Who's the favorite to win this group ?

I didn't get into the discussion thinking that if I objected to a comment that Falcao and James are the 2 most marquee players in the group that it was going to imply that I thought Colombia wouldn't win the group.

You totally shifted the goalposts from "are the most marquee players" to "players that will most likely to lead their team to winning the group", and are still trying to shift them but nobody is buying it.

 

lol Fully agree. Ibra has been off the radar completely for over a year! How the heck is he still on anyone's list? I detect a major bias of Juve players (present and past) in Italy-Azurri Fan's list.

 

Well you are right, but Ibrahimovic has suffered from a ligament tear for a very long time.

 

So just to recap, you think one of the best strikers in the world right now is a guy who scored 1 goal this season and who any club could've signed on a free transfer (just pay one year salary) but decided to pass on(?).

 

People tend to overrate the teams they root for. Poland had one very bad result in qualifying, and a few poor matches they managed to win. Senegal had bad results as well, the 5-0 blow out to Guinea in ACN qualifiers and several ties against very mediocre teams. Colombia lost 3-0 to both Uruguay and Argentina away (not saying that any other team in the group would have necessarily fared much better) and, inexplicably lost to a fairly poor Paraguay team. Japan had good qualifiers in a very poor group, but still tied Singapore. All teams demonstrated that they are capable of having pretty poor games on any given day. If that day happens to come in a group match, then it is possible that they will not make it out. This is what makes this group exciting, and indicates that there is no clear cut favorite.

 

^
Senegal never lost 5-0 to Guinea. I think you may be looking at results from the homebased competitions.

Senegal is undefeated in WCQ, although they did fail to beat Burkina Faso.

 

I did not shift anything I just clarified my position and how it applies to the thread.

 

Interesting random cherry picking of matches.
Colombia was missing James against Uruguay but they were missing Suarez and Cavani so it does kind of seem like a bad loss I suppose. (Although that was early on in marathon qualifying so I will say maybe half the players who started in that game probably won't play or start in Russia.)

Falcao had just returned from a long stint of injuries and bad form for the National team when he played against Argentina. Colombia also had a back four of players who had never played together before (and will probably never EVER play together again) so I was not that shocked to see a 3-0 in that one as compared to the Uruguay one.

Losing to Paraguay was a bit of a shocker but not as shocking as you depict. They are one of those jekyll and mr hyde teams that look great on one match day and look horrible the next match day. Keep in mind Paraguay was able to beat Argentina in Argentina, they were able to beat Chile in Chile and were able to beat Colombia in Colombia so let's not make it seem like they were a bunch of bums. (They were road warriors at times in Qualifying.) Winning that game also kept Paraguay alive for the last match day so they needed to win. Desperate teams sometimes find ways at the end.

South American Qualifying in general are a bunch of battles with some surprises. As long as you survive and advance you are battle tested for a good run at the World Cup (usually.)

 

This.

 

[QUOTE="Smoga, post: 36321786, member: 19716"]People tend to overrate the teams they root for. .[/QUOTE]

Or in a few cases, underrate. Dutch fans have generally been that way, although lately their pessimism appears to be deserved.

 

Conmebol qualifiers often don't have correlation to how the team will perform at the world cup. Uruguay and Argentina qualified in 4th and 5th place for 2010 WC and then they were the highest finishers of conmebol in the finals (4th and 5th place). Also for 2002 WC, Argentina made record points in wcq and Brazil barely qualified in the last game and then we know what happened.

 

Exactly. As long as you survive and advance in South America you are usually battle tested for the World Cup.

 

Conmebol, due to the limited number of members, has what would be regarded as the "best" or most fair system for choosing qualifying teams to the World Cup. A league system where, in theory, the best teams should finish on top. But then you have the anomaly you allude to, which is actually intriguing in understanding (a) difference between how teams do within their own confederation and outside, often reflecting pedigree and its effect on how each team views its objectives and task against another, (b) the influence of experienced players and how they cope differently playing outside in the world stage as opposed to playing more comfortably at home (one leg of a league system), (c) the importance of home-field advantage to help even out differences between teams, and finally last but not least (d) the difference between the dynamics of doing well in a tournament (akin to cup performance) as opposed to a league system.

Unlike in club football where league title winners are more highly regarded than cup winners, the reputation of teams in international football is developed, nurtured and spread based on how they do in one single tournament every 4 years. As the World Cup is basically the only game in town internationally at this level, its significance becomes highlighted. But to me, while the very best are often the very best regardless (as shown by the closest thing to having a league ranking system, namely the ELO and FIFA rankings), for many other sides there is a huge difference that becomes accentuated overtime because of the anomalies of being judged once every 4 years from a limited number of games played in a particular venue each time, each time by quite different squads (and entirely different squad overtime) and against different opponents each time as well.

