On the dot. There are no such studies regarding international football as the sample size is too small, ergo its a purely subjective belief (albeit widespread) that referee bias hampered progress of certain teams in the 80s and 90s. In 2002 we had South Korea 'fabulous run', while 2006 was rife with referee errors that mostly went against African sides and sides from non-top confeds (like Australia). But its all purely subjective. But what you do have is studies regarding racial bias in club football (but also in baseball or basketball), like this study for the Premier League: Conclusion: "Speci fally, the probability that a player of oppositional identity receives a yellow card is at least 15% higher than for a white player. (...) First, the level of discrimination is increasing in the ambiguityof the type of decision that the referee has to take." (as in the referee is even more likely to call a foul against a non-white player, while with regards to red cards the difference is negligible). http://www.bhamlive1.bham.ac.uk/Doc...ss/economics/2012-discussion-papers/12-02.pdf However it does seem that racial bias is diminishing. For example take the study regarding the NBA: "A coming paper by a University of Pennsylvania professor and a Cornell University graduate student says that, during the 13 seasons from 1991 through 2004, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/sports/basketball/02refs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 but within the report you fine that their is a diminishing trend.
I know they are very small samples, but were there any attempts to study the bias in WCs based in Europe and outside of it (whether racial bias or confederation bias)?
Not that I know of or that I could find. I know they was a study in France (?) where they asked black players about their perceptions and they basically said they feel victimised. But that really doesn't prove anything apart from subjective prejudice. Most studies were done for the EPL. Glamser (1990) and Maguire (1988) proved a significant referee bias, while later studies mostly showed such bias, albeit at a significantly decresed level - except for one in 2010, which was funnily enough the only study widely cited in the press. The others show racial bias like: Gallo (2012), Godard, Wilson (2009), Sullivan et al (2012). From Glamser (1990): "The importance of game location was particularly great for black players whose home disciplinary record was similar to that of whites, but who were almost seven times more likely to be cautioned in out-of-London games. The results are explained in terms of social support, hostile crowds, intimidation of referees, and racism." --- Overall I think that the issue of race is diminishing in football or has entirely diminished, but no one will convince me there was no referee bias in the 80s and 90s.
Surprises and Failures: Seeded Pot: Success: Colombia, Belgium I love the way they're playing and what they bring to the table, should really help in a scary tourney especially if they get a good draw. Failure: Uruguay, Spain A bad draw and Uruguay's done, I just think they have too many issues that can be exploited. Spain just seems a bit old, and past it, still very, very good, but I could see this being a QF exit, maybe R16 with a bad draw. They aren't going to win a 4th straight major tourney, threepeat is plenty to be proud of though, extraordinary, really. No Surprise: Switzerland disappointing Pot 2: Entirely Contingent on friendly draws: Success: Mexico: They always perform and almost everyone is counting them out. Japan: Seem to have grown cup to cup, every cup, going back 12 years. Failures: USA: Bad draw and we're done. Pot 3: Success: Chile: Like last tourney, I feel like they can hang w/any team in the world outside the top 8-10, and are well equipped to beat anyone on South American ground other than Germany, Brazil, Italy, Netherlands and Belgium. Failure: Ivory Coast, Nigeria At this point I've just come to expect it from both of these CAF squads, though both could, in the right circumstances, make a QF run. Pot 4: Success: Portugal: Been digging around their performance since '02 and am hugely impressed, outstanding to very good performances in every single major tournament. Still, few rate them because they always seem to require a playoff to qualify for anything. Seems to me they're a great tournament team. Top 8 in the world for sure when it comes to in tourney play, meaning a run to the QF's is distinctly possible. Wonder if Fifa rigs it so they play Brazil in Brazil in a knockout game? Bosnia and Herzogovina Just hugely impressed with their run. Three straight quality qualification campaigns only undone before by excellent Portugal squads. Now they're in. With a good draw I think they make the R16's or the QF's. Failure: England Just don't get the sense that they will be able to hang in South America at all, especially if they get one of the 2-3 groups of death. If they get a bad draw I could see them being eliminated in group play for the first time in a major tourney since Euro 2000. In the end, we'll need to wait for the draw, other than with regards to about 4-6 teams, the draw will dictate whether a squad has a great chance, no chance, or a coin tosses chance.
Like someone else pointed out earlier, I think other than Brazil a GOD could potentially eliminate any team.
Likelihood of a GOD with Brasil is very high - something like 50%. But likely any GOD with Brasil will be a GOD first and foremost for the other teams in that group.
Colombia all-time record against USA is 10-4-3! Why would Colombia be afraid of a team that has lost to only 3 times in 17 meetings?? Because of a shock victory 20 years ago? I would say USA would prefer not to face Colombia, huh?
Yeah but you've got to look at the pots those teams are in and who you'd prefer over the other teams in that pot... compared to some of the other teams in that seeded group, I'd take Colombia over most of them, bar Switzerland... as far as the US is concerned, I think a GOD from that pot would most likely contain Mexico, USA or Japan - those are probably the top teams from their respective pedigree who have a good recent record of getting out of the groups stages. For Japan, it's 2 from the last 3 WCs, and for USA and Mexico, between the two from the last 5 world cups - the qualification from the group stages since 1990 is 3/5 and 5/5 respectively - that's 8/10 successful group stage campaigns between the two...
