Bookies don't do any research? Are you nuts. There are billions bet on these freaking games. If a bookie can't be bothered to research, he's gonna be s canned, and if he lives in certain areas, probably killed. There is way way way too much money at stake for anyone to under-research any of this Star studded in '06? Really, say's who? Should I say the '94 US team was star studded? That team actually accomplished something unlike, well, any of your world cup squads, and still would be laughed out of the room if they were called star studded. Come on. How would you even know whether you guys cold hold down Argentina anyway? Argentina laid waste to the best defense in Europe in '06 at the cup, and this Argentine squad actually has superior forwards to that one, but somehow you guys are going to be able to frustrate them because of your wealth of experience playing sides like Argentina.....when exactly?
If I were to bet on results, I think the most likely results are this: Matchday 1: Germany beats Portugal by 1 goal. USA and Ghana Draw Matchday 2: Portugal either draws USA, or beats by 1 goal. Ghana loses to Germany by multiple goals (because of that D), similar to Costa Rica-Germany '06 4-2 type scoreline. Matchday 3: Ghana defeats Portugal by 1 goal. USA draws or loses to Germany by 1 goal. I expect Portugal to get 1-4 points. I expect Ghana to get 3-4 points I expect the US to get 1 to 4 points. I expect Germany to get 7 or 9 points (they always seem to get 7, so maybe they draw someone?) I think at the end of the day the group likely turns on 3 gams: USA vs Ghana on matchday 1 USA vs Portugal on matchday 2 and the GD in the Ghana v Germany Match Both games on matchday 3, as Ghana is definitely capable of beating Portugal if they can mark out Ronaldo, or if he has an off game, while the US seems to either play Germany really really tough, or get its rear handed to it. It's never a simple, reasonable German or US win, it always seems to be Germany killing us, or basically a even draw of a game, nothing inbetween. So if Germany is resting guys and has card accumulations because of the diving Ronaldo/aggressive Ghana factor, that helps the US, and then it turns on what kind of performance the US plays and lastly if the US has yet another world cup where they have a great game, a solid game and either a horrible game ('94 loss to Romania, '98 loss to Germany, '02 loss to Poland, '06 loss to Czechs) or a horrible half (first half down 0-2 to Slovenia in '10). You can't have a horrible game in G and advance in my view because GD or TG's is probably determining who takes second place unless someone plays way out of their heads.
I guess Belgium played the same card as the Swiss, because they also played absolutely nobody during that time. you are basing this off knowing the Belgium players and where they play and their names. and the base of your opinion of the Swiss is because you simply don't know them. Reality is.. the Swiss have a better record than Belgium as of late and played better against top opposition, that's just the reality, no opinion or nothing. Simply looking at both of their records and looking at their opposition. Look I usually go for every betting statistic before anything else, but with Belgium.. I can't agree... you're right they are the 4th highest odd in the WC, only behind Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain (in that order) But for a team that has not beaten a top nation in years.. i can't seem to understand their over value.
Why is Iran in the poll? Not only will we not be the worst team, but we will be the best. Better get ready, because the World Cup trophy is coming to Tehran!
Your theory is wrong, and so is some of your analysis about Iran. Otherwise, I agree we don't need to talk so much about Iran. But I don't like the facts to be butchered in the process. Here are some corrections: Iran did NOT lose to Iraq in the 2002 qualifiers. We beat them home and away. We didn't qualify because of 1 loss to Bahrain in our last match. Bahrain were eliminated already when we played and lost to them, so your theory couldn't be true! In 2010, Iran didn't qualify again despite only 1 loss in 14 qualifying games. And that loss was to neither team that represented the AFC in that World Cup; in fact, North Korea had to bunker to get a draw against Iran in Pyongyang (we always beat them even in North Korea) and they lost to us in Tehran. South Korea, on the other hand, had to come back from behind to draw us both in Tehran and in Seoul. It was lucky to get those draws against us, but certainly didn't beat us for your theory to have any merit again. Our only loss in those qualifiers was against Saudi Arabia at home and it had nothing to do with the theory you offered. We were dominating the match and were ahead 1:0 when late in the game, the Saudis scored and then scored again, with our team caught looking incredously almost as though we couldn't believe Iran was losing to the Saudis at home. All that said, Japan and South Korea are more accomplished teams than Iran the past couple of decades. We can easily leave at that without needing to butcher the truth.
