Group C Predictions

I should add this: please don't get me wrong and imagine that I actually root against Conmebol. When it comes to UEFA v Conmebol, most non-Europeans prefer to see Conmebol do well. My only prejudice against Conmebol teams is with some of the dirty play from certain sides, which don't include Peru at all. (Mainly Uruguay, who seems to encourage a culture of such antics. Even last night, in an AFC CL match, there was a Uruguayan player who was really getting on my nerves). But Uruguay's antics and dirty play aside, most people outside of Europe prefer Conmebol against European teams. But they might then prefer CAF over both. I guess it is a bit of cheering for the underdogs (not necessarily in a footballing sense), although for some reason that sentiment doesn't extend to Concacaf for me

 

Chile's starting lineup against Iran included some of their most capped players such as Bravo (115/0), Jara ( 102/3), Vargas (81/35), Fernandez (73/14), Gonzalez (56/6), along with some others who have been capped enough for them such as Orellana (39/2) or even Roco (17/1). It also included 2-3 experimental players with few caps. When Chile fell behind 1:0 at halftime, they then brought in Alexis Sanchez, Charles Aranguiz etc. Sanchez had entered the match and was playing when Iran scored its 2nd goal early in the 2nd half.

You can get the information you need on Chile's lineup here:
https://www.transfermarkt.com/spielbericht/index/spielbericht/2536624

 

Friendly games don't mean anything. They are used to test lineups and schemes, gather personal stats, and break in new players. Teams like Chile or Venezuela have nothing to gain by beating Iran in a friendly--especially if it's not even in front of their own crowd (which it almost never is; intercontinental friendlies are hardly ever played in south america). The logic reminds me a lot of the US soccer team: they'd line up all kinds of friendlies against England, Germany, Brazil, etc. They'd win, they'd believe they're great, and then they don't play anywhere as good when it actually counts.

I don't know how many meaningful international games Iran has won over the last 15~ years. Apart from 1998 I don't remember any. For what they show in friendlies they should have a couple of Asian championships already. Personally, I'd love for Iran to do well, but I would not say they are any kind of benchmark for achievement.

 

We weren't, strictly speaking, talking about Iran, but Conmebol teams And how they have appeared. But I agree Iran needs to "achieve" a lot more than it has. That said, while Iran lags in recent Asian Cup trophies (we still have more Asian championships than anyone else when you combine our 3 Asian Cup and 4 Asian Games titles), it has the best overall record of any team in the Asian Cup in terms of points ratio, wins and losses. We rarely lose in Asia to anyone, have a superior h2h record against our rivals in Asia, and if we haven't won the Asian Cup trophy in a while it has usually been because Iran was eliminated on penalties. Otherwise, Iran has a total of 7 losses in the history of the Asian Cup in 50 years and 13 consecutive appearances. Indeed, other than 2 overtime losses (2000, 2010), Iran hasn't lost a single match in the Asian Cup since the opening game of the 1996 Asian Cup 22 years ago.

p.s.
With regard to our World Cup record, in a way its a shame that Iran is the only Asian team which has qualified to more than one World Cup and never advanced from its group. But that also highlights what I have said about Iran elsewhere: contrary to popular beliefs among Iranians, we are actually a very consistent side which rarely either overachieves or underachieves (exception Wc2006) much. The win against Chile is a rare win by Iran against a team that is higher ranked compared to Iran. All the other teams we beat (including in friendlies) actually confirm our ranking and are against sides ranked lower than Iran. In the World Cup, the teams that beat us are higher ranked than us. We have never gone pointless in the World Cup because there is generally a side similarly ranked to Iran and we usually don't lose to that side either.

 

I'll repeat these: Don't take friendly matches results and scores as a valid measure of what CONMEBOL NTs can do. If anything, these serve the fans from different countries to make fun of the fans from the NT not having a "good" result; that's how we are aware of what happened, as they engage in long discussions in forums, providing all sorts of "evidences", such as videos, the NT not using its regular line–up and playing system.

Objectively, what matters is observing if a line–up, a system and a playing idea, puts a team against the ropes, or allowing too many goal chances, or creating too few, or missing too many. Then, even if all the NTs in group "C" lose each and every of their friendly matches, the results alone won't matter –to me–, but the how and why, assuming the mistakes and defects won't show up at the WC.

 

This just might be the group of death? Watch out for Denmark

 

I don't take any match by itself as a "valid measure" of what any team can do -- and, of course, give less weight to friendlies still. But I don't find results from competitive games to be all that more telling in isolation either. After all, by itself, the worst performance in World Cup 2014 would have to go to none other than Brazil and how they got totally outclassed and thrashed at home 7:1 by Germany! But I am not going to rate Brazil simply by that one game. On the other hand, if it wasn't Brazil getting smacked like that, and instead it was say an Asian side like Saudi Arabia in World Cup 2002, the impressions left would be more lasting and much more damning. The less you know about a side, and the more they have to prove, the faster you will be willing to trash them if they fall. That is true for all of us.

