Group C Predictions

I don't know man, all this talk about historical team legacy and its power to win World Cups tends to hide rather dark eras of international football. Calling it a "world event", when its past reality is far from the 2018 competition model.

Some continents had more resources+time to develop football infrastructure+culture, while enacting barriers against football development in other continents.

The African confederation had to boycott the 1966 World Cup because FIFA allocated 1 ticket to be fought between AFC and CAF. Oh yeah, UEFA kept 9 automatic spots, and Conmebol kept 4. Add the host spot for UEFA, to make it an even 10. That's good old football tradition right there.

How were Asia and Africa supposed to build football cultures in 1966, if FIFA allowed 2 continents to participate via 1 ticket?

Is it even useful to talk about football dynasties, when there were obvious barriers of entry into the World Cup, going into the 1970s?

Seems better to talk about present-day squads, instead of reciting stats for players that no longer walk the pitch/earth.

Alas, we have hijacked this thread again... somehow Argentina, Germany, Croatia, and Uruguay are now playing in Group C 2018.

Are Australia/Peru/France really that boring to talk about?

 

Elo ratings have been in use in chess since the 1960s, and they describe accurately the win–draw–lose probabilities (not certainty), as can be tested by millions of chess games' results over more than 50 years. It's not an empirical formula but a statistical prediction.

Now, if you take offense from statistical predictions, and rather think in terms of "my dad was big and you are not"... well, it's your call... but then... what are you doing in a "prediction" thread? Just stating that history (made by different players and teams) matters above the actual teams on the field?

 

Point taken.

Our Australian friends were giving us some info regarding their side.

Then the thread got blasted with stuff about Conmebol's historical weight at the World Cup and some other bull about European legacy.

Looks like a pissing contest on who can predict World Cup outcomes by rattling off stats, without talking about present-day France/Peru/Australia/Denmark squads.

My take is this, to retake the previous conversation about Australia.
That side is in some trouble, and I am not talking about their new coach:
- Their defensive line took a hit on field activity with their respective clubs.
- Their star forward recently turned 38 in age, and has not scored a goal with his clubs since April 2017.
That is why I asked our Australian friends whether new player prospects were on the horizon, with the arrival of their new coach.
Yeah, Australia does not seem presently ready for Group C.

 

UEFA has always shafted the other confederations, and that includes Conmebol. Historically it was a ratio of 4:1 participants in favor of UEFA vis a vis Conmebol, only since the 90s have the ratio come down to the present 5:2 or thereabouts.

However you cannot simply throw away a NT's pedigree despite past unfairness. After all, the three ranking favorites heading into this WC are Brazil, Germany and Spain. It's not like it's Switzerland, Tunisia and South Korea this time around.

I agree we should focus more on the squads of the present teams, but it's important to look at history to get an idea of what may happen. For example, Denmark has an equal competitive record against France, two wins apiece (France winning in Euro84 and WC98, Denmark winning in Euro92 and WC02). This would inform me that Denmark should be ready to challenge the group favorites, and it would not surprise me at all if they pull off a win. This is without knowing much about their players other than Eriksen.

Peru has a tradition (there's that word) of expansive, possession football. This is an era that rewards possession, so it may line up well for them at the tournament.

You seem willing to give ELO a margin for error but meanwhile negate the historical view because it is not infallible. Based on pedigree, France should own this group but I hope they don't make it through, I will be rooting for the other three teams. Still, it is reasonable to say that France is expected to top the group and play better than their opponents, their current squad follows a tradition of excellent players across defense and midfield, though also nowhere near as much for forwards.

You can make predictions taking into account different methodologies which is what I have argued for. You think ELO, and only ELO, has the word that counts, but based on their ELO should Peru have any chance against France? I have no idea what each team has but I am certain France should be sufficiently higher. Still, I don't think you are just ready to give up those three points four months in advance of the tournament.

 

Well, Peru suffered almost two decades of terrorism (financed by drug dealers) during the 80s and 90s; 70 thousand were killed, and the economy was destroyed. There were more important matters to attend than football, which explains the poor results in between 1990–2010 (little to no attention to young divisions). Then it wasn't lack of talent or football culture, but no means to nurture and promote enough of them. And this generation of Peruvian players were raised when the terrorism was –mostly– defeated.

Then I come to this forum and see people saying Peru's 2018 NT has little to no chance because Peru meant nothing in football when dealing with 70 thousand dead people on the streets. Like... what???

 

My man, can you please dial it down with all that historical jazz?

None of the participants in Group C have *pedigree*, unless you want to recite more stats about peaks and valleys of old French squads at the WC.

