2017 Confederations Cup - Qualifiers, News and Updates [R]

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by Paul Calixte, Jan 9, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Montes10

    Montes10 New Member

    Feb 6, 2017
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Maybe Portugal would be favorites by parking the bus, they would then not be toying by the Germans, anymore.
    You can massively overrate your team as you wish, but don't be so disrespectful to calibre teams such as Chile.
     
  2. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    I'm not massively overrating anyone. I listed my reasons as to why Portugal would clearly be favorites against Chile. You can choose to refute them or not. You can also continue listening to the constant parroting about Portugal parking the bus, yet I've never seen a team that "parked the bus" while also having the most shots of any team in the same competition. So much for critical thinking.

    And my post was in response to a poster that claimed all Chile had to do to win the competition was show even a bit of interest, with no respect or regard for Portugal.
     
  3. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Basically the same bitching we heard from the press back in 2009, and it ended up being a fantastic tournament.

    No, I'd comfortably consider Chile favorites against Portugal today. Chile have outperformed Portugal in two World Cups in a row and won their continental championship (twice) against tougher opposition - mind you, it's not Portugal's fault the Euro 2016 bracket ended up how it did.
     
  4. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Yeah, too hard to predict whether tournament will be good or not. But just looking at the list of NTs competing I think its as strong as any other Confederations' Cup (on paper). So I'm not sure what @Blondo 's point was to list the 8 teams competing. :confused:

    The issue is, how serious are teams going to take it? Germany have already come out and said its a low priority. Other teams probably agree with Germany, just haven't admitted it. I mean, Cameroon's 2 biggest matches of the summer are against Nigeria in late-August. And they're not alone. At least half the teams still have a lot of work to do just to qualify for the World Cup (Chile, Portugal, Australia, Cameroon) and that's obviously their #1 priority.
     
  5. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    Please inform me what a World Cup performance in 2010 has to do with 2017. Why not extend to 2006? And they won the Copa America against tougher competition? A laughable comment, particularly if you consider their group stage opponents such as Panama and Bolivia.
     
  6. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Being very defensive and # of chances generated in attack are 2 different things though. 2004-6 Chelsea were very defensive yet when you look up they still scored the second- and first-most goals of any team in the EPL those 2 seasons. More than Man United who are identified with a open playing style.

    The connection between # of shots and style-of-play is even weaker in the Euro 2016 context for the simple fact that Portugal played more games than anyone else (except France of course). Three of their matches went into extra time too so they played 180 minutes more football than the semifinalists. 270 minutes more than the quarterfinalists. Etc..
     
  7. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    They are two different things but obviously correlated. Concerning your comment on Euro 2016, you're right in stating that Portugal would have more chances simply for having played more. That does not, however, mean that the team that plays more minutes in a competition will have the most shots, regardless of whether they are defensive or not. Particularly when Portugal is constantly compared to Greece who, in Euro 2004, (and played extra time in knockout stage games), were not even within the Top 10 teams of having shots on target in the competition. Clearly a correlation to their defensive posture, and raising extreme doubts of any comparisons to Portugal's style in 2016.
     
  8. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    As an additional note on the Chelsea comment, Chelsea were not very defensive. They were defensively strong. There is a distinct difference. No very defensive team scores the most goals in a competition, particularly in a league, where everyone plays the same games. It's illogical to claim otherwise.
     
  9. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    "Very defensive" is debatable but compared to Man United and Arsenal they played a much more defensive style. When Chelsea played another defensive team, like Rafa Benitez' Liverpool, the games were almost unwatchable because neither team would take the initiative to attack.

    Granted, Arsenal still scored more goals than that Chelsea team but had Chelsea played 20% more games it would've been different. So its a combination of the 2 factors (i.e. teams not playing the same # of games and shots not directly correlated to style-of-play) that makes your argument a bit of a stretch, imo.
     
  10. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    I politely disagree. If Portugal was within the Top 10/5 of teams with most shots I'd be more inclined to agree. But there's little logic in stating Portugal were a highly defensive team when they ended the competition with more shots than any team in the competition, on par with France, who played the same amount of games as Portugal and were never mentioned to be a "defensive team".

    Chelsea's defense during that period was also, simply put, better than Arsenal and Man United's. Preceding the Liverpool tie, Chelsea scored 11 goals in just the Round of 16 and Quarter Finals, while suffering 9. Those stats are absolutely not demonstrative, in the slightest, of a highly defensive team.
     
