Well ... People only seem to be talking about Eriksen when they talk about Denmark at the moment ... but perhaps you should also watch out for Pione "Assisto" at the WC finals http://www.worldfootball.net/assists/esp-primera-division-2017-2018/ ... he also made 2 against Ireland btw ... and he is only 22 ... so one of the new young players in the Danish NT...
Argentina's shade in Brazil hardly puts them in a position to complain. Mind you, Argentina shouldn't throw caution to the wind but with the players at their disposal taking at least a bit of initiative is worth consideration. Have a look at Argentina's appalling record in the WCQs for Russia. 19 goals puts them at the bottom, with only Bolivia having scored less. Now compare Argentina's measly amount of 19 goals with Brazil's (41), more than double, or the goal haul of Spain (36) and Germany (43).
What you are suggesting is that we return to the way we played in the 2010 WC. Lots of goals, chances created, the whole team based on attacking. Spectacular matches for the neutrals, spectacular defeats for us... Ps: The way we played, if one can say there is ONE way we played in this qualifiers (with 3 different coaches), has nothing to do with the 2014 WC. Not even with the 2 Copas Americas runs.
How did you arrive at that the suggestion? Reread the bit in bold. For spectacular matches you can watch the other teams.
The thing is you're mixing all the last 4 years of qualifiers together with the last WC and it doesn't makes sense. Or at least, its not based on reality (It'd be different if you'd restrain yourself to just the WC under Sabella). You couldn't (at all) say we lack initiative if you had watch our last 4 official qualifiers matches. That wouldn't mean we are a scoring machine nor that we played well, but saying we lack initiative regarding those matches would be simply not having seen them. I could say the same regarding the 2 Copas Américas and the WCQ matches under Martino (we're speaking about matches played 3 years ago!). You'd only have a point if you were talking about the handful of dreadful (and more meaning to this discussion, defensive and asinine on attack) matches under Bauza, but still, this discussion of mixing it all together doesn't make much sense. The whole campaign if anything showed the irregularity of it all, and seeing us finish 3rd wouldn't tell you much about how we struggle (neither that we miss Messi for half the matches). And the small amounts of goals scored wouldn't mean we were a defensive side or that we didn't create chances. And, for god's sake, being the 2nd team with least goals received wouldn't mean that we have a sound defensive system and strategy... at all. Now, if you want to pinpoint the way Argentina played the 7 matches under Sabella on the 2014 WC, that would be a pertinent discussion based on how he chose to play and I'd even, without agreeing completely, be closer to your conclusion.
Putting WC2014 aside, we can sort of see eye to eye about it, I did watch a few of your WCQs, also after Sampaoli took charge (which TBH peaked my interest and he went with a system I quite like). Argentina were still dire, bereft of ideas. Players putting in hardly any effort, no movement, no tempo, creating very little, not much communication, poor pressing, switching off, being a step too slow or hesitant, leaving huge spaces which can be exploited, etc. Then it isn't necessarily the system but it's definitely on the players. Any plan needs to be executed properly. I do feel for Samps. Argentina's fanbase can be very toxic and the guy has had very little time to work with his players. Let's see if he can make up for lost time.
Meh, that wouldn't be overly interesting. The individual games might be good but there would be two clear cut favorites to advance. Kinda like the Holland, Argentina group in 2006.
To shoot 2 birds with one shot, let me correct can to can't in a message I posted on Argentina in another thread while also chiming in the issue being raised in the discussion between Sandanista and Blondo, Although my sense is that Blondo's real point is to remind us that even though Belgium didn't do anything worthwhile against Argentina during their match, and never came close to really scoring on them, that they still had slightly better possession and for Sandanista to mention Iran as being the only opponent (other than Germany and Holland) to trouble Argentina is unfair to Belgium and others who (unlike Iran) might not have bunkered as much or at all. Otherwise, though, I want to post the comment below that captures my thoughts on Argentina while also making the correction I mentioned: The weakness with Argentina is two-fold. First, they aren't physically that strong. They can't overpower a side that defends with numbers and have to only rely on skill. Even though Argentina is undoubtedly skillful, and Messi alone can eventually create headaches for anyone, that is still sometimes not enough to reliably overcome a bunker. What's more, Argentina's defense without the numbers to cover the space, isn't the best in the world either. This dynamic can hurt Argentina's chances of beating sides that play them compact in the back, but of course Argentina can always find its saving grace in a "Messi-moment" - like the one they had against Iran.