Do you have any predictions/comments/questions about the present squads playing in Group C?

 

ELO football rankings do have some reasonably accurate predictive qualities which have been shown through some studies on the subject, although they are far from perfect. In fact, even a "perfect" ranking wouldn't be able to perfectly predict future scores. Both because results in a low scoring game such as football are ultimately affected by a host of extraneous issues as well (bounce of the ball, referee errors, etc) and because the present can never perfectly describe or predict the future. Even when the present is somehow perfectly described.

My own view is that if you want to bet on teams, look at the following in the following order of precedence:

1) ELO ranking -- along with FIFA and other rankings for any anomalies between them;

2) H2H record between the two sides, particularly if it includes results in the relevant time frame. Example: you would do much better ordinarily predicting Italy/Germany games (until Euro 2016) using this criteria than anything else.

3) How the strengths and weaknesses as well as typical tactics of two sides match up. This may be suggested by H2H records as well, but teams do change and while probably the most important factor, it ranks 3rd in the list, because it is also the most difficult to accurately project. It is not something you can get from any stats per se.

4) Relevant tradition and pedigree: if talking about a continental championship, the history, record and tradition in that tournament. If the World Cup, the record in past World Cups. I agree it is important, but its importance by itself is limited unless it shows also in the other measures (e.g., ELO ranking).

5) Talent each side boasts, including broadly on transfer market values. I am reluctant to even put this on my list because it is susceptible to being misused and is the biggest red herring in many debates about teams. Ultimately, "talent" means something only when it has shown to make a team better in the other criteria already covered. But, of course, in close cases, this might also help handicap results.

 

Elo is pretty accurate when several games, not necessarily for 3. In chess, it works very well because most tournaments have, at the very least, 7 games for each player. Nonetheless, it still gives a good probability prediction based on recent results.

That said, it's also well known –in chess circles– that the "style" in a player may be a "black beast" for another specific one, making all rating predictions completely wrong (something like a 55% win probability, according to ratings, being a +13-1=1 in actual results).

And that's what bothers me, regarding this Peruvian NT not having experience (as a team) against European NTs, as these could very well be a "black beast" for Peru. On the other hand, it could also be the way around, as they may not be used to find teams whose playing style and schemes are based on ball control and passing technique.

 

People playing in 1982 have grandsons today.

As for the last two WCs (as I wrote before), 9 out of 11 CONMEBOL NTs were top–10 NTs. Compared to 7 out of 26, doesn't look that good for UEFA, nor justifies the number of participants from that region (we have to look at their grandfathers' merits to justify it, and mostly from 7 countries, Denmark not being one of them).

So, any prediction based on "oh I belong to mighty UEFA" is moot. More money in Europe, better infrastructure, better leagues (some, not all)... granted. But NTs is a whole different issue, which has to be taken on a current case by case analysis, as there is a lot of concentrated talent in CONMEBOL NTs.

 

lol. You only want to talk about the last two World Cups. Well, I don't blame you I guess, because from 1982 through 2006, not a single CONMEBOL side made it to the quarter-finals not named Brazil or Argentina. Think about it--that is 24 years, and 56 quarter-finalists, without any country from CONMEBOL other than those two. Quite frankly, that is shocking.

And if you were consistent as far as the "grandson" comment, you would dump the 2010 references as well, because hardly anyone on the pitch in 2010 will play in Russia. Just looking at group C, Denmark has one player who was on the roster in 2010 but never got into a match. Peru of course, wasn't even there. I can't think of any on France who played in 2010 except maybe Lloris. And I don't know of any Australians, other than Tim Cahill.

So if you don't like going back to 1982, or 94, or 06, you probably shouldn't be making references to 2010 either.

 

Okay, but Jedinak played the last 16 minutes of the first match against Germany, and never saw the pitch again. Milligan didn't play at all.

 

By itself, 2010 is of very limited value. Even when there are a few players of the same name in a squad because those players will likely be either better and more experienced than they were in 2010 or, alternatively, a lot older and over-the-hill and not as good anymore.

Overall, however, within the context I mentioned in my earlier post, 2010 is relevant as part of the larger picture. But in some ways, in that limited context, so is 2006 and frankly even 2002 and 1998. At some point, though, some of it will become almost entirely irrelevant and ancient history. Still, even ancient history has some limited relevance.

Of course, I agree that the focus should be a lot more on the present than on the past.