In the meantime, there may be a lot of good arguments why my impressions from the matches I have seen have misled me, but all of those good arguments should be built on a more or less accurate foundation when it comes to the facts. For now, nothing I read from your comments highlighted something I didn't know or something that dramatically changed by impressions.

Argentina was missing a few players, including notably Messi, when they were spanked 4:2 by Nigeria in a friendly recently. And, yes, it was a friendly and all the rest.. But I knew all that already -- and formed certain impressions from that "friendly" nonetheless

Chile was experimenting with 2-3 players and didn't use Alexis Sanchez from the beginning against Iran, bringing him in the 2nd half and Vidal didn't play. While that was not Chile "B" team and that game did actually include a fair number of spectators, I already knew that was a "friendly" and Chile wasn't using all their best players. I still formed certain impressions about certain type of teams and which attributes they struggle with.

Chile's media might have called their draw against Australia in the Confederations Cup their worst performance ever, but maybe the Chilean media aren't all that balanced in how they see things! Regardless, I actually felt my impressions of the kind of things that Chile struggles against reinforced by that match.

Colombia might have not been rested and may have missed a few players, but their players certainly weren't all that sportsmanlike losing to the Koreans. Their loss inevitably affected their stock in my mind.

Venezuela may not have used the same "system" against Iran they used against Paraguay, but certainly the lineups used were similar. I know it was a "friendly" and no one was playing like their lives depended on it, and certainly the stadium in Holland was nearly empty, but I formed certain impressions about them. Wrong or right, I wasn't impressed that much with what I saw from them. And given that what I saw had basically managed to do well in Conmebol qualifying, I certainly had some question marks go up in my mind.

And last, but not least, Peru might beat Australia handily, still the playoff against New Zealand didn't convince me that would necessarily be the case. More generally, while I like to say things that will make me popular with fans of all teams (especially those like Peru which I have nothing against), the truth is this: until I see Peru do well in "friendlies" against teams outside of Conmebol, I wouldn't bet much of anything on them. With or without Guerrero.

We will see who will do what in this group. To me the group is wide open and while Australia's chances aren't necessarily the best in the group, I just don't think either Peru or Denmark are the kind of teams Australia can be counted to lose to even before the whistle. Even France might struggle to beat them.

 

Peru's performance against NZ was conditioned by Guerrero's suspension just a few days before the game, giving no time to call different players to maintain Peru's main system. Besides, it's been a while since Peru played against a NT parking the bus in its own home turf. So, it was a surprise watching no more than 3 NZ players crossing the midfield in a counter attack, as they were more interested in not disorganizing their defense than in scoring a goal.

In Lima, Peru changed its system and line–up, and had an easy day. It could have been 3–0 (penalty, ball hitting the bar), or 7–1 (if we count the scoring chances). But 2–0 was enough as to not to risk surprises, so Peru stopped attacking. Why? Well, Colombia was winning 1–0 against Paraguay in the second to last round of the qualifiers, and the result granted Colombia a place in the WC; rather than controlling the result in the last 10 minutes, Colombia kept attacking... and the match finished 1–2. As a result, Colombia had to suffer until the last round of the qualifiers, precisely against Peru.

About Group C's performances in the upcoming friendly matches, sure, I want to see how it goes, but not from the scores point of view. For example, I saw that Iran–Venezuela and the result doesn't blind me: Iran is too slow and predictable (a modest NT) as to have real chances against Portugal or Spain. Then I want to see if Peru is in a similar situation against Australia, Denmark and France.

Honestly, I don't see Australia that low against Denmark. Not because Australia, but because Denmark can play as they did against Montenegro and Romania, or the home game against Ireland. Sure, everyone remembers the 4–0 and the 1–5, but should Denmark always be that lethal, they'd have classified directly.

And France is a question mark too. Sure, they can destroy the other NTs but, who knows, maybe we can use Luxemburg's lucky charm and save the day

 

Dude, you keep bringing up "Venezuela used the same players against both Paraguay and Iran" on a thread about Group C of World Cup 2018

It is understandable that you want to size Iran against other Conmebol sides, but you keep running into fallacy of composition: the quality of a member should not be extrapolated to all members of a group.

You agree that all Conmebol sides are not alike, but you keep mentioning "Paraguay" to play up a friendly against an inexperienced Venezuelan side:
-Venezuela beat Paraguay; Iran beat Venezuela; ergo: Iran does well vs members of Conmebol?
-Hmm. Let us bring that info to a World Cup thread where an AFC side meets a Conmebol side.
-Here we are.

We already told you that Venezuela put in a crappy goalie when Iran scored. Yes, Venezuela used similar players vs Iran and vs Paraguay: similar inexperienced players, especially at the 2nd half.

