Some really good teams got eliminated after the first round, and a whole bunch of great performances. Portugal 1 Iran 1 South Korea 2 Germany 0 Iceland 1 Argentina 1 Morocco 1 Spain 1 To me in this WC I think the difference between qualifying and not qualifying has had more to do with luck and officiating rather than teams being superior or inferior. Sure there were groups like England and Belgium where those 2 teams were clearly the better sides, but to me that was really the only group where the 2 qualifiers were head and shoulders above the rest, and fortune and poor officiating did not play a part. For me the best team eliminated after the first round was Morocco. Easily at that. They outplayed both Portugal and Iran, particularly Portugal, and while not outplaying Spain, it was a game they should have won if not for the joke that were the refs in that match. Frankly I don't think I saw any team this worldcup play as attractive and quality passing team play(against quality opponents too) as I saw from Morocco. This was a strange worldcup for me. Full of outside factors to determine the outcomes.
My hat is off to South Korea. Cannot remember another pre-eliminated squad fighting so much to leave a WC with a good result. They made friends overseas, and got the reigning WC champ off the WC. I hope South Korea show the same grit during next AFC qualifiers.
Maybe this table, compiled after the group stage games and using the model developed by IMPECT to tell us how various teams did, can give us the best picture of who was the best and who wasn't among the eliminated teams. And not just the eliminated teams, but overall, after their group games. Of course, some of the higher rated teams didn't end up getting the best results, but the "net packing" statistical measure has shown itself the best tool to determine who actually is doing the best in football. Certainly, a lot more reliably than the statistics that many fans like to emphasize. Of course, at the end of the day, the group you play in and the quality of your opponents will also inevitably affect your statistical rating as it will your overall results. The order among the teams ranked after the group stage could have been a bit different if, for instance, France was in the same group as Belgium or if Russia was in the same group as Iran. But the overall list actually corresponds rather well with how these teams fared in their results too.
I thought that way too, until I looked into the issue more carefully. While I won't take anything away from the heart and commitment Peru showed in its matches, the truth is that the statistical measure that has shown most reliable in explaining how teams fare in football (the IMPECT score) showed Peru among the bottom 7 sides at the World Cup. It showed Morocco (another side that impressed me) even worse, among the bottom 5. In fact, based on the IMPECT rankings after the group stage, the only side that actually finished among the top 10 but didn't advance out of its group was Iran. Conversely, every single side that made the quarterfinals of the World Cup in Russia had finished among the top 10 in the IMPECT table. And while that table compiled after the group stage doesn't tell you who finished among the top 4 or top 2, if you look at the respective IMPECT scores for the games played at the knock out rounds, I think the statistics will show that usually the sides with the higher IMPECT scores usually advanced to the subsequent round and to the semis and beyond.
Maybe you can be less negative and a bit more positive, telling us who you thought were the best instead who you didn't think was best. That way we would also be able to better judge the criteria you are using. Iran was among the best by some measures and clearly wasn't on some others. In terms of results, Iran ended up with 4 points and a GD of 0, better than Argentina which made the R16 with 4 points and a GD of minus 2. In terms of results, Iran was 2nd best behind Senegal. Iran was also the best in terms of the IMPECT criteria I posted, bypassing opposing defenders more often than seeing its defenders being bypassed. Indeed, on that criteria, Iran was the only top 8 side in their table that didn't qualify to the R16, when 8 of their top 10 made the quarterfinals too. Iran was clearly the side among all these teams that were eliminated with the best defensive statistics. We ended up allowing 2 goals in 3 matches and allowed our opponents fewer chances than any of the other sides being discussed. Offensively, however, Iran wasn't among the best by a long shot. Even the IMPECT measure shows that and other statistical measures are even less flattering. Even our 2 goals weren't clean cut; neither was from the run of play and both had fortunate circumstances around them. One was an own goal and the other a questionable penalty. Ultimately, it depends on what you mean by "best". If you mean a side that would have the best chance to accomplish something in the later rounds, Iran would be one of the best in my opinion. Iran would have been able to frustrate and maybe even get a result against almost any team in this tournament. In our bracket, neither Uruguay nor Russia would necessarily do better against Iran than they did against Portugal and Spain and chances are they would do worse.
I wish we could have a loser knockout round playoffs as well. 3rd place teams in each group playing the 4th place team in the R16; the winners in the quarterfinals and semifinals and finals until you got the best eliminated team decided that way. It could be fitted into the calendar given the days off between the various matches and it would give the teams that often need it most, more games to play. If we could have what I suggest, the eliminated teams cup would look as follows in the R16: Saudi Arabia v Morocco 0:2 Iran v Egypt 1:0 Peru v Iceland 0:0 Nigeria v Australia 1:1 Serbia v Germany 1:2 Korea Rep v Costa Rica 2:2 Senegal v Panama 2:0 Tunisia v Poland 1:2 A few of these games would be easy to pick, but even those could surprise us. The results in many of the others would have to wait for these sides to play. But to give a sense of how I see things, I have given my predictions nonetheless.
Saudi - Morocco = 2 Peru - Iceland = 1 Serbia - Germany = 2 Tunisia - Polen = 2 Iran - Egypt = 1 Nigeria - Australia = 1 South Korea - Costa Rica = 1 Senegal - Panama = 1 Quarterfinals Morocco - Peru = tough one, 2 Germany - Polen = 1 Iran - Nigeria = 2 South Korea - Senegal = 2 Semifinal Peru - Germany = 2 Nigeria - Senegal = 2 Final Germany - Senegal = 2
I agree with you this much: while Germany was terrible in the group stage games, doing poorly to protect itself against the counter in its first match against Mexico, with things going downhill afterwards playing a desperate game tactically, psychologically and otherwise against S.Korea because they needed to win to avoid being eliminated, it is still quite likely that Germany would not only make the final of such a tournament but even win it. Not that it would be a sure bet. In the match ups you listed, all the teams you mentioned could give them trouble, but chances are they would still make it far. Indeed, if such a tournament were indeed held, a side like Germany would likely use its bench and they might have been fresher and done better than many of their starters. And I also agree that Senegal was probably the strongest side among the other teams that were eliminated. I was impressed with both Peru and Morocco, but don't think either would have done any better in this tournament than the one we saw. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel Peru was already spent by the time they faced Australia and wouldn't have been able to put the same type of effort if they played more. And the same with Morocco: they were particularly good against a nervous Iran the first 20 minutes, and in most of their game against Portugal and they had a good showing against Spain. But the energy and effort they were putting in their games and the fact that they ended up actually being quite reliant on a few players for much of the useful things they were doing, makes me doubt how well they could do if the games continued. Iran, on the other hand, actually had a lot of good players that didn't get to play much in the group stage. I think some of them would have shined if the games had continued and they had more chance to play. One of them would have been Saman Ghoddos but there were others such as Milad Mohammadi, Ashkan Dejagah, and Reza Ghoochannejad who could have been featured more if the games had gone on.