Group C Predictions

Should trophies and history score (or allow) goals in a match, there wouldn't be results such as Argentina 1 Venezuela 1 WCQ 2017. Germany gets results because they put better teams on the field (players, scheme, idea); when they don't, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-1-1-Germany-Joshua-Kimmich-rescues-draw.html) then:



While "Highlights & Goals" don't allow to get a clear idea of a NT playing system, it shows how many scoring chances where created, the typical attacks, and –some of– the effectiveness both in attack as in defense:




For South Americans, such display isn't impressive at all.

Europe has stronger clubs teams, but this is related to their top club teams, not to every single one in a league, nor to every single league. The same concept applies to top NTs and the rest of European NTs, as Europe won the past two World Cups and had 5 top–4 NTs, compared to South America's 3 top–4; but, when we extend the analysis to top–10 finishes, then South America had 9 out of 11, compared to Europe's 7 out of 26. And, should I mention that in 2006 a UEFA NT finished last?

Besides, I didn't see any UEFA qualification group scoring goals like the following:



So, I rather wait and see how Peru performs against European NTs in the upcoming friendly matches, and how France, Denmark and Australia perform against Colombia and Chile.

 

It's not an either or choice, fans from the traditional powerhouses can look both back to the past and towards the future. Although fans from mediocre NTs would want to forget the past.

 

That didn't stop Netherlands (last WC appearance in 1938) from becoming a runner–up in 1974 and 1978.

What matters is the quality of the team on the field. Otherwise, no one would give a dime for Argentina's chances against Germany... and I actually believe Sampaoli will end the spell, should they face each other in this WC.

 

You seem to both agree and disagree in parts.

The Netherlands revolutionized football and kept being a powerhouse since...they have had some dry runs, including the past four years, but I fully expect them to come up to the forefront of football with its next generation. After the Clockwork Orange generation, they reached the semifinals in WC98 and WC14, plus another final in WC10. They also won Euro88 playing some of the best football ever played at international level. That's what it means to build a tradition.

 

lol. What the hell are you even talking about?

We didn't decline. We were way above what can reasonably be expected for a country with a population the size of Dallas or Atlanta. We just returned to the mean. We could never reasonably expect to reach the level of a Holland, which has three times the population plus the vital Surinamese component in their player pool.

In fact, I would assert that there is no European country of five million or less that has accomplished as much as Denmark in football over the past 50 years. The only one close is Croatia. Croatia has done well, but while the World Cup records are similar, we have been better at the Euros, including a championship that they don't have. As for other small countries of the world, the only one that stands out is Uruguay, who are obviously the all-time best small country, but since 1970 at the World Cup they only have the tainted 2010 run, and Denmark has beaten Uruguay twice at the World Cup with no losses during this time. So I would say Denmark is at least Uruguay's equal as far as the last 10 World Cups.

 

@Iranian Monitor expanded on it on a subsequent post:

I think his main point was that between 2002 and this World Cup, there have been teams without Denmark's promise in those years (especially the 1986-1998 time frame) that have managed to accomplish more than Denmark at the world stage. For a while, the Danes were quite good and might have appeared heading in the direction of say Holland. Instead, they basically ended up were a lot of 2nd tier European sides end up.

Denmark may be smaller than many other nations, but it had a head start to build a culture of excellence off the generation of Simonsen, Olsen, Elkjaer, Lerby, Arnessen, and of course Michael Laudrup, a technical wizard. But they didn't and others overtook the Danes since.

 

It's a matter of players generation, and tradition comes as a result of doing an excellent work along decades. But this doesn't exclude a country, lacking trophies and titles, to raise a generation of players which can defeat just about anyone else.

Netherlands is a good example. 36 years without WCs, then twice runners–up in 1974–1978, then no WCs in 1982 and 1986 (where did "tradition" go?), failed also in 2002, then 2nd and 3rd place in 2010 and 2014, and no presence in 2018. Hungary is another example, as they were very strong between 1938 and 1966, and the practically vanished; they reappeared in 1978, 1982 and 1986 –without strong teams–, and no more WCs for them ever since.

In terms of prediction of winning probabilities, ELO ratings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system) have proven more accurate than "history and tradition". For instance, ELO ratings did predict Netherlands results in 1974 and 1978 WCs, because it updates on recent results. It also considers friendly matches, same as home, away and neutral ones.

Current World Football ELO ratings: http://www.eloratings.net/

How to use those ELO numbers: https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html

 

My view on history, tradition, and pedigree versus current form and results (captured by ranking systems) is as follows: current form is what really matters the most, but countries with strong football cultures and traditions usually produce good teams overall who often show good current form as well. If you are lazy or don't have time to follow current form, going by pedigree isn't a terribly inaccurate way to guess how a side might do. However, you won't get the correct picture all the time. While football is no science and current form alone, or even in combination with pedigree, won't always tell you how a game might end up, ultimately the best predictor IMO is generally the ELO ratings adjusted using common sense and giving some credit to pedigree and talent as well.