 

Colombia should win with Poland in second.

When I think of Colombia I think of Higueta and the scorpion kick.

 

We had a discussion some time here about the superiority of CONMEBOL sides against AFC sides. I did a little research and compared CONMEBOL with all confederations. My results include all World Cup results since 1998 as that World Cup was the first with 32 participating teams and im my opinion is the best point of time to start comparing as a time frame of 20 years can still be considered "recent". All results refer only to the score of 90 minutes.

CONMEBOL vs AFC 9-1-0
CONMEBOL vs CAF 12-4-0
CONMEBOL vs CONCACAF 8-2-1
CONMEBOL vs OFC 1-1-0

That makes it 30-8-1 in total against these confederations. Just one loss in 39 games is just a phenomenal record. That loss occured in the group stage of 2002. Mexico defeated Ecuador 2-1 back then.

CONMEBOL vs UEFA 23-17-25

Quite even record here.

Second rate CONMEBOL teams vs second rate UEFA teams 6-2-4

I exluded here Brazil and Argentina from CONMEBOL
I exluded here Germany, England, Italy, Spain, France, Netherlands and Portugal from UEFA

I think all these figures show us how strong CONMEBOL actually is. They are fare superior than anybody apart from UEFA. But their depth seems better than UEFA as they are superior if we compare results exluding each continent's powerhouses.

 

Conmebol, without doubt, has the greatest depth of any confederation, but then again they only have 10 teams. Their worst teams would be average by international standards. Their top 2 are, of course, among the perennial favorites. The rest are all pretty strong: at the level of Mexico (slightly better or slightly worse) and the rest wouldn't rate below the likes of Costa Rica.

On the other hand, Brazil and Argentina apart, none of their teams (not even Uruguay) are going to be the kind that will simply outclass their opponents. If they win, as they often have in the past, it will be because they have more football savvy and experience to go with their talent to make a difference. However, I believe Conmebol (other than Brazil and to some extent Argentina) will find their best days were in the past and not ahead of them. Things are changing and none of those changes suggest to me that Conmebol will be able to retain the record it has enjoyed up to now.

 

I will believe it when I see it.

 

Oh I missed that. Thanks for the reminder. That makes it still 8-2-2 for CONMEBOL against CONCACAF. But I can assure you that the other figures are correct.

 

The team that lost 5:0 to Guinea was the CHAN team. Given at best we might see 1-2 goalkeepers from Senegal it's hardly relevant.

Senegal results in qualifying (AFCON 2017, 2019, World Cup 2018):
11 wins, 3 draws (2 x Burkina Faso, 1 x Madagascar)
25 goals scored, 8 conceeded

Senegat AFCON 2017:
Wins vs Tunisia, Zimbabwe
Draw vs Algeria (after having already won the group)
Draw vs Cameroon (loss on penalties after dominating the game).

So no... on an African level Senegal has been very consistent.
The last time Senegal lost a game with a non-CHAN team was in 2015 (actually a host of losses then).

 

Sounds like your own wishful thinking rather than something based on proof.

 

Why "wishful thinking"? I could be wrong, but I doubt I have any particular bias against Conmebol.

 

If it's not just wishful thinking, could you then present the solid evidence you have for this conmebol decline?

 

As a matter of fact, Conmebol teams outside Brazil/Argentina are getting better
For starters
First time in history Chile won two Copa America's and Colombia reach Quarter finals in a World cup

 

I don't have any "solid basis", but my general thinking is that the trends in football do not favor a small confederation like Conmebol continuing to enjoy such disproportionate share of success in the game. These trends would be the following:

1) The continued growth of football in other regions. Conmebol had developed a huge tradition in football and the game had a lot more grass route support there. The same way a small country like Uruguay managed to build on its early success to find itself a disproportionately successful tradition in the game which cannot be explained by any particular factor per se, in a larger sense the same was true of Conmebol. Leaving aside Brazil, and to some extent Argentina, which in the case of Brazil does enjoy comparative advantages beyond just the head start that Conmebol enjoyed compared to many other regions and which in the case of Argentina is a decent sized country, there is just nothing in the rest (other than the tradition I alluded to) to suggest this relative advantage will continue with the same force as the game continues to build its traditions elsewhere too.

2) Decline of "street football". The tradition of "street football", and the improvisational qualities that came from it, is losing its significance in 2 ways: first, street football itself is becoming more rare, with kids now days no longer playing that type of game as often as in the past. Second, the game has evolved to emphasize qualities and tactics which reduce the imprint of improvisational players compared to the past. This offset one of Conmebol's advantages over the more structured football cultures.

3) Internationalization of football, particularly cub football, and the even more significant influence of money on the game. This also adversely affects Conmebol's competitive advantages, but I guess it would take too long for me to expand on it.