@Iranian Monitor ... nope. Argentina's "play" is best summed up as aggravating these days. A far cry from the days they were a joy to watch: PS we talked about a game from 2014 in a few posts years ago in 2014, not ITT where it's either been about Argentina's play at WC2014, from start to end, or in the current year's WCQs.
Thanks. I come on here to share analysis and give honest assessment, not to have a d***-measuring contest. So it makes more sense when breaking down Nigeria v Argentina to look at the match the same way the respective teams' managers would. And just as Sampaoli will have to examine his teams' efforts, there are things that Gernot Rohr can gleam from what Nigeria did. You can only learn based off of the strength of your opponent at that particular moment in time, and thus far, even without Messi, Argentina is the strongest opponent that Nigeria has faced since Algeria. So for our own interest, all we can do is look at what worked and examine how we can go about replicating it with other opponents going forward and see how we can use that strategy to our advantage come the WC. Plus FIFA points, for whatever that's worth. I'm not even really sure that CAF sides really even go about trying to work that system anymore to any extent in the manner that the likes of Poland did. I think that CAF sides really just try to maintain the ranking that keeps them EPL-eligible and the pots will figure themselves out. In the end, you have to play somebody in the WC and it all evens out in the end. So with that in mind, I don't really come here to argue old points (especially when said arguments amount to simply rehashing opinions with increased hyperbole and zero substance). It's a waste of time and adds nothing to discussion. I prefer to try to add something interesting and substantive. Otherwise I'm wasting your time and mine. So what's important that I, as a Nigerian fan, can take from the friendly result when I look into potential matchups and seeding? Not merely the result, but rather the accumulation of results over the past year taking this latest match as the culmination of an emerging tactical identity that the team will take into the WC and beyond. One of the biggest shortcomings that Nigeria had in the last WC, despite making it out of group play, was a very inconsistent attack and an inability to recognize where our attacking options might come from game to game and how that blended with what was similarly a very counter-attack minded strategy. We had the first part down and laid back in defense, but had nothing pushing forward bc out attacking options were very limited, and noone with any individual creativity bar maybe Obi Mikel. If you look at our current team, just the fact that we can now bring Ahmed Musa off the bench as an additional option makes us stronger. But more importantly, we are now beginning to see, as Iranian Monitor stated earlier, that Nigeria is showing that they can have a rather defensive strategy while still being able to score goals with consistency on the counter and to make those chances count. They've been doing this since last year. Is it still negative tactics when you're putting up 3-4 goals in games? They did it against Cameroon and Algeria as well. Many of their goals have come off of quick counters buoyed by opportunistic pressing tactics. It's really starting to come together into a set of tactics which seems to complement the type of football that has come to represent West Africa in particular. What makes it all work is that they're able to work their way up the field quickly, skillfully with one-touch passing; they're all making intelligent runs; and their key players are showing creativity in the final third. That's the important thing to take from the game from our perspective. The opponent being Argentina gives us a measuring stick upon which to test the effectiveness of our strategy, nothing more or less. The coaches and team can move forward with this concept in future friendlies and make tweaks to it. Hopefully, we run into an impasse in a future friendly and can make further adjustments to fit certain situations. The second thing that we can take away is a major potential personnel fix. Now it appears that this is something that only those of us who have followed Nigeria might know about, but our goalkeeper situation has been in complete flux since Vincent Enyeama retired from the team some time back. For years he had been Nigeria's best overall player. They found a capable replacement in Wolves keeper Carl Iheme. However, sometime during qualifying, he was diagnosed with leukemia... which may end the young man's career sadly. Without getting too sentimental, Nigeria had to move on. The only deputies that were available at the time was a South African league product Daniel Akpeyi and a local Nigerian-league man named Ikechukwu Ezenwa. Long story short, Akpeyi is an idiot (watch the first half of Arg-Nig for examples) and Ezenwa, while competent isn't really experienced enough at this level of competition. The second half brought on 19 year old, 6'5" Francis Izohu who recently became the starter for Spanish side Deportivo la Corunia. Watch the second half vs the first you tell me who the starter should be. His composure and decision-making were both very promising and he shows good reflexes on an amazingly long frame. So coupling our tactics with what he brings, could bode well going forward. Every match is a lesson and an opportunity to grow. I'm happy so long as I can see improvement from match to match. Once we start seeing stagnation under the system, then you know that it's time to move on and get someone else to get a different voice and new wrinkles that can help the team continue to grow. All I care about is progression and improvement as well as a sign that we're looking forward and planning ahead. Again thanks for the compliment.