  11. glennaldo_sf

    glennaldo_sf Member+

    Houston Dynamo, Penang FC, Al Duhail
    United States
    Nov 25, 2004
    Doha, Qatar
    Club:
    FL Fart Vang Hedmark
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yeah but I would be interested to know how many of those shots came against Iceland, Austria-Hungary (yeah see what I did there ;-)), Wales, etc.... teams that Portugal were expected to beat but didn't, apart from Wales of course. Portugal didn't really play any powerhouses until they met France in the final, and were pretty defensive then, as they were against Croatia / Poland too..
     
  12. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    This is a different argument and does not refute my point that Portugal was not a defensive team in the tournament. What you're claiming is that Portugal should have been attacking a lot more against those teams because they are weaker, but that only makes the claim that they were defensive in the tournament only more illogical. If people can only point to two games that Portugal were defensive in then that is an entirely different thing than claiming a team's approach throughout the tournament, was defensive.

    FYI, Portugal had 50% more attempts against Poland than Poland had in that game.
     
  13. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In that time period, Portugal have arguably always had a stronger squad than Chile on paper...and yet Chile have outperformed them on the field.

    Because I can't think of anyone other than Cristiano Ronaldo and Mauricio Pinilla who have been part of Portugal and Chile's NTs (respectively) since then. @Rickdog @MetroChile how long has Valdivia been in the mix?

    Ok, since you asked for it: Chile had some weak opponents in the group stage of the last two Copa América tournaments. They also had to play against Argentina, Mexico and Ecuador. You really want to argue that the joke of the group Portugal got last summer was that much tougher (and they nearly crashed out)?

    But it's when we get to the knockout rounds that things become clearer: to win the last two Copas, Chile overcame Uruguay, Mexico, Colombia and Argentina. Portugal, OTOH, butted heads with true giants of the world game in Croatia, Poland and Wales, before finally getting a real challenge at the last.
     
  14. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    Mexico, Uruguay, and Colombia are worthy opponents but Croatia, Poland, and Wales, who took points from or beat Spain, Germany, and Belgium, respectively, in the same competition are somehow beneath them? Gunna have to try a little harder there, unless your only argument stems from results in prior competitions, which would be wrong as it doesn't bear any influence on competitions that took place in 2016.
     
  15. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Croatia are not beneath them, I would leave it at that. And indeed it doesn't make sense to go back to 2005 to see what these teams were doing but at the same time looking a year or two backward and forward does provide a better sense how good a team really is. Just beating Belgium doesn't make you great. I mean is anyone really surprised that it doesn't look like Wales will qualify for the next World Cup whereas the other Euro semifinalist, Germany, will qualify easily? No because we know Germany are miles better even though their outcome was the same in that particular tournament.
     
  16. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    You're right, it doesn't. But we're talking about a tournament performance here. If we're evaluating how tough a team was to play in a particular tournament, then you need to account for their play in that tournament, where Wales topped their group and beat one of the tournament favorites by a two-goal margin in the knockout stage. Clearly an indication that, during the tournament, they were at the very least a tough team to play. Greece in 2005 & 2006 was a very different team than the one that played the Euro in 2004.
     
  17. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    nah, by that logic every semifinalist is equally tough because they accomplished the same in the context of that particular tournament. Not buying it. It doesn't help either that Wales lost to England and played No. Ireland in the KO stage. So basically that Belgium game defined their tournament. So IMO that nullifies the first part of your post.

    So I prefer to use a window of a few years to gauge how good a national team really is, not just one game.

    Even looking at your Greece 2005-06 example (the extreme case!!)..... I mean if we look at their results in the 2002-6 period surrounding that tournament it shows that they were quite a good team (won their last 6 qualifying games in-a-row). Even in the qualifying after the 2004 win they missed by a slim margin. Obviously winning the Euros was still hugely surprising but they were a good team that was getting good results. Its not like they were Ireland in blue
     
  18. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    #243 benficafan3, Feb 6, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2017
    Probably not buying it because that isn't at all what is being implied. Where is it stated that any team that makes the semi-finals is equally tough?

    Wales also had a relatively impressive Euro qualifying campaign so you trying to paint their entire successful run as down to one possible "fluke" game won't cut it either, particularly since they also beat Belgium in qualifying.

    Per Greece, yes, Greece was a good team in Euro qualifying, qualifying ahead of Spain IIRC, but they were not the same team after the Euro. Otherwise, they wouldn't come 4th in their WC2006 qualifying group, one that had no traditional powerhouses. Poland weren't even at WC 2014 yet, had they beat Portugal on penalties in 2016, would likely have faced France in the final.

    Context surrounding a tournament performance, both before and after, is naturally useful but is not absolute in determining the quality of a team in said tournament.
     
  19. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Well I’m not sure what your message is then. Getting Wales is a very easy semifinal draw is my message, just so we're clear.