Can we please put that friendly aside, and focus on the real deal: Australia, Denmark, France, Peru?
Pretty please, with sugar on top?

 

The timing of the former coach's departure was really unexpected.
Does van Marwijk have any preferred players that he might bring into the Australian team?

I ask out of complete ignorance. I do not know how van Marwijk is connected to Australian football.
Yikes... I googled him. He just got the job this past January. What is the Australian FA thinking?

 

I was saying: lets be factually correct in our assertions in support of the argument we want to make. The point in that regard had nothing to do with Paraguay or Iran or Venezuela per se.
Lets move on.

 

I wouldn't consider Van Marwijck a revolutionary, but I don't think his tinkering will be necessarily pleasing to the eye. In any case, with or without Van Mawijck, Australia advancing would at most be a surprise. It wouldn't be the kind of shocker that is implied by the 15% chances you give to Australia.

 

We agree that the result in a game isn't the most important factor to look at and this will be even more true with friendlies. We clearly don't agree on what kind of lessons we can take from the game we watch.

I look forward to seeing the various friendly matches from now until the World Cup because they will add to my sense of these teams. In the meantime, I encourage those who think that they have come up with a reliable system to handicap the results in the World Cup, to participate in this thread: All the Scores: From the Opening Match to the Final. You can post your predictions and given the good sample size especially, I think we can probably see who has come up with the best system to handicap these teams and listen to what lessons we can learn from it.

 

Before Postecoglou left I was fairly confident that Australia could get at least 2 points out of this group (2 draws, or 1 win), but with Van Marwijck I have no idea. I guess we have to wait and see what happens in the first set of friendlies, there probably aren't too many shock selections that he could call up, but a distinct change in style is definitely possible, and it may or may not work.
Saudi Arabia played some good football under Van Marwijck, at least against Australia anyway.

 

There hasn't much discussion of Denmark in this thread.

This will be Denmark's 5th World Cup, making the R-16 in 1986 (qualifying out of their group with 3 wins, including thrashing Uruguay 6:1), quarterfinals in 1998 (where they had lost to eventual World Cup champions, France, 2:1 in the group stage, but thrashing Nigeria 4:1 in the next round), R-16 in 2002 (beating France in the group stage to help eliminate the then reigning World Cup champions). Their last World Cup appearance, in 2010, was forgettable for them losing to Japan and Holland and being eliminated at the group stage.

Looking at their results, their most impressive wins in this World Cup cycle have been against Ireland (5:1) in the 2nd leg of the playoffs and, of course, against Poland (4:0) in the qualifiers. Their least impressive result in this cycle was their 1:0 loss to Montenegro in the qualifiers but they also lost to Poland in Poland in the qualifiers (2:3). The Danes don't seem to have played any teams outside of UEFA in this World Cup cycle. (They did have a friendly where they beat Australia 2:0 in 2012). The Danes didn't qualify for Euro 2016, losing to the Swedes in the playoffs. I don't think they have ever played Peru.

The overall impression from their results is that they are an improving side, as they haven't lost since their early losses in the World Cup qualifiers to Montenegro and Poland. On paper, their best player is Christian Eriksen (an attacking midfielder) of the Spurs. Historically, the Danish players most football fans would remember would be the Laudrop brothers, especially Michael Laudrop.

 

The attacking trio for WC86 of Soren Lerby, Michael Laudrup and Preben Elkjaer was breathtaking to watch, a torrid force of nature. However, the Danes failed to build a culture from it instead dedicating themselves to British soap operas and other chicanery, and have now been superseded by other upstarts in football, including Mexico, Nigeria, Ghana, Colombia, Japan, etc. They can make the round of 16 but that's as far as I see them going.

 

I actually liked Denmark even when they crashed badly in Euro 2000. But after 2002, I guess they declined significantly although I don't know the reason. Haven't truly watched them play in a while but their results suggest they have been improving lately. Still, even if they manage to advance, I don't see them going far.

 

Superseded by Japan, lol. I enjoy reading your posts though, I end up feeling like I could be a professor at Oxford university.

 

I think it would be more accurate to say that they were superseded by Japan in World Cup 2010. At the moment, though, in my grades/ranking, Denmark (B) rates above Japan (B-).

 

Sure, but you know as well as I do that using 1 game or even 1 tournament as an example is never rational. He phrased it as if it's current. To be honest, I'm not really sure if any of those teams are stronger than Denmark, except maybe Colombia.

 

I think his main point was that between 2002 and this World Cup, there have been teams without Denmark's promise in those years (especially the 1986-1998 time frame) that have managed to accomplish more than Denmark at the world stage. For a while, the Danes were quite good and might have appeared heading in the direction of say Holland. Instead, they basically ended up were a lot of 2nd tier European sides end up.

 

Perhaps you're right, but why not just say that. The way he words it, is as if saying those federation's have surpassed the Danes, instead of just 1 offs.