Group C Predictions

For South Africa, I believe Slovenia would have advanced instead of USA, Italy instead of Paraguay, Denmark instead of Japan, and probably Switzerland instead of Chile.

 

Chile was just SO much better a team compared to Switzerland, they won against Spain only due to pure dumb luck.
Similarly, Japan was just better than Denmark at the time.
And that awful italian would only have advanced at the expense of Slovakia, Paraguay was super solid (they would have tried more vs NZ if they actually needed the win).
USA was lucky to tie England but they deserved the win vs Slovenia.

 

I don't disagree with that either. the internet and digital media has made access to scouting so much easier; statistical software; medical science, tech, and training. All teams today go into games knowing 100% about their rival...something that didn't happen even 20 years ago. But players aren't robots, something's got to get to them--especially outside of the stadium/game.

the thing is that there has only been one world cup in europe where these technological gains have proliferated, and in that world cup all the semifinalists were european--the only world cup this century where that has happened. It could be coincidence, it could hard statistical data. My gut feeling tells me players are human and that all kinds of non-sporting variables could affect them including the continent where the tournament is held.

 

I was not impressed with Chile. They were better, but I believe in Europe, Switzerland might have been able to hit them with an upset. Their defense was very solid which is why they beat Spain. Yes they were lucky but still. They did something no other team in 2010 world cup could do. Chile also lost heavily to Brazil.

Yeah but I feel it would have been different in Europe.

Italy probably would have beaten Paraguay. Italy would have beaten New Zealand. Slovakia would have likely beaten New Zealand in Europe as well, and possibly put up a better fight to Paraguay. Then Italy would probably still have lost to Slovakia due to them already being through. Yes Paraguay was a solid team back then, but I believe Italy and Slovakia might have been able to pull it off in Europe.

Slovenia dominated the USA in the first half. USA did come back and arguably deserved a win due to a disallowed goal, but it could have been a different story had it been played in Europe.

England definitely would have beaten the USA as well.

 

ok, whatever sails your boat. If you think playing in Europe will give european players superpowers, be happy.

While we are at it, these are so far the top 10 nations to apply for tickets:

Will be funny to see eg. Argentina playing Iceland or Croatia with the stadium being 70% argentinians

 

I believe its safe to say venue matters and there are subtle and not so subtle differences in having the World Cup in Russia as opposed to Brazil. The rest with regard to what would have happened if World Cup 2014 or World Cup 2010 was in Europe is all speculation and not entirely germane to what will happen in this group.

In this group, Australia starts with France. My view is that they will play rough and tough and compact in the back. Whether it will work to frustrate and prevent France from winning is not clear. If I had to guess, I would say France would still win but by a narrow margin (e.g., 1:0). But it can work for Australia.

Australia will then face the Danes. Hard to say in the abstract how that match will unfold. It will depend on (a) if Australia managed to get a result against France, and (b) if the Danes managed to get a win against Peru. If the Danes fail to beat Peru, the pressure will be on them to win against Australia. I think the pressure can really backfire and in those dynamics, Australia might win. Overall, though, I will say this: the Danes are unlikely to beat Australia if they have not defeated Peru. And if they have defeated Peru, they may not be as desperate to beat Australia either. A draw seems likely enough in this match but, on paper, the Danes would be slightly favored.

At some point, to advance, Australia will need to win. They might have succeeded by then against the Danes (or even France), in which case they can reasonably calculate on getting a draw from Peru. Indeed, if Australia are going to be satisfied with a draw, my bet would be that they will be able to get that result against Peru. Otherwise, however, I am not sure what will happen: in a truly open game, Peru will probably win. But even then, it won't be a one-sided match and the other results (draw or Australia win) are almost as likely.

In short, I envy Australia, who have the clearest path to the R-16 among the AFC contingent. I would rate their chances in this group between 40-45%, which is better than I give anyone else from the AFC. Sure, Saudi Arabia have an easier draw, but Saudi Arabia (despite finishing above Australia) are often worthless outside of Asia. And the rest of the AFC teams face higher hurdles to climb.

 

It looks like a lot of Dutch don't know they didn't qualify.

 

Pretty sure the majority of them are north african inmigrants.

 

I wouldn't necessarily see Van Marwijk as a negative manager per se. But he's certainly very pragmatic, in the sense that he plays to his teams' strengths and the perceived weaknesses of the opposition, rather than adhering to an overriding coaching philosophy.

His much-derided Dutch team in 2010 actually played some pretty good football at times. The semi-final against Uruguay was very entertaining, where he backed his players to get a result in an open, end-to-end contest. And the quarter-final win against a strong Brazilian side (better than their 2006 and 2014 counterparts, imo) shouldn't be underestimated. The Dutch goals had an element of good fortune about them, especially the equaliser, but Van Marjwick deserves credit for the way his side was able to take the initiative after they'd been comprehensively outplayed in the first half.

Australia obviously doesn't have attacking players of the quality of Robben, Sneijder and Van Persie, so Van Marwijk will be a little more circumspect in Russia. But he won't park the bus in all three games, either, as he believes - as the Australian federation believes - that we have a chance of getting out of this group, and will therefore need to target a minimum of 4 points.

I'd expect him to be conservative in the opening game against France, as goal difference could be decisive and he'll want to avoid a 4-0-style blow out, which is what cost Australia the chance of advancing back in 2010 (when Aus was thrashed by Germany in the opening game). I think he'd be comfortable with a one-goal loss; even a two-goal defeat wouldn't be the end of the world, tbh.

His approach to the Denmark game will be somewhat dependent on the Denmark-Peru result, but either way, I'd expect him to be a little more adventurous. And my guess is he regards Peru as our best chance of winning a game, so irrespective of the standings, I think he will be pretty proactive in that fixture - replacing a holding midfielder with a more expansive talent like Tommy Rogic, potentially switching from four to three at the back, things like that.

