Iceland deserve credit for how well they defended and couterattacked against Argentina. Argentina is not an organised or fit side, but they have Aguero, Higuain and Messi, so Iceland put in a shift defensively to draw them. Against Nigeria, individual brilliance of Musa made the difference, and without Musa, I don't think Nigeria would have won this match. Croatia is of course a much deeper teem than Iceland, but the fact that Iceland came close to drawing them means that they aren't pushovers. I am baffled why this team that continually gets results from good teams both in qualifying stages and in the tournaments gets so underrated.
I agree with you on Morocco and Peru. But no not in the dismissive way you describe Iran. We barely lost to Spain in a game we could have tied (it looked for a moment like it had) and finished the tournament with 4 points and 0 GD -- better in that regard than Argentina who advanced from their group. The fact that Iran gave all its opponents a run for their money in the last minutes of its matches, inches away from eliminating Portugal in the last second, helped solidify impressions of how close we were to accomplish what had seemed like a very improbable dream. Indeed, if Iran had converted its late chance against Portugal, we would not only have advanced but topped the group. That is how close it was for us and this wasn't about just a result against Portugal. It was about our results and performances over 3 matches.
In my opinion, France is well overrated. They got a lucky VAR decision against Australia and then a lucky goal by Pogba that hit the underside of the post and barely crossed the goal line. Then they barely managed to get a result against Peru while being dominated for most of the match, and they were able to ease up against Denmark. France could easily have failed to qualify for the round of 16 if luck had been different. Yesterday, they were caught napping defensively on the Di Maria goal and the Aguero goal assisted by Messi. Argentina's goalkeeper had a poor game. It required a career high performance from Mbappe to beat Argentina by a single goal. I don't think France will make it to the semifinal.
Germany are out, because the overall quality of their team was not good. Old, slow, predictable. Neuer rusty. I think the best team that didn't pass to the Round of 16 was Peru. I wonder consider knockout stage loers, as that changes every day.
From the teams that are eliminated so I would the say that the best team after the 8 that are now in the Quarter Final (They are at the moment the best 8th teams which they already proven and not consider any "history" of what they have done in the past)), so my number 9 would be Denmark, 10: Japan, 11: Mexico, 12 Argentina, 13 Spain, 14 Portugal and that is fine like that. Talking about Germany THIS World Cup, not high on the list for sure.
Portugal, Spain, Iran and Marocco showed to be one of the weakest group looking on the results in the 8th Final, so that list would look much different today
Still high on Group H, and I don't back any of the countries in there. Japan looks the best of the already-out teams in terms of entertainment value in the way they play, notwithstanding Poland throwaway match. If they knew how to finish the game after going up vs. Belgium they could have caused Brazil trouble. Colombia with James would have been a real threat going forward, they really didn't put their best foot forward vs. England. It's been a really frustrating cup to watch for them, I feel a lot of potential was not realized on this team and Pekerman was scrambling to manage the roster with moving pieces. Senegal were a treat to watch as well and were to me the best and most entertaining CAF team, missing by a threadline. The last 16 does clearly represent the better half IMO, but these guys also should've been in it. The likes of these teams I favor over this year's Spain, Argentina, Portugal, Switzerland and Mexico. I imagine quite a few upsets would have occurred had they all crossed paths. Personally I think most of these teams are better than Sweden but who knows, we'll see how they fare against their first real opposition (England, because the only real Swiss victory was vs. Serbia IMO).
This years Spain team was very weak, not in the top 20, Argentina had some golden moments but also there need to refresh the team, Portugal was my biggest dissapointment, not for going to the 8th Final, they did better this year than last WC 2014 but teh way they play or should we say did not play. Switzerland was most overrated team in this year WC after Germany. England has not really played against any oponent that I think is strong, Colombia this year was not as good as I thought. First BIG test for England will be Sweden and there they will say Adois to WC 2018
Ragnar I agree, only to consider the population in Iceland? How can they compete in the biggest event in the world, it is AMAZING, only for that they should have all the credit to just qualify. The way they did WC 2018 against BIG elephant nations...well I am lost of words there, how is it even possible? The can compete to any team and only that say it all. Not even million cities could put up a team with players from the city to beat Iceland. FULL STOP
You guys played respectably relative to the quality of the tournament. My biggest complaint abt this tournament isn’t the play from the so-called weaker teams but rather that the quality at the top is sorely lacking. Brazil/Germany: contenders as long as they aren’t in a 1 in 4 cycle downturn, which Germany was. Next 7 are the consistently “good” sides who can claim to be contenders as long as they’re in an above average cycle. Netherlands and Italy weren’t (DNQ). Spain, Argentina, Portugal weren’t. That leaves only England and France, both of whom are better than average but not by much, ie, better than 2010 and 2014 editions, but neither are 2006 level good or 2002 (for ENG) or 1998 (for France) good. There’s been an average next tier w Belgium, Uruguay, Colombia, Croatia but I don’t know this is the best they’ve been over the last 15-20 years. This crew misses Chile a bit. Basically, it becomes really hard to assess quality teams, wins, play standards, etc from the lower teams because the upper teams have been poor as a group this time.