So because Mexico sucks even worse at amateur sports than futbol... that makes Iran good? You guys (the Iranian fans that post on BSMX I wouldn't be so stupid as to generalize to an entire culture) are so freaking insecure... get that chip off your shoulder already! In the real world it would be extremely unlikely that any program could from a single World Cup game won (or two) to a deep run in a very competitive global sport like Football other than fluke runs like those of Turkey, South Korea, Sweden etc., Iran's sane aspiration would be to have a solid tournament with a 5pt performance & an honorable 2nd round elimination but 3 & Out is the likely scenario...
That first post of mine was a JOKE. I thought that was kinda evident by the gif. God you're stupid. lol Generelize an entire culture? WHAAAT?! Jesus f.uck, what the hell are you on about? Take a chill pill. Seriously, you are too random and funny. lol
What is it with the D of Ghana? I know the defence looked poor against Egypt, but that was an entirely makeshift defence. When the starters get back Ghana will have two of Ligue 1's best defenders. Besides tactically Ghana always plays a very disciplined game shutting off spaces and compacting the midfield.
Nothing in particular, it's just it's not a strength. I don't view it as weak, or some massive liability, just as middling, whereas there midfield is spectacular, and generally there forwards have little trouble getting the job done at a lower level, and have done so in the world cup as well even if they aren't at the level of the midfield. It's not a case of the D being awful in as much as its a case of the D not being at the same level of the midfield, or the forwards. I don't think they've been tested all that much thus far, and like with the US, I think they'll be exposed at the in G. 3 of the 4 teams in the group have excellent attacks (when healthy), and with Portugal, they may not have a great attack, but they have one of the two or three most lethal attacking weapons in the world. I would be pretty surprised if Ghana, and the US managed to keep the TG's scored against them reasonably low. I don't expect being blasted apart like North Korea in '10, but I do expect that Germany will probably be able to put a combined 5-7 in against us combined, and if Ronaldo's on, it could get ugly. In one half he managed to basically treat the Swedish defense like John Belushi treated deli meat as The Samurai. The key for both Ghana and the US will be to get on the board early against Portugal, early against each other, and early against Germany. Chasing the game will likely make for ugly GD.
Belgium has probably the strongest team they've had since I was just graduating elementary school 28 years ago, they are totally inexperienced in tourney's and if they hadn't been a seed, they could have crashed out in group play. Instead they got a seed, and a very reasonable draw (I think their group would likely be considered one of the 3 weakest in terms of 2nd, 3rd and 4th pot teams), and if they can win their group, a beatable squad in the round of 16 (projected to be Portugal, USA, or Ghana). So I expect a lot of them. As for the Swiss, you're right, I don't know them nearly as well, saw all their games at World Cup '10 and Euro '08, only highlights since. I think they're better than a lot of people give them credit for being (I view them as top 15-20 or so), but I don't think they're anywhere near as good as Belgium. And again, the sports books agree with me. Bookmakers don't mess around, everything they do is based on proprietary metrics, and analyzing to the last detail. Screw up a line and they can lose 10's of millions on big enough events. This weekend after going 3-1-1 in the first two weekends of playoff play, I took the under in both Championship games, and the Broncos -5 (I would have lost if the line stayed -6), and the Seahawks -3 (would have taken the niners if the line had the hook, it didn't because of my proximity to SF). You want to know how excellent Vegas is? I took the U on 39 points, total points scored? 23-17 Seahawks. Cleared all my bets except that under. Now the bookies could definitely be wrong, they usually are on some things, which is why I got paid on Italy in '06, and nearly did on Holland in '10 (I love to play teams that disappointed in the previous cup and federation tourney, Italy's goof ups in '02 and '04 provided great odds for a Euro based cup in '06, while Holland's horrid '06, and disastrous quarterfinal defeat after outstanding group play in '08 created wonderful opportunities), but the bookies lines are always designed upon relative strength of the teams and the public/sharp money to balance the books so they can have their profit on the vig. There is a math to their projections, as well as to their lines. That's what matters. If they say the Swiss are 80-1 or 100-1 despite a dream draw, then they aren't terribly impressive to the bookmakers, if they say Belgium is a 14-1 side, then they're obviously impressed with how Belgium is playing NOW and I will fully grant, with no track record in any tourney's of note, this will all be new to Belgium, an epic crash out is possible, Russia isn't poor, and S. Korea is tough, but at the end of the day, they should get 3 against Algeria no problem, and probably 4-6 versus the other two sides, so an early crash out is not on the table. Now will they perform up to a seed's expectations? I doubt it. The path is too damn hard after group play, first they get the runner up from G, then if they survive that they probably get Argentina, which is, metaphorically, a door slamming shut on their tourney barring a tremendous performance in that match up. That's why, while I think the Swiss line is on point (and shows just how poor the analysts think they are-brilliant, ideal draw, and path, and they still think there is zero chance they win-which suggests they see the Swiss as a team in that 16-24 area), I think the Belgium line is inflated and a bit silly. Why on earth are Belgium 14-1, while Italy, Portugal, Netherlands, and France are below them substantially? I imagine Netherlands and Portugal are probably strictly because of their nightmare draws, but Italy and France got reasonable draws and pairings, and yet are below Belgium. France on its day, is certainly relatively even with Belgium with a track record of showing well every other tourney, and Italy should be 10 or 12-1, and is my best value bet for the tourney. Absurd line for them at 22-1 and 25-1 depending upon the casino. Personally I'm projecting the Swiss and the Belgians to advance unlike some (who don't like the chances of the Swiss), just don't think Ecuador will do much, 1 win, and 2 draws on the road in 9 road qualifiers, now everyone struggles on the road in qualifying in Conmebol, but that track record is particularly poor. The Swiss also have a reasonable pairing in the Round of 16 if they can win their group (Nigeria or Bosnia, or Iran), but after that....