Incidentally, I posted the historical average ELO ratings and the current ELO ratings to show that in many cases, the historical averages are similar to the current ratings. In this group, Peru is an exception: their historical average is a lot lower than their current rating. The rest are all within a few spots or, in the case of Denmark, actually the same.

 

I agree with you that, for a small nation, Denmark has done quite well and better than almost any other its size. But to say that Denmark didn't decline compared to the 1986-1998 period doesn't make sense to me. At least, not from a distance looking at the record and recalling the names and impressions from Denmark's best generation of players. But, of course, perhaps this Danish side might do as well as the best sides from Denmark's past? Certainly, looking at some of the highlights that were posted, never mind some of your good wins (Ireland and Poland), even your bad results (e.g., your loss to Montenegro) no longer look as bad to me as when I simply looked at the result of that match. To be quite frank, since Iran did play Montenegro around the same time and beat them, from the highlights, I felt the Danes did better losing to them than we did beating them. I say that because while Iran created plenty of chances against Montenegro, they also created at least 3-4 chances against us. From the highlights, it didn't seem Montenegro created much other than their goal, while the Danes created a bunch of chances against them apparently.

 

Not every WC tournament is going to be a success, that's impossible to ask for any nation other than Brazil and Germany possibly. This does not disproves the theory that tradition counts for a lot in the World Cup, just look at how many WCs have been won by Brazil, Italy and Germany, and when they don't win it, they usually go deep into the tourney.

Hungary is a rare exception, and it would be interesting when someone gives a good analysis of what happened to them. I would say until now they are the only former powerhouse to have fallen off dramatically from their zenith.

The ELO ratings simply measure but not describe football. Germany wins often so their ELO scores will be high, but why does Germany consistently win? The evidence points to the tradition in which they play football and develop generations.

Of course a nation that is not a traditional powerhouse can emerge with a great generation of players. It takes time to build the pedigree to win a World Cup however, as you can see how long it took Spain and the Netherlands still has not accomplished this.

 

@Hayaka is biased as I would rate Croatia as having done better overall than Denmark from 1996 until present.

 

I didn't say they have the best results for a small nation, but certainly the only ones I can think of who claim to have done better would be Croatia and Uruguay. Which side you end up taking in such a debate to me isn't all that important. What is more interesting is how is it that some very small nations do manage to do so much better than any objective criteria would suggest?

 

It's a complex question, definitely having a culture that emphasizes technique and ingenuity is important. Also there is the factor of confidence, a player understanding he is part of a top tradition and aiming to meet the lofty expectations. See Lionel Messi.

 

One thing I should make clear: World Cup success helps a side develop a strong football culture. But World Cup achievements by themselves aren't as indicative of how a side truly rates as some (perhaps including Pipiolo) imagine. The World Cup involves a few matches (the most important ones, but still very few) over a very short period of time every four years. Teams end up in different groups, the ball might bounce one way or a call go another way, and a host of other such issues might at the end see a side accomplish something that another one doesn't. Once a side succeeds by its standards, even if that success is initially helped by happenstance (or because they were hosts), they might build on it and find many new followers and the whole dynamic that sees them improve and develop a stronger football culture and program. But at the end of the day, unless a side has been able to translate such past success in developing a currently strong side as well, the past is largely irrelevant (except for some psychological issues that might affect tactics and determination to get a result and, conversely, to be satisfied with something less).

 

Colombia has an average rank of 51 (currently 9), while Scotland has an average rank of 13 (currently 36). History is for books and for people not up to date with what's going on.

 

Yes, there are exceptions. I have actually compared the current ranking to the historical rankings for all 32 teams at the World Cup. For the vast majority, the numbers were similar. A few showed significant differences.

But to be clear: on this broader issue, I tilt more on the side of those who focus on current form as opposed to historical pedigree. Except, the reason those who focus on historical pedigree don't realize they are being lazy and often feel they were proven right, is because historical pedigree does help (and is related to) a country's football culture and its ability to develop a side that has strong current form as well. So, if you don't have time to really follow a side's results and performances, there are worse ways to guess at the issue than looking at history.

 

Well sure, if you're going to start in 1996. That leaves out probably our 12 best years, starting with our semi-final finish in the 1984 Euros and our 1992 championship. I realize that Croatia didn't compete as an independent nation until 1996, but you can add in the Yugoslav record as a surrogate for the prior years and I think Denmark still comes out ahead.

I'm also still wondering what you meant with your "British soap operas and other chicanery" comment. What do British soap operas have to do with Denmark?

 

Elo ratings don't just measure WC's results, and ratings don't measure football nor describe it. Elo considers results to establish the probabilities of a win–draw–lose.

Now, when people talk about "tradition" as something that will increase the success probabilities because of political borders, league level and attendances to WCs, they do a poor service to the people involved in young divisions, as it's because of them that talent is recognized and nurtured. Then, "traditionalists" invert causes and consequences. The "tradition fallacy" is exemplified (besides Netherlands and Hungary) by Italy: 5th in 1998 and 1st in 2006. But 15th, 26th and 22nd in 2002, 2010 and 2014... and didn't qualify for 2018.