With all respect, you rank your "good sides" after the past results and not on the actual performance in this WC. Start to look on the qualification it is there for a reason, try to forget the history 10 - 20 years back it is different times now if you have not noticed? Netherlands and Italy was sent off by Sweden that earn some respect do you not think? They beat Mexico with 3-0, they sent home Germany and Switzerland...sometimes this snob attitude or lack of reality makes me a bit upset. Looking strictly on performance the strongest teams in the world Today is France and Urugay, Belgium can be a contender if they get together the TEAM, Brazil is of course always to count in but will they be anough as a TEAM. Taking in the account of what has been performed this far I shuld not count out any team included Croatia, Russia, Sweden and England. Spain, Germany and Argentina is out and that is only of one reason they are not good enough
If and if, we can go on like this, I think Iran should be satisfied, they achieved over their abaility, congratulations to that. As I said before Spain and Portugal was weak this tournament I should not put to much on losing with 1-0
Just one thing about when we discuss other nations based on the past, it is like you would have a Sprinter today saying I bet Joe Lewis Grand son in 100 meters....yes Lewis had the world record in 100 meters but that does not mean that his grandson is a world champ, does it? Once again, times are changing so see what teams are in teh quarter final today that may be an indication on what nations may be BIG nations tomorrow not the nations that have achieved someting 4 years ago or 10 years ago
Well, I’d say they’re comparable (or better) right now than both, wouldn’t you? . In all seriousness though, I’m not saying they’re precisely the same. ENG hasn’t reached the tourney heights of the others in that group, but they all generally hover around the same level. FWIW, if you go back over the last 40 years and look at Elo rankings for ARG, ENG, ESP, FRA, ITA, and NED they’ve all been top 8 teams for 70-75% of their matches. ENG and NED actually with a bit more frequency than the others. The difference between England and the others is that they haven’t really peaked into top 3 teams over that time. If you look at the last 20 or so years, it’s the same. But add Portugal to the list too.
I'm simply not able to rank teams without considering the expectations I have when I see their jerseys and their names. If all of them were playing with no identification, I'd probably take Germany as the best of all eliminated teams. None of the eliminated teams had so many moments in all their matches pushing their opponents into the ropes. But they were all playing with their jerseys and their names - and their opponents too. So things work differently. No team plays against Germany or Spain or Messi's Argentina the same way they play Iran or Morocco or Australia. I can only compare Germany 2014 to Germany 2018. Because it's Germany. For Germans and also for all their opponents. I find it difficult to compare Germany 2018 to Australia 2018 for example.
I think both sides of the argument about a side like Germany has merit. Which is why I didn't even include them in my own list of best-worst eliminated teams. Germany is difficult to put on that list. They were the most disappointing team in light of the expectations surrounding them. They were still impressive enough in some of the traits and abilities which made them one of the favorites. But they had some huge issues and holes which totally justified the poor results they got. Those results weren't coincidental either. While South Korea wouldn't beat Germany 2:0 if they played again (as those were injury time goals against a desperate side, with the 2nd goal in particular after the German goalie had also come upfront), it is not clear Germany would necessarily beat them either. They did have issues and weaknesses revealed in all 3 games and, in particular, against Mexico and South Korea. But they still, were, of course the group favorites (and one of the top 3 main contenders for the World Cup title) playing against teams which looked to get a result on the counter against them. The story with Spain's isn't entirely different than for Germany. Spain wasn't impressive either, they advanced without being convincing against either Iran or Morocco. They had legitimate weaknesses, and a good deal of tactical repetitiveness, about them which meant their results weren't coincidental either. Russia played the same script against Spain that Iran used against them until we fell behind and had to apply more pressure against the Spaniards. That script nearly paid off for Iran and paid off for the Russians, while Spain didn't look all that great when Iran did push up more to search for an equalizer. Nonetheless, even with all those faults, the idea that Spain (one of the top 3 contenders to win the title before the tournament) wasn't even a top 20 side as suggested by one poster here, is ridiculous. Russia, as hosts, won't even play a very good Croatia team they will meet in the quarterfinals using the exact same defensive tactics they used against Spain. They will quite likely be a lot more adventurous against Croatia in comparison to what they showed against the Spaniards. That despite the fact that Croatia is actually one of the better teams in this tournament as well. Anyway, our perspective on the best teams that were eliminated will be somewhat colored naturally by how the teams that eliminated them do? We can wait for the final outcome of the tournament to then give our final verdicts. If Russia, for instance, ends up beating Croatia (and does it not from the penalty lottery and not bunkering as much as they bunkered against Spain), will Spain still be regarded as poorly because the Russians eliminated them on penalties after bunkering the whole game? I don't think so.