A quick look at the worst teams in World Cup history. All these teams exited pointless, although in the 1934 and 1938 World Cups, the first round was a single elimination match. (less than 16 teams tournaments) 1930 World Cup: Mexico 1934 World Cup: United States 1938 World Cup: Dutch East Indies 1950 World Cup: Bolivia or Mexico (16 team tournaments) 1954 World Cup: South Korea (often rated all-time worst: 9-1 loss to Hungary and 7-0 loss to Turkey) 1958 World Cup: Mexico 1962 World Cup: Switzerland 1966 World Cup: Switzerland 1970 World Cup: El Salvador 1974 World Cup: Zaire (9:0 loss to Yugoslavia worst loss in World Cup history at that point, with Zaire going pointess with -14 GD, making them worse than even Haiti who also finished pointless but with -12 GD in that World Cup) 1978 World Cup: Mexico (24 team tournaments) 1982 World Cup: El Salvador (10-1 loss to Hungary is sometimes referred to as the most lopsided loss in World Cup history, but depends on how you look at it in comparison to Zaire's 9-0 loss in WC74?) 1986 World Cup: Canada 1990 World Cup: UAE 1994 World Cup: Greece (32 team tournaments) 1998 World Cup: United States (the best worst team ever with only a -4 GD in 3 games) 2002 World Cup: Saudi Arabia (their 8:0 loss to Germany the most lopsided loss since El Salvador's 10-1 loss in WC82) 2006 World Cup: Serbia and Montenegro 2010 World Cup: North Korea P.S. The 2002 World Cup was the best and the worst for the AFC! The best because hosts S.Korea and Japan did very well. The worst because the other Asian representatives, Saudi Arabia and China, were horrendous. Of course, the top ranked AFC team at the time was Iran and it didn't even qualify. In 2010, Iran was again absent from the World Cup, with its place taken by probably the lowest ranked teams to ever qualify to the World Cup in the modern era, namely North Korea. That didn't turn out very well for the AFC either.
Clearly Costa Rica and Australia They have to play against spain, netherlands, chile, uruguay, italy and england in the group phases. Come on, they got the worst draw probable and might end up pointless with a really bad GD
I think people voted Iran in the poll cause there are a lot of iranian supporters here that write too much and might annoy some other members, but the truth is that Australia and Costa Rica got the worst possible draw and probably gonna be worst teams of the WC, either of them. They have higher chances to finish last than Iran, thats for sure
Does anyone see Australia beating Spain? Costa Rica beating Italy? Australia beating Chile? Costa Rica beating England? I could go on....they wont win any point
Australia and Costa Rica are hot favorites. Simply because of the draw. Any other team will be unexpected 9they may even lose all three games, but unlikely with high margins).
That's exactly what I'm kind of saying, bookeepers are giving Belgium more credit than teams that look like they have an easier road past group or even a better tournament history. I mean.. better than Italy!? I don't know
Maybe not in your book, but the same bookies you believe to be so incredibly hard working rely on pedigree alone. Star studded for me includes players that play for Bayern Munich, Hamburg etc. which at the time we did have players that played there. Relying on Pedigree they see that most of our squad is domestic and assume the worst. Did I say that we would completely be able to hold down Argentina? No. A little RESEARCH can lead you to see that our squad has experience in Europe. In fact, our captain has beaten Messi and Barcelona before with Osasuna, guarding him the entire game. I don't mean that that will happen in this World Cup game between the two but to act as though is a team of inexperienced players is naive. Frustrating a team is FAR easier than beating a team. You should know that's how the US has gets results, when they do, against stronger nations.
