No it's group G by far. Only WC group ever to have all 4 sides in the knockout stages in the previous WC. Germany = Italy Portugal > England Ghana > Uruguay USA > Costa Rica Group D actually looks rather weak with a piss poor Uruguay, and a perennial overrated England. Costa Rica despite their win is still Costa Rica.
Counted all together, Group D has 7 WC titles, while Group G, only has 3 (less than half of those in Group D) Group D, only on reputation of its members, is twice as better than Group G Only in WC achievements, which is what most counts : Italy 4 WC championships > Germany 3 WC championships England 1 WC championship > no WC championship by Portugal Uruguay 2 WC championships >> not even 1 WC semifinal ever by Ghana (to compare these 2, even gets to the point of being ridiculous as Ghana, in its best performance ever, was defeated precisely by Uruguay last WC) Costa Rica < USA .......granted In any case, I don't know why you compare England to Portugal, as Uruguay is lots better team than them, so you should compare the best to the best, the 2nd best to the 2nd best, the 3rd best to the 3rd best, and the worst to the worst in each group (where the worst from group G is Ghana, whom never have reached a semifinal and only has 1 quarters finnish, while the USA has, besides from a quarters finish, a 3rd place), so should be : Italy > Germany Uruguay > Portugal England > USA Costa Rica < Ghana. Group D is lots more a GOD, than group G
No it has the best collection of 2 teams. Chile is massively overrated and Australia is one of the worst teams of the tournament.
Why are u comparing Ghana and Costa Rica ? You are trying to twist things to make group D better. Italy is not better than Germany, they are equal despite the fact Germany always struggles with Italy. Uruguay better than. Portugal ? Are u kidding me ? Uruguay is actually one of the worst teams at this competition, no wonder they finished 5th in qualifying
Any line of thought that uses the teams historical accomplishments is flawed. This year's teams do not mean they are as good as the teams that won over a decade ago. But it is a fun talking point. Thanks
I go with group D because the differences between the favourites are less big. In group B everyone expected Spain to be first, and Netherlands and Chile to fight for the second place. In G everyone expected Germany and Portugal, even though USA and Ghana are no walkover. In group D however it's hard to tell who's the strongest among the three (England, Italy, Uruguay),.. they could all be first or third (and now even Costa Rica has a chance).
I think that the essence of GOD is the extent to which the seeded team is in danger of being knocked out because of the quality of the other teams. G doesn't meet that. D does, and in retrospect so does B. Tallying up FIFA rankings, given how incredibly flawed they are, is laughable. The US and US sports media should stop whining and making excuses.
You obviously failed to take note of Ghana almost beating Germany thus throwing their qualification into question? Jordan Ayew makes a pass or Ghana utilize one of the breakaways like 5 vs 2) and... This is obviously the group of death alongside group B. Hard to decide which one was tougher. Group D isn't simply because the quality of football has been dissapointing.
It's so funny to read some of these older comments. Three things are clear: 1. The CONCACAF teams were underrated going into this world cup. 2. The Europeans teams were overrated. 3. European fans and "experts" rarely know much of anything about soccer/football outside of Europe.
Costa Rica will lose 9/10 times to Italy and Uruguay with Suarez. The yanks got a lucky goal 30 seconds into the game against Ghana and could only manage a draw against half of Portugals starting 11 and a Ronaldo who can't even run. Mexico is a fantastic team an deserves to be going through. Honduras won't get a point from their group, as expected.
Nope, Uruguay has 2 WC championships and 2 World championships (both Olympic Golds from 1924 and 1928, which were regarded by FIFA as being a World championship, not as a World cup championship, or else they would've kept the Jules Rimet trophy instead of Brazil, which they didn't).
But that's always the trend.. and I'll throw another one in there African teams are always overrated..
Group G, unlike the other two, had all teams still alive after two games. Something to be said for that.
I don't agree that G was the g.o.d. or the toughest group. Portugal was way overrated before the tournament based on Fifa rankings and having Ronaldo. After the Portugal game Germany was flat. Disappointing, even. Ghana was sucker punched by the US in the first 30 seconds and the US then pretty much was relegated to a defensive game. Ghana should have won that game, even being down 1-0. The US did not put together a single really good game, and nevertheless got through. In retrospect, Germany and Portugal were not as strong as hyped, making the group more evenly matched. That's not group of death, and just the opposite. Easier to get through than had been thought. Also, tell Italy and Spain they were not in the tough groups. Spain ran into two of the superior teams in this cup. And Italy, well, Costa Rica, wow.
This is a stupid way to analyze it. If I use the way you're analyzing group G, I'd also say Italy and England were very poor and so that wasn't a group of that. Or that Spain was overrated and Chile and Netherlands passed without much sweat. This is missing the point, that in a GoD it's more likely that highly rated teams are outplayed.