I wouldn't take the friendly seriously. You really can never judge by friendlies. Iceland tied with Canada previously in a friendly not too long ago. They are a strong team and will be a dark horse at the World Cup.
I know man, I am just kidding around... you could tell the Icelandic players were getting annoyed at a lot of the challenges coming in from the Qatari players.
I also recall them losing against Norway and the UAE before Euro 2016. Of course England knows how things went at the actual Euro... Iceland, even more so than many other teams, doesn't seem to take friendlies very seriously. They play much, much better in serious matches. So yeah, I agree, Iceland should be solid at the World Cup.
Semifinals if they are lucky. Honestly I have watched them play and with a bit of luck, they are capable of beating any team other than Spain, and Germany. Maybe Brazil, but I have not watched them play recently.
Iceland won't reach semi finals unless they got a run like turkey in 2002 avoiding greats to get second place in a group and then in round 16 and 1/4. They will be exposed as soon as they meet a complete experienced team at high level.
I think quarterfinals is a good bet. Kind of like Costa Rica last season. But remember Costa Rica matched Netherlands and only lost on penalties, so very well had the quality to reach semis if they just took their penalties better. Thats why I say it is a slight chance. Also not to mention its in Russia, and Iceland will be one of the teams really used to the weather and conditions because they are quite similar in the two countries.
Do you know anything about the climate in Russia? Its early Summer. Apart from the fact that Russia is a vast country with many climatic regions, Moscow tends to be pretty warm at that time of year. Nothing like Iceland. The climate in general should be pretty mild and I doubt any country will find much benefit from the temperatures. For one thing though its highly unlikely we'll have cold temperatures.
Russia in summer is hot. It won't be played in siberia in winter ragazzo ) Yes Costa Rica was really solid. But i don't see Iceland as solid as you do. I have followed their euro 2016 and i have seen Croatia playing them both in 2017 and 2013 and i don't see anything special except that they are good opportunists that will take the road if it's opened to them.
Yeah now that I think about it, Russia isn't as cold as I thought. I always thought of Russia as a cold country. What about Saint Petersburg though? I suppose Saint Petersburg would be colder.
Well one thing they are really good at is smart play. They really know how to take advantage of mistakes and opportunities which is something many teams lack, even the big teams at times. Also good at set pieces.
Saint Petersburg in summer is like end of spring early summer in italia Croatia or Spain. It is summer there...you won't see ice or snow in russian world cup.
Yes, it's colder in Saint Peteresburg, but its stil 11-20 degrees. In general its continental climate - cold winters, but also warm, sometimes even even very warm summers.
They have 9 groups not 10... I don't think it's the groups or playoff system. The problem for me has been using FIFA world rankings as the sole method of seeding, rather than performances in recent parallel competitions which is what they used before. That's why you have these silly seeds. Wales and FFS bloody Romania were seeded in in pot 1 for the WC qualifiers... two teams that haven't qualified for a WC since 1998 - the former since what 58? While France and Italy were put into the 2nd pot. Last WC cycle I remember Norway were seeded ahead of France simply because they had a higher FIFA ranking at the time of the draw. For the world cup, some lucky teams will get Poland as their seeded opponent, while some unlucky ones will land in a group with a powerhouse seed + Spain, Uruguay, or England.
Okay - I mean, the "before" is actually a while ago (2014 and 2010 were FIFA ranks, 2002 was ppg in last WC and EURO and 2006 doesn't say but IIRC was FIFA). But let's just say this is fair enough. You mean, Wales, the team that finished top 4 in the most previous recent parallel competition? The thing you said was really important. But then, to top it off... So, you want it to be based on recent results, and then claim that it is stupid that a team that just finished top four gets highly seeded, and that they shouldn't be so because of earlier results stretching back 60 years? That's some powerful cognitive dissonance there!!! J
UEFA doesn't actually use the FIFA Rankings. Only FIFA does, but yeah for World Cup qualification, it has always been screwed. 2018: Romania and Wales shouldn't have been seeded. Italy and France instead. 2014: France should have been seeded and not Norway. How Norway even got there is beyond me. 2010: England and Switzerland should have been seeded instead of Greece and Czech Republic. 2006: Netherlands probably should have been seeded instead of Sweden. 2002: Italy, Croatia, and Portugal should have been seeded instead of Norway, Romania, and Yugoslavia. Probably Belgium over Czech Republic as well. FIFA Rankings are as screwed as hell. Seriously how some teams even get high is way beyond me. Norway was never a good team at all, neither was Romania. Czech Republic went through a period where they had some great players but never really impressed or performed at a high level at the World Cup, although did do well in previous European Cups so it could be understandable.
Really? I thought they seeded the world cup qualification groups based on the current world rankings. Wikipedia seems to confirm this: "The seeding was based on the FIFA World Rankings of July 2015. The 52 teams were seeded into six pots:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(UEFA)