The things I took away from the Nigeria-Argentina match as a neutral is 1) They both have a lot of good attacking talent and not enough soccer balls to go around. (Something I kinda already knew going into it.) 2) That keeper that Nigeria started made one of the most childish mistakes I have ever seen. 3) The second half lineups looked totally different from the first half lineups.
By the way, the 3-4-3 formation that Sampaoli is deploying for Argentina is a lineup that was last successful in the first half of the 90s with Cruyff's Barcelona. It is quite a risk, but a noble risk that aims to maximize the strengths of the team while playing good football.
Well, Conte's version certainly repopularized it and it's become a bit of a fad. Not sure if it will stick around as a mainstay formation given it's inherent risks, especially in international football where it's not as easy to develop cohesion. International football seems to take it's cues from the club game these days rather than the other way around. Leicester's run gives alot of teams with speed and creativity another means of looking at ways of exploiting more possession-minded teams with counter-attacking systems. The USMNT U-17s certainly made it work for them.
I have said this a number of times, and will say it here again, because the number of haters, sour grapers and general lack of knowledge here is staggering. Poland (and to some extent Switzerland) did not "manipulate", "game" or in any other way took advantage of the system. First of all, it is the Spanish and the English media that are causing most trouble, but the issue is nothing more than sour grapes and hurt pride. Poland has a better record than either one of these in the last two years, and, at the last Euros Poland did advance to the quarterfinals whereas neither England or Spain did. Second, the major fallacy is the thinking that if Poland or Switzerland would play friendlies they would actually lose those games and thus dropped FIFA points. But the sole participation in friendly matches does not by itself cause teams to lose ranking points, only losing (or tying a lower ranked opponent) does. So why suddenly this silly notion that teams that rarely lost in matches that mattered (for instance Poland's tournament/qualifying record with Germany in this WC cycle is one loss, one win, one tie) would lose friendly matches? What are Spain's and England's results against the current World Champion since the last WC? England is 1-1-1 in friendlies and Spain is 0-1, also in friendlies. So England's record is the same as Poland's (although it is solely in friendlies, which mean much less ranking wise, and for good reason), and Spain's is worse, in friendlies only as well. So contrary to what these people who are still in dreamworld, believing that their teams are better than others solely because of some pedigree that is by now completely irrelevant, Poland (and Switzerland) deserve their place in rankings and seedings. As to whether these rankings and seedings actually do reflect the actual strength of a team, well, that's a different story, but one that has nothing to do with "gaming" or "taking advantage" of the system.
Some good points brought up Smoga. I will try and have an open mind on Poland and to a lesser extent Switzerland because I heard the same things being said in 2014 about Colombia not deserving a seed and blah, blah,blah. That said, I think many people look at what happened to the Swiss in 2014 and how they got smacked upside the head by a team like France and it makes us think that the same can happen to Poland or the Swiss again if they face a team with more pedigree and more talent. That left an impression that cam't really be ignored. So we will see the proof in the pudding once the draw occurs and once the tournament starts actually.
Agreed. Those who say Poland only got into pot 1 because of their friendly schedule or because they manipulated the ranking formula, need to take a logic course. Math 101 would also be a good idea.