A Mexican nominating the USA as the worst team in the upcoming World Cup, I didn't see that coming... I would've thought that 92th minute goal by "Saint Zusi" would have brought your big heads back to Earth and come to the realization that the USA is far superior than you guys give us credit for....
I think the most likely to finish last is Algeria, with possibly an ageing Australia as the next most likely. Both have tough group opponents against whom you'd expect them to struggle. Algeria may not have a major seeded team (of the Brazil, Argentina, Spain ilk) but Belgium are many people's dark horses this year (does that make them not a dark horse if many people say they are?!). Russia are seemingly never great but Russian football is gathering some momentum I feel. South Korea are perhaps not as strong as they have been in the not too distant past but have some very good players (Ki,at Sunderland is particularly impressive lately) and would I think be too strong for Algeria. Australia on the other hand have a bit of a nightmare draw - Spain, Netherlands and Chile. All three of those are good enough to progress, so there'll be quite a battle between them. Australia are past their early/mid 2000s peak with many of their better players (their best ever generation?) now well and truly on the downward slope. Those that have replaced them just simply aren't as good. But on the other hand, I expect them to be well organised and to compete strongly and wouldn't rule them out from picking up a point or two, though not enough to qualify. But it's an impossible prediction - things often work out so differently. Algeria may lose all three games, but just as easily I could see them winning a match. Either way, I can't wait for it all to kick off!
Don't know why Bosnia is included in this question. They averaged 3 goals a game and only allowed 4 in 10 qualification matches. That's a goal differential of 36. Their squad is stacked with players doing well in EPL or Serie A. They should be favored to come out of their group even though they face the African champions. Don't know why Algeria is considered bad either. On paper, they are better than at least 5 teams. Their WC lineup will probably be: 4-3-3 GK: Rais M'Bolhi (CSKA Sofia) Defenders LB - Faouzi Gholam (Napoli) CB - Liassine Cadamuro (Real Sociedad) CB - Carl Medjani (AS. Monaco) RB - Aissa Mandi (Reims) CM - Saphir Taider (Inter Milan) CM - Hassan Yebda (Udinese) CM - Nabil Bentaleb (Tottenham) AM - Hilel Soudani (Dinamo Zagreb) AM - Islam Slimani (Sporting CP) AM - Sofiane Feghouli (Valencia) Subs: D - Djamel Mesbah (Parma), Majid Bougherra (Al Lewkhiya), Nacerredine Khoualed (USMA) MF - Mehdi Lacen (Getafe), Mehdi Mostefa (Ajaccio), Adlene Guedioura (Crystal Palace) Yacine Brahimi (Granada) ST - Ishak Belfodil (Inter Milan), Nabil Ghilas (Porto), Foued Kadir (Marseille), More than half the starting roster is slated to be in the Champions League next year and the other half will be in the Europa League. The bench has a lot of good young attacking players too. Brahimi currently has more dribbles than anyone in a Top 5 European league (including Eden Hazard, Messi, Neymar). You can't honestly look at this team on paper and say it's worse than Honduras, Australia, Costa Rica, Iran, South Korea, and Greece. I'd even argue Algeria looks better than Mexico at this point since they will be missing Carlos Vela. Same goes for the U.S. whose team is composed of MLS All-Stars and players who can't get starts on bad European teams. If you want to knock Algeria on its form, they've won 60% of their matches since 2011. It's not like they're a weak team with a weak squad that backed into the World Cup. They also won 6 games out of 8 during qualification - as many as the Ivory Coast and Ghana. I highly doubt ANY team in Africa is the weakest. The African team that's looked the poorest, Cameroon, has really found their form recently. They have the most balanced squad in the continent if both Alex Song and Samuel Eto'o can cooperate. Funnily enough, the weakest African team on defense is Ghana but they have enough attacking power to mask any deficiencies. Perhaps Portugal and Germany can expose that but I don't expect them to be easy. Both Asia and North America have a long way to go before they have the talent Africa does. The only thing keeping them competitive is good coaching, good fortune, and good draws. I think these continental federations will run out of luck this World Cup though. My weakest vote goes to Australia. They've rarely been challenged and looked bad when they have. Poor squad and bad coaching. At least Costa Rica and Honduras beat both Mexico and the USA in qualifying. Iran also finished at the top of their group in Asia. That should garner more respect.
In terms of the most likely side to finish last, Maybe. But in terms of which sides it the weakest in the tournament, I would say easily Honduras. After Honduras, the issue becomes more vexing and difficult. I would put Costa Rica as the next weakest team followed by Algeria and then Australia.