Colombia scares me more than Uruguay (though both scare me). I'd rank them: 1. Brazil 2. Argentina 3. Germany 4. Spain 5. Colombia 6. Belgium 7. Uruguay 8. Switzerland That's definitely the reverse order of my preference.
Belgium or Colombia. But the amount of people talking about Belgium having a chance and being the dark horses is beginning to mean that less people would be surprised if they actually did something in the WC
Its actually a draw procedures thing why we would want to draw Colombia. Drawing Colombia takes the possibility of drawing Chile or Ecuador out. The majority of the hardest draw scenarios involve getting two of the elite European teams and Chile or Ecuador: like Germany, Italy, Chile, USA. 1 of the 4 S.American seeded groups will get the 9th European team, but the other 3 are better draws than any of the European seeded groups because there is no possibility of getting Chile or Ecuador.
Drawing Colombia also increases the likelihood of drawing France, though. If you were to draw France your group would be Colombia, USA, France, Euro (possibly Netherlands, Italy, etc.).
I don't think there are going to be surprise teams making deep runs. People are expecting Belgium and Colombia to do well so they can't be considered surprise teams anymore. I do think we can have surprise results though. Some euro team having the Brazilian heat affecting them to the point an Asian or CONCACAF team bites them in the butt during the Group stage or something like that.
That shock victory 20 years ago changed Colombian football, it made them more humble, and it still affects them to this day. I still think they would rather avoid them like Brazil would rather avoid Uruguay
Pekerman the manager of Colombia instills confidence. He basically said in a news conference the other day Colombia can play with anyone in the World. I don't think he is afraid of anyone frankly and this team emulates his demeanor.
I don't really agree. I'll grant that their seeds, but most view the seedings of Belgium, Switzerland, Colombia and Uruguay as mistakes. I would not disagree. I suppose an argument can be made (especially considering my preference for Fifa Rankings to be based on the most recent past, rather than going back say 8+ years like they used to (for seedings anyway), so perhaps im being a bit hypocritical. Regardless I think a strong case could be made for Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands, and the 8th seed could reasonably be battled out between the fast risers among Colombia, Belgium, and the Copa Champ/WC '10 semifinalist Uruguay. I'd give it to Uruguay based upon the Copa title in 2011, and the semi-finalist run at World Cup '10. Having all four of Belgium, Switzerland, Colombia, and Uruguay just simply made it a straight up farce, and made it reek of rigging (in order to slide in an extra two South America sides, no doubt to avoid a repeat of the "1 for 5 performance of African sides on their own home soil issue from 2010). Conmebol didn't need fifa to rig the seeding process to insure quality performance of the home continent sides. I imagine all but the biggest homers would have agreed that Brazil was a lock, and Argentina, Colombia, and Chile were all highly likely to make the knockout rounds as non-seeds, while Uruguay was at least a 50/50 shot, and Ecuador held a decent shot. Alas, Fifa decided to proceed with this joke of a process. So be it. It's absurd, but we're stuck with it. What it seems to guarantee is the most competitive group stage ever, but also perhaps incredibly cagey matches that will either be incredible, or incredibly boring as teams play a desperate not to lose and screw themselves form of soccer. It also guarantees that many outstanding teams will miss out on the knockout stage. This was inevitable considering the quality of the teams in '14, but it will be worse than ever seen before. I can only wonder, and dream what it might be like if Fifa stopped the corruption, rigging, and fixing of tourney's and instead seeded them like the NCAA tourney. What could have been? Using SPI for about 95% of the weighting, here's another draw, where every slot is seeded: Group A: Brazil, Russia, Nigeria, Algeria Group B: Argentina, Bosnia and Herzogovina, Ghana, Australia Group C: Spain, Belgium, Ecuador, Cameroon Group D: Germany, Mexico, Greece, Iran Group E: Italy, England, S. Korea, Costa Rica Group F: Netherlands, Chile, Switzerland, Honduras Group G: Portugal, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Japan Group H: Uruguay, France, USA, Croatia You could do all manner of things, but simply seeding every pot seems to be the only sensible method. Using Fifa's own idiotic rankings you'd still get a much better draw: 1. Brazil, Bosnia and Herzogovina, Costa Rica, Cameroon 2. Spain, Greece, Mexico, Australia 3. Germany, Portugal, Ghana, S. Korea 4. Argentina, USA, Ecuador, Iran 5. Colombia, Chile, France, Japan 6. Belgium, England, Russia, Honduras 7. Uruguay, Italy, Croatia, Nigeria 8. Switzerland, Netherlands, Ivory Coast, Algeria It's just better. So of course it won't happen.
I agree with most you said, except for one thing: FIFA didn't rig anything. They just made the decision earlier (and made explicit public suggestions) that they would be keeping the 2010 seeding system. The absurd group of seeds 'just happened'. FIFA didn't have to rig anything. And for what its worth Italy threw their own chances of being seeded by drawing their last two games (had they won either they would be celebrating a seed), meanwhile Belgium, Switzerland and Uruguay (hell... Suarez wanted the win so much he gave an excellent display at diving, which actually won them the game) guaranteed themselves a seed with the last match by winning their game. Fact is that now 50% of groups have a seed that everyone will want to play! FIFA didn't rig it, they just have a stupid ranking system.
I don't think surprise teams can be teams everyone is talking about. I see surprise teams as... ... surprise teams. (Teams that do well that no one expects at all.) It is that simple to me.
Find a draw that pits England against USA in Belo Horizonte and you will not be wrong. Then we can have our own ghost of 1950.