When "tradition" is used to describe a culture, an idea of how football should be played, then all of these are reflected in competitive results. And those are measured by Elo ratings.

Now, if "tradition" is taken as "previous experience in WCs", then sure, it matters a lot because it helps to deal with the psychological pressure in each WC match, as well as when and how to give that "extra effort" in a game. But then we're talking about personal and not historical experience. In such sense, most of the players in Group "C" lack personal experience in WCs.

Last, and not least, if "tradition" is related to how a country "lives" football, then: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/11...rucial-goal-trigger-earthquake-alert-app.html

 

Are you sure about that? look the other way around, who's the national team that actually run better performing than Italy at the last 25 years other than Brazil and Germany?
Of course tradition played big part in football.
Why it's always Brazil and Argentina from CONMEBOL has qualified for latter stages of the World Cup several times?

 

The Netherlands is a small country were hugely affected in world war II and it took a long time (emotionally in particular) then start building again in the early 1960s.
As Pipiolo describe it accurately later the Netherlands revolutionized the entire field of football with Rinus Michels and Johan Cruyff.

 

But that doesn't mean they were crap.
Either Netherlands or the eventual semi-final team France at the World Cup 82 and they were just a matter of five minutes from the event at 86.

 

That's right. Take away Brazil and Argentina since the World Cup expanded to 24 teams in 1982, and CONMEBOL has had only three teams reach the quarter-finals. Any way you look at it, that is not a good record. During the same time period, and taking away UEFA's two best teams (Germany and Italy), UEFA has had 33 teams reach the quarter-finals.

Yes, there are more UEFA qualifiers, but the results shouldn't be that lopsided.

 

If we begin comparing since 1980 and the unified Yugoslavia counts for Croatia, I would say a rough view as a small advantage to Denmark due to their Euro92 trophy. However Yugoslavia/Croatia has been more consistent, qualifying to several more tournaments.

In terms of players, Denmark has the top player in Laudrup, but after him I would reckon Croatia has more depth.

As for the comment about the British TV, I haven't been to Denmark but been to Sweden and I noticed loads of British shows. It's a reasonable guess that it's quite similar in Denmark as Scandinavia is a homogeneous region with not much diversity. Anyways, it was a throwaway line as the point is that Denmark failed to capitalize on an opportunity to build a tradition the way the Dutch did.

 

ELO ratings simply compute a team's standing at a given time, it is not predictive in any way. Basically, it's "you won a match, here's your points". They have a very good and consistent methodology in regards to competitiveness, stage and score difference though it has some flaws as has been described by various posters elsewhere.

The discussion about why some nations are consistently good and why some small nations overachieve beyond much bigger nations (Croatia vs USSR, Uruguay vs USA) cannot be resolved by an empirical formula alone. It should be regarded from other fields such as ethnographically, qualitatively, post-modernist, critical theory, human geography, behavioral economics, etc.

By the way, I feel you are being deliberately argumentative and will report you if you continue in this manner. I believe you may be a troll handle from a regular poster.

 

Argentina hasn't always qualified for the WC, nor Brazil and Argentina have the monopoly of winner and runner–up in Copa America. Actually, it's been a long time since Argentina has won it, and Brazil's last was in 2007. Incidentally, it was Peru who eliminated Argentina from the WC 1970, and Brazil in Copa America 2015.

There's also the interesting fact that, after Brazil's victory in Copa America 1949, they couldn't repeat the feat until 1989 (four times runner–up), and from there only until 1997. By mere numbers, it seems that winning the WC three times was easier, for Brazil, than the Copa America once. And Argentina isn't that different, as in the period 1975–1989 (when they won their two WCs), they didn't even reach the finals.

Or we can talk about WC qualifiers. Peru won its home match against Argentina, and was at 8 minutes to eliminate Argentina when winning 1–2 in the away match; it was a 2–2, and Argentina won the WC 1986. Brazil lost 6 games (even a 3–0 to the last in the table), qualified as 3rd–4th from Conmebol, and won the WC 2002.

So no, we (South Americans other than Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay) don't believe in "traditions" but in good teams on the field. Now, if I ever see a trophy scoring a goal or something, then I'll change my mind.

To your question, I did hint the answer in post #374. Both Brazil and Argentina have a massive effort in children and young divisions (tens of thousands since forever), and their kids get immense pride when they are chosen by some club. Cafu is an interesting case; he was rejected in a dozen of club's try–outs, but he kept at it, found an opportunity, and became World Champion in 2002.

About why don't other Conmebol NTs get the accumulated experience in WCs... well, imagine a group with 3 or 4 qualification slots, and put Germany and Italy in that group. Do you think many European NTs would repeatedly qualify and get WC experience playing in such group? I don't.