I really think it is largely due to the camaraderie and support the players feel with everyone associated with the team. Of course this has always been there, but this growing football success and craze in Iceland appears a manifestation of a societal phenomenon. Not too long ago, Iceland had a big problem with substance abuse among its youth. In order to combat this problem, the decisionmakers decided to increase the availability of sports so they could experience a high that can be as fulfilling. The endorphin high associated with sports performance replaced the drug high. Now substance abuse is a much smaller problem. Another thing that is special about football in Iceland is that the players are neighbors as much as celebrities. The fans feel a strong attachment with the players. Before matches in Iceland, the fans are attending the tactical meetings. This forms a strong sense of support and raises the level of interest while also improving the tactical knowledge at the lay level. As you might have read the people coaching the team and even the players themselves are often involved in other occupations. I think other countries would be wise to do a reflective analysis of how interdisciplinary approaches to football could not only benefit football performance but life in general. At the core of this revolution is meticulous research, sharing of information, and the traditional virtues of dedication, respect, and effort. After the last Euros, the manager-dentist explained that there are some skills a manager needs that dentistry prepares him well for, such as the ability to ease fear among players. I think the rest of Scandinavia at least is being inspired by Iceland. Denmark and Sweden have started believing in the strength of collective effort and the synergy of the team. On paper, a team without Ibrahimovic is worse than one with. But this would be a very simplistic evaluation. Now that Iceland has shown what small countries can accomplish, I am sure we will see others follow if they have reflected on the dynamics. I would say that the re-emergence of these nations, and others around the globe, on the football stage is indicative of what is possible when one takes an ecclectic open-source approach. In such a system, leadership is distributed to such a degree that everyone expects to fulfil meaningful and valuable leadership roles. This can only further benefit the collective.
Interesting reading, I think from the EC all was inspired by the icelandic team, showing anything is possible. The strength of the collective is something that is in the Swedish culture, it is not something new, we have that already in the Mothers milk. THis is why Sweden is a successful country in sports having in mind we are not either a "BIG" nation, even in individual sports we celebrate the collective; Tennis, Table Tennis, Track & Field, Skiing etc etc and in Ice Hockey we manage to collect all the big stars that usually play in NHL and made it to a team that play for the collective. Of these reasons, that we are brought up with "win as a team and lose as a team" made it difficult for the Football team to have a big star player, it wa sof course good and bad however if Zlatan had a bad day the team had a bad day, it was hand in hand. We could never get back that 1994 spirit when Sweden took the Bronze in WC but then it came a good sign when Sweden U21 took home the EC. Lastly to not forget a name that has been very important for the Icelandic team and the success, Sweden ex Coach, Lars Lagerbäck.
We need to remember that Germany could had done worse, if they did not had that luck they had vs Sweden, absolutely the weakest german team I have seen in decades maybe ever? Still, they will not need to be alarmed, Germany just need to put in other players there are plenty of them to chose from and they will be in the top till the next EC, no hesitation there. Spain, it is a more difficult one, I can not see in a near future that they will be bale to be a top contender. Portugal? Portugal is to much about Ronaldo, they need to sit down and think how they can fit him in so they start to play as a team (They won the EC Final without him). Finally: The teams that showed best play this far and that I think will pass to the semi final are: Brazil, Uruguay, Croatia and Sweden, I base this on what the teams has perfomed this far not what they done 15 - 20 years ago.
I agree with most of your post, but Sweden did NOT send Germany home, Mexico and Korea did. Germany got three (undeserved) points from Sweden.
No they are not among the top half of the tournament. Not even close. They are a decent side, but nothing more than that tbh.