to us. The same as England in their respective group (as all 3 of us, in last WC, we were all second placed in our respective groups and all eliminated at the same stage afterwards, while Holland went all they way up to the finals).

In actual group G, my favourites to pass are Germany, and for second place, it will be between Ghana and the USA. This time there isn't a playoff for Portugal, to make it to the next stage.

 

In Euro 2008, WC 2010, and Euro 2012, there wasn't a playoff either. And Netherlands was in the group of Portugal, by the way. Even with supposedly worse teams, Portugal beat Netherlands 4 times in the last 6 games and conceded a draw in the remaining two.

You clearly hate Portugal, so what's the point of trying to make a serious analysis of a team's chances of advancing when you can't avoid letting your feelings in the way? And as for Chile, I give you the benefit of doubt, but you still have a lot to prove before boasting like that.

 

Well this isn`t the Euro, where your team may be a top team (together with others, like former champions, Greece, for instance)

This is the WC, and in it, besides requiring once again to win a play-off to make it through to it, and once in the WC besides beating North Korea (probably the weakest team ever, in a WC), all your team achieved, was a couple of boring draws, after which you took the trip home. And for the last qualifiers, ended second over Israel, and below Russia (which are only an average team and not even close to being considered a powerhouse), and required to beat Sweeden in a play-off, another slightly above average team to make it through.

On the other side, Ghana made it all the way to quarters last WC and in their qualifiers, they beated everyone they confronted. USA, last WC ended as first in their group, over England, and got eliminated afterwards by Ghana, and in their last qualifiers, they were the best in Concacaf. And Germany, can`t say anything new about them, that we already know.

Besides, in our last friendly game, played at your own home (Leiria, 2011), you guys didn`t show anything meaningful against our team (ended in a 1 goal draw).

Sorry, but with all of this in mind, I can't rate your team too high.
At last, rating a team, has nothing to do with "likes or hates".

 

The fact that you mention Greece as a top team says how much you know about the Euros. They were great in 2004, but have done nothing since then. Portugal finished 4th in WC 2006 and performed consistently well in Euros and the WC, reaching one more semi-final and never being eliminated in any group stage.

Ghana only made one more round and they didn't have to face Spain. You probably can say the same about Chile. If they hadn't faced Brasil, then they could have gone farther.

And you missed again my point about playoffs. Portugal under-performed in each of the last three qualifiers, but ended up improving significantly in the major competitions. But I don't know why I keep saying this. In this forum, only the Europeans seem to realize the true value of the Euro when comparing to the WC.

 

A friendly in 2011? You lost all the credibility. I stop here. You basically tried to find every excuse to diminish a team, so don't be a hypocrite. Admit that you just can't stand the team and be done with it.

 

He's not even worth responding to pal.

 

The example of Greece (2004), is for showing that the Euro is completely diferent from a WC. In the WC that was prior to their success (2002) and the one that came afterwards (2006), they didn't even make it there, so their "greatness" stands a very big question mark, over it (and of course over all of Uefa, as well).

As for Portugal, achieving a draw in the last WC, against a weaker opponent (in 2010, against CIV, whom at the time were ranked almost 25 places below Portugal), isn't exactly the best result to be defined as being consistent (as for our case, we were ranked lots below of both teams that beated us in that WC, so for no one, it constituted, a surprise).

And using for facts, something that didn't happen and only based on the asumption of what could have happened (based on your opinion over the issue), doesn't give you any credibility on whatever you want to say on their behalf.
Fact is, Ghana did reach the quarters last WC, and Portugal didn't.
Oh yes, and Netherlands were finalists last WC, and reached the next WC to come, by winning its Uefa group.
Fact.

 

Who cares what people think, including me (I put the Dutch ahead of Portugal when Im initially making any rankings, then always have to fix them for "logic"). Portugal has outperformed the Dutch in every single tourney since '04 other than the '10 World Cup AND (both crashed out of the '08 Euro's in the QF's) have knocked the Dutch out of the '06 World Cup and the '12 Euro's. By any reasonable and fair analysis they are better than the Dutch period.

Now I fully understand that the Dutch appear better on paper, and bet sheets and rankings, but the results are the freaking results. When tourney games are actually to be played, Portugal has trumped the Netherlands at Euro '04, World Cup '06 (in the battle of Nuremberg), and Euro '12, and even in World Cup '10, while the Dutch went further, Portugal actually gave Spain a much tougher game (though I think that was game plan).