Articles like this one? ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...gs-system-friendlies-harm-englands-world-cup/ The English often like to have a moan ... still anything that helps put pessure on FIFA to improve seeding isn't all bad. Instead of Poland or Switzerland English media could have used other examples, e.g. of teams that did game the ranking and ended up as top seeds in the WCQs draw for Russia2018 (they did mention Wales though). FIFA are reviewing their flawed rankings, especially because playing no/very few friendlies is how NTs gaming the rankings can get up there. As a general rule: avoid any friendlies in the year leading up to the draw and every year limit the number of friendlies to the absolute minimum (e.g. Wales played 0 friendlies in the year before the 2018 WCQ draw and ended up in pot 1). This rule is expected to be obsolete if somewhat competent people are reviewing the rankings. FIFA should take better care of their rankings (or limit the impact they have). We'll have to wait and see if they're up to the task first and even then we'll have to act surprised when the guys at FIFA make unusual decisions, as is their tradition. There's also the possibility that the World League/(global) Nations League will be linked to WCQs. We can only speculate ATM. Yet seeding might be based on how well you perform in World League/(global) NL, cfr. UNL and seeding/play-offs for EURO2020.
While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post (that most of the complaints are just sour grapes) - you should know that your statement above is actually demonstrably untrue - and a known problem with the rankings. This problem is so well known that some federations actually pay people (people who write on this board) actual money to help them select friendly opponents to maximise their potential rankings. Your ranking score is the average rankings points per game played in each of the last few years (so each year separately) and then those numbers weighted (more recent important). While you definitely get 0 points for losing (and hence your ranking falls), the critical points is this: if you play a friendly - or indeed any actual match - that scores you fewer points than the average points per game you already had for this year (even the points you get by winning the match) then your ranking will be lower than if you hadn't played the game at all. Critically, I do not say your ranking will "fall" because that's really not how these rankings work, which is a key way they differ from the Elo (and many other) rankings. You don't have a "ranking" before the game which is changed by the result - each month's rankings are effectively a new calculation based on results over the new time period (although obviously a lot of the results are the same in both). One known example of this was the Netherlands prior to the 2014 WC finals, when they played a friendly against Indonesia - which they won, but because it was worth far fewer points than their WC qualifying match victories in the rest of the year, it lowered their overall score (to the extent they ended in Pot 2 in the WC finals draw) The problem is also known for when teams in (say) the AFC had to play a number of qualifiers in minor tournaments. For example, Australia played in the EAFF qualifiers in December 2012 - they got 4 wins and a draw against DPRK and lost 51 ranking points. Even if they had won that last match they would have lost 36 points (as per Edgar's calculations). So, five wins out of win - ranking points fall by 36 because the opponents were weak. There are other things in play here (matches moving between calculation periods) but the key points is as above: if a tornado had prevented all those matches being played, then Australia would have a better score than if they had won them all. In general, these things tend to average out. But occasionally they don't - and it is possible that certain teams can "game" the system for a while by avoiding playing weak friendlies, although (as the Netherlands and Australian examples shows) it is more often the case that other teams drop in the rankings because of the matches they either choose to play - or are required to play. J
I get it, but it still doesn't mean that Poland or the Swiss would have lower rankings if they played any other European team or a comparable South American, CONCACAF or even CAF team. I don't think Poland or Switzerland EVER played Indonesia (unlike Holland or even Belgium they have no special colonial relationship with any Asian or African team that would somehow make those games important) or North Korea. So while valid in the overall scheme of things (rankings are not indicative of the current strength of the team) this does not not prove that Poland has "gamed" or taken advantage of the ratings by not playing friendlies. No one requires teams to play friendlies. An no one requires teams to play friendlies against teams from given federations or against teams with low or high rankings. Either way, how can you seriously rely on friendlies to gauge the overall strength of a team? They are often used to test B/C squads or alternate tactics, and no current teams outside of Germany or perhaps France can field a "B" team that can compete on the same level as the "A" team. This lack of understanding about friendlies is the biggest problem concerning the rankings and hopefully the "League of Nations" or "World League" is going to remedy that. But of course there are problems with that as well....
Holland played China and Indonesia because it was lucrative to play these sides. An exhausting Asia trip, flying halfway around the world for a couple of meaningless friendlies, does the players no favours. I glanced at Poland's matches and it does look quite suspicious. In the highest yielding timeframe ahead of the final draw Poland only played one friendly. Why didn't they play on the other dates? FAs seldomly have too much money. Those journalists may very well be right using Poland as an example. Anyway Spain as a top seed would have made much more sense.