    “Relatively”. Yeah, relative to the usual Wales. Finishing 2nd in the qualifying group is not a fact that opposes my message.

    All true. But given how weak that half of the bracket was, it was just a question of who the “surprise” team to emerge from it would be.
     
  20. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    No, relative to anyone that qualified. Belgium qualified ahead with only 23 points, 21 points was better than or on par with the majority of the teams that qualified to the Euro.

    And your last point is fair but it wasn't as if it was all "surprise" teams on one bracket, where one was always going to be in the semi-final by default. By that I mean, Portugal and Belgium "should have" been the semi-finalists of that weaker bracket, neither of which would have been surprise semi-finalists in the Euro.
     
  21. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Sticking to facts, if it was still the old 16-team format they would've had to qualify through a playoff for one of the final 3 available spots. :geek:
     
  22. Blondo

    Blondo Member+

    Sep 21, 2013
    Wales won their home game in the Qs, 1-0, after a bad call gifted them a free kick ... Nainggolan even made an error leading to that goal (providing Bale with a sitter instead of clearing an otherwise harmless free kick) ... although losing that game from a side that as their manager puts it: "We didn't play pretty football, we were sensible. We defended like demons and the Welsh public were brilliant." ... Belgium ended those Qs as group leaders.

    At the EUROs Belgium were poor ... eventually getting knocked out when Alderweireld was the only experienced defender ... as the others were injured or suspended, the back four contained 3 kiddies either making their debut or with very few caps ... no excuses though ... the EUROs was a failure and Belgium finally got rid of a very poor manager.

    Still Belgium were up there with the top dogs as you can clearly see below ... Portugal faced a Hungary that threw caution to the wind as they didn't need a result to advance ... #StatPadding ... still Portugal couldn't even manage a win and finished 3rd in the weakest group of all (in a decent EUROs, you're going home) ... Hungary are dire and Belgium just trampled them 4-0.

    [​IMG]

    PS talking Belgium, I like that sort of thing ... but Belgium aren't in the confed cup (check the thread's title) ... deservedly so, again, because Belgium were poor at the EUROs ... don't mind admitting it ... and with the same directness I'll tell you that Portugal weren't easy on the eyes at the EUROs and you're overrating your players ... we'll see how Portugal fares at the World Cup soon enough ... if you even manage to get there ... well, at least during the current Qs, Portugal have quit their smallest margin nonsense
     
  23. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    I really don't think the facts show overrating.

    Ronaldo - Needs no introduction.
    Pepe - Needs no introduction (should still be competitive at CB in 2018)
    Raphael Guerreiro - Aged 23, Starter for Dortmund and very arguably a Top 5 prospect in his position. Was vital in Portugal's Euro win
    Bernardo Silva - Aged 22 and considered by many to be by far Ligue 1's best player this year, wasn't even in Portugal's Euro squad
    Nelson Semedo - Aged 23, Starter for Benfica and very arguably the Top RB prospect in Europe at the moment
    Renato Sanches - Aged 19, Golden Boy winner, plays for Bayern and vital in Portugal's Euro win
    Joao Mario - Aged 24, very arguably Inter Milan's best player, vital in Portugal's 2016 win
    Andre Gomes -Aged 23 People will laugh at this one as he's currently underperforming yet still manages to do what 99.9% of players can't do, and that is start for Barcelona
    Andre Silva - Aged 21, starter for Porto for over a year, already has a hat trick for the national team, top striker prospect in Europe
    William Carvalho - Aged 24, former Euro U21 MVP, vital in Portugal's 2016 win

    I can go on. I'm not overrating anyone, Portugal has another Golden Generation coming up (and more talented than the previous one) and few countries will be able to match that talent, let alone Chile. The fact that Portugal was already able to win a major competition with many of the above young players (and that is not a full list of Portugal's talent) not even in their mid-20s, Portugal should only logically be considerably stronger as the above (and younger talent) reach their prime.
     
  24. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Might be tough for Chile to match that talent in the future, but we're talking about right now (well, 4 months from now). Chile were clearly better than Portugal just a couple of years ago. So even if we assume Portugal is improving (i.e. the young talent getting better outweighs their best player being on the decline) it doesn't mean that they've blown past Chile already.
     
  25. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    Right but as I said, many of those listed were already contributing to Portugal's success last year at the Euro. Even relative to then there are already obvious "reinforcements" in the form of Bernardo Silva, most notably, and others like Andre Silva.

    Although I agree that the tournament is in only a few months so full potential won't be reached yet my more pressing point is that Portugal would be favorites against Chile this summer regardless, for the above reasons.
     

Share This Page