At the end of the day the Netherlands had a rubber match for all the marbles against Portugal and needed to pound them to advance out of the Euro's and instead got pounded. I like the Netherlands a lot more and view them as more talented, but the results are the results, and Portugal has handled games against Netherlands and tourney's in general much better than the Dutch have over the past decade.

 

You've got agreement from me with B. The idea that they wouldn't want to switch places with the Costa Rican's though is idiotic. Of course they would.

Germany > Uruguay (not close)
Ghana < Italy (close)
Portugal > England (not close)

 

Oh the Gold Cup results are complete hog wash and you are correct there. Nobody takes them seriously, I would much prefer the US playing in a combined Copa (which has been suggested for the centennial in 2016??), which would be a much greater challenge.

The challenge of the GOld Cup isn't just that, its also that nobody brings their full side except for when a birth in the confed cup is on offer (that will be '15), so the '13 Gold Cup was pointless. Playing on home soil distorts it as well, totally agreed there. I was more impressed with our performance in road friendlies.

 

We don't know how Germany , Portugal and Ghana are going to play in the Western Hemisphere in South America.

We do however have a basic idea of how Uruguay plays in South America and specifically in Brazil in the Confederations. We also have an idea of how Italy is going to play since they were also in that tournament.
Even England went down to play Brazil and looked pretty good in a friendly.

I rather take the teams out of their elements and the unknown as a USA fan.

 

How can you say that Portugal gave Spain a much tougher game, than the one that Netherlands gave them, if the one between Portugal and Spain ended in regular time (90 minutes), where Spain scored at the 63 minutes of the match, while the one between Netherlands and Spain required an over time (120 minutes), where the goal that defined the champion was achieved with only 5 minutes to its end ?

If the draw, would have lasted for 5 more minutes, in that last game, we would have needed a pk definition to decide the Champion. And all of this, together with the great amount of cautions received by both teams in both matches compared between each other (3 cardings in the Portugal-Spain match vs. 14 cardings in the Hetherlands-Spain match), the first match was like a friendly, while the final match was war.....

Sorry, but I think you are wrong here.

 

I also think using betting sites is exceedingly unreliable because their odds and lines aren't based upon purely whom they expect to win, but also in assuring a balanced weighting of money bet on both sides. They're playing the vig and don't want to ruin their take with a bad line/odds that causes money to be poured in by the sharps on one end, or the public on the other. That will cause a casino to get annihilated on game day and has happened before. If they were simply trying to set odds based on their own models arguing who would win, the odds and lines would be very different, hence line movement during the week days after the sharps jump all over suspect lines in the college or pro game out here in Nevada.

 

Like how Germany advanced out of a group with Denmark, Portugal and Netherlands with relative ease just 18 months ago? Germany's earned the right to be an automatic advance side like Brazil, until they don't, I'm already booking them a place when it comes to the world cup (of course they crashed out early in Euro '04).

 

Portugal actually played soccer, they didn't try to turn the game into a bum fight.

I recognize your argument and its a valid one, I just don't believe the Netherlands made a real effort to actually win the game playing soccer. They just attempted to break Spain physically, then win off of PK's. It was hugely disappointing as up to that moment the Netherlands had played amazing soccer and in my view, could have played toe to toe with Spain, on their day. Much better to go out that way, then to try to reinvent yourselves and produce a sequel to the Battle of Nuremberg in Johannesburg.

 

Uruguay has struggled at home in qualifiers against Costa Rica, fellow conmebol foes, and in the copa. I don't think Uruguay is hugely intimidating in S. America compared to the fact that Germany's been playing as a top 4 side in the world since 2006 (and traditiaonally for decades going back to the Eisenhower administration), so Germany is far scarier.

England hasn't been playing consistently impressive soccer in major tourneys since they advanced out of the group of death and made it to the quarters giving Brazil a bit of a scare 12 years ago. They didn't look great qualifying out of a cake group either.

Italy is scary, and much scarier than Ghana, I'll grant that. But Germany and Portugal with their impressive tournament play going back a decade are far scarier to me than Uruguay or England, far scarier, and I don't see where there's any argument to that whatsoever beyond the qualifying record of Portugal which sucks (but hasn't translated to tourney struggles), and Uruguay's home continent factor which would be scarier to me than the Swiss but not scarier to me than any other seed).

 

The Dutch's brutal strategy would have worked if it were not for Robben pooping the bed on a few breakaways.
He was just plain awful in that match.