 

Incidentally, if the teams at the World Cup were chosen by their ELO rankings, the division between the various confederations would be as follows:

UEFA: 18
Conmebol: 8
Concacaf: 3
AFC: 2
CAF: 1

I don't think the "World Cup" would be any better but the reverse. It would become mainly a contest between UEFA and Conmebol, with token representation from the rest of the world. I say this despite the fact that my team, Iran (ranked #22), would still be at the World Cup. But I certainly wouldn't be as excited about the tournament as I am now.

 

Of course Europe has a lot more depth and better quality teams from across the world (but also because had more spots than others). However, the result is still the same, during that same time period the traditional teams ruled world football as well.
If you look closely, total of only 4 teams (France, Netherlands, England and Spain), they've reached the quarter-finals more than a multitude of european nations all together namely Poland, Yugoslavia, Ireland, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Denmark, Turkey, Portugal and Ukraine, all these teams qualified once with Belgium twice and this sharing without reckoning the top 2 in Europe Germany and Italy.

 

The reference was to the quality of the zone. Since you're not disputing it but talking about history, then you agree that South America has been better in this decade. Then, any NT not qualifying in CONMEBOL in this period isn't necessarily weaker than the tourists sent by UEFA.

Also, talking about how things are today, 5 CONMEBOL NTs are ranked as 13th or higher by FIFA. Can you point out any UEFA WCQ group having those numbers? No?

Now, rather than debating on history, I'd like someone to point out the strengths and weaknesses of Denmark and Australia. I have an idea of Peru's chances against France, because I've seen several matches from them and there are hundreds of videos around; most of Peru's strength lies in its midfield (both in attack as in defense), and I don't quite see Peru's midfield grabbing and hiding the ball from France's midfield... meaning Peru will have to endure France's attack, and things don't look prettier in that area neither.

It's a whole different story with Denmark and Australia, as I've found but a few "highlights & goals" clips, and people in forums are more into reciting what happened –long ago– with different players, systems and coaches whom, incidentally, wear the same shirt. Well, that's not very helpful.

Are there no fans in Denmark and Australia editing videos like those I've been posting? No pride from their NTs? Because that's very popular in South America. For instance, the following clip shows how were we (CONMEBOL NTs) put under test by our main "examiner" in these qualifiers:



By the way, only Chile (home) and Peru (neutral) won a game from Brazil in 2015–2017... and Brazil took "full revenge" in the other 3 matches, as to proof those were "accidents" (I sincerely hope not that much of an "accident").

 

The qualification is a whole different ball game.
Yes, I am aware of Arg-Per'85 and the Passarella factor, but it's very simple all you have to do is ask yourself the right questions, if Peru had qualified instead of Argentina do you really believe that Peru will represent CONMEBOL extremely well at the summer of Mexico 86 as Argentina did? would you fancy their chances to grab the title? against powerhouses such as Germany at the final adapting to the higher expectations, the greater pressure you know it much needed players of steel not bottle? are you good enough playing seven games in a short time tournament at the highest level? do you have enough quality players in case more specifically any difficult situation with injuries and suspensions? and so on.
Remind me again what happened to Peru's golden generation on the big stage against teams of that calibre (Germany and Brazil) at 70.
Colombia had brilliant World Cup at 14 then their hopes and dreams get crushed. Guess who the culprit is here?
History does, in fact, repeat itself but of course there is always an exception from time to time with so called golden generations of the lesser teams.

 

OMG, you posted a spreadsheet that went all the way back to 1930 trying to show us how proficient CONMEBOL has been at "finishing positions", and now you're complaining because of too many historical references?

 

You're very much into reciting history but not into checking the line–ups from CONMEBOL's NTs. The generations that have been playing for Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Paraguay began in 2008 or so. This was the last chance for Chile's "golden generation" and the same can be said for Argentina's squad around Messi. Peru's last generation (2002–2008) was replaced during these qualifiers (2016); only 3 players are +30, most are 23 or younger.

 

Well, talking about highlights and video of recent matches, here is Peru against Venezuela and against Chile.

 

And this one for Australia against Chile:

 

Nah, I posted it to clarify that most of the best UEFA's representation in WCs don't always perform the same (as "traditionalists" tend to believe), and that as an average finishing position, CONMEBOL performs better.

There's a curious fact. Should we consider how many times a UEFA and CONMEBOL NT didn't reach a top–10 position, we get 90 out of 225 for UEFA, and 32 out of 80 for CONMEBOL. Both at 40%. Meaning, UEFA sends about two more tourists to the WCs than CONMEBOL. And as pairings go, it seems that regardless of who gets out of the group, Denmark, Peru and Australia won't get a 5th game (so all three can be tagged as tourists in this WC).

Now, all these numbers don't help a bit to predict how Group C will develop. Then, would you please leave the history books and focus on current NTs strengths and weaknesses?