That's not an intended slight at Peru, who are clearly a good side. But we will have to win at some point if we are to progress, and Peru looks - on paper - to be our most favourable match up.

All in all, I'm looking forward to it! I think this group is very open, France aside, and it will be a lot of fun to see how it unfolds.

 

Yea i agree, this group is very open and gonna be really fun to follow!

 

France and Denmark will qualify from this group.

 

On first glance this may look like a predictable group where France should easily win it and Denmark get second place, but this group is actually quite open. On paper France has the best offense of any team this tournament but they are lead by a terrible coach. It must be very frustrating being a Frenchman and knowing you have the firepower to win the cup but you most likely won't win it due your coach being so clueless. France may win all 3 matches of this group with ease but can also suffer an embarrassing defeat/draw at the hands of Peru/Denmark/Australia, after all France lost to a poor Sweden team in the qualifiers and had a draw against Luxembourg of all teams at home. Denmark has a sold subtop team but they are kind of inconsistent they destroy Poland 4-0 but then proceed to struggle against Romania. Peru is quite a tough opponent, Denmark cannot afford to slack off. I think Denmark will just clinch second place but I wouldn't be surprised at all if Peru takes it. Australia has seen better days but they have fighting spirit and should never be considered down and out, maybe they can make it.

 

If Australia did not have all their Federation and managing problems I would say they would be very competitive. They showed me a lot of heart in 2014 in a much more difficult Group.
They may still be competitive but starting off with France is not a good thing. I think the French find a way to win that one and just keep on getting their rhythm after that and get stronger.

I will favor Denmark to go through too because Eriksen seems to be such a good playmaker. He can score and create such beautiful passes and crosses. (Yes , I know there's other good players on the team so don't rush to tell me Danish fans.)
I think if they beat Peru in that first match they have a foot step into the next round after the first match day.

 

Not a poor Swedish team, this Swedish team is pretty good as a team and with no big names we are doing ok. This group is very open, i havent seen so much from Peru, wanna see more from them but they didnt lost a match 2017, 8 qualify matches, impressive!

 

Has Guerrero produced any evidence of food or drink contamination other than his testimony that he believes he was poisoned? It seems very odd to me that CAS reduced his suspension simply based on his personal testimony. What did they expect him to say?

Anyway, I hope he gets fully cleared. I would rather Peru be at full strength so there is no ambiguity. I don't think there is much advantage to Denmark for Guerrero to be banned, as it can sometimes serve as a rallying point for the rest of the team, especially if the sense is that an injustice has occurred. I'd rather Guerrero be on the pitch.

 

I would be very happy to see Australia do well but I think that they will likely get similar results than in 2014. I think that France and Denmark will top this group while Peru can potentially create a surprise and eliminate Denmark. You have to be pretty solid to qualify from Conmebol so Peru shouldn't be too underestimated. I watched the Argentina vs Peru game and loved Peru's grinta.

 

I wouldn't call Deschamps clueless. I would call him cautious or even too cautious. He took over the French team in 2012 when they were still traumatized by the Knysna incident and weren't taken seriously by anyone, and transformed them into one of the best five teams in the world. He is not too flashy or spectacular but he is probably the best French coach out there. I also don't see France losing to either Peru or Denmark or Australia. They will most likely get 6 points in the first two games and play the subs in the third game.

 

If France can lose the first place in the group if they losing the last match against Denmark, i think they gonna play with their best eleven.

 

That's right, because first place in Group C probably means no Argentina in R16, and no Spain in quarterfinals. Second place probably means having to play both of those teams. Big difference.

 

It seems most people/pundits/odds are favouring Denmark over Peru to come second here. Either it's European bias or they are just ignorant. I feel if people don't know a team well( and that's often the case for teams of AFC, CAF, CONCACAF or even CONMEBOL at a lesser extent) they automatically favour the European side. I don't know what Denmark has achieved in the last years to be declared as favourites against a side like Peru that has survived the hardest qualification in the world and finished third in two of the three last Copa America editions. I just don't get it. I watched Peru a few times and they are really underrated. For me they will go as slight favourites into the game against Denmark. Peru plays with a lot passion. They are solid at the back and have some very good players in Guerrero, Cueva and Carillo upfront. I think their passionate way of playing will prevail against Denmark. Also they are the best bet to take off points of France in this group. Actually I see Peru snatching 4 points after two Matchdays.

 

I've always reasoned it that the European analysts are much more preoccupied with club footbal, and base their rating on how individual players do in their European clubs. With international football teams, maybe they go as far as counting world cup appearances. I tend to base this reasoning on two observations: (1) when I see European world cup qualifying games, I notice many stadiums are not filled to capacity--even while the home team is still alive in the tournament. The energy is nowhere as passionate as it is for a big club match...at least that's what it looks on TV. (2) whenever I hear the English broadcasts of south american international games, the experts always--without exception--go back to how a player does in his european club, what it means to his club, how his club will benefit or suffer with some performance and so on. It's as if that is all the reference they have (or care to have): european clubs.

of course, you can't watch every single game that goes on, but I think this is where the media experts are totally lacking: international football--and how it's a very different dynamic to clubs, how chemistry is different, styles are different, support is different, and so their predictions will miss important details.

I remember talking to a turkish cab driver just before the 2002 world cup. This was at a time when Galatasaray was a strong team and winning European titles. We got to talking about the upcoming world cup and I remember telling him that Turkey was going to have a very tough time against Costa Rica. He said he thought that was going to be Turkey's easiest game in the opening round. I think the game might have ended in a tie, i can't remember, but it's just an example of how you have to rate teams differently in international play--especially with teams that are in the middle of the pack.