Wait, what? The group round didn't count? Sweden played Portugal's game, an anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better, one-man-show-off. Yeah, Zlatan's really good, but if you make it a two man game Ronaldo will beat you. If you make it a team game it's a different game. I think too many people saw that fixture and thought it was representative of them. It isn't. If it were representative of how Portugal usually played, you would have noticed that against Sweden by looking carefully. . . and noticing it was Russia playing against Sweden.
I completely agree with this statement. If Portugal truly played 6 players that will never really have a chance to see the field in Brazil, then they have some serious problems. First, if you want to go with historical numbers, it is proven that European teams have had their worst WCs outside of Europe in warmer weather. (ie. South America, Asia) Also, fitness is the first thing to go in any sport. I obviously know that CR7 and others are still training but it is very hard to simulate game activity when you don't play in the games. Also, some commented earlier on how the weather might not be that big of a factor as some are making it out to be. I would have to disagree with that completely. Having lived in "The South" (USA) all my life and having family in the midwest and traveled to many countries, I can tell you that humidity makes all the difference. Talk to any athlete and they will tell you, they rather have high temps (upper 90s) and no humidity the regular temps (mid 80s) and 100% humidity.
Re: many subs from Portugal won't see field / subs in general in our group Most of our group will play their games in the hot tropics, whereas the R16 opponents will be in the cooler south. That group has a massive advantage over ours, which ****ing sucks balls. Point is that teams are going to want to maximize their bench for survival in the tournament.
Justbecause euro teams have a hard time in siuth america? A . Little foolish to say when Portugal never qualified for a wc in south anerica
Every team has 5/6 players that will most likely never play, or do you intend to rotate your team that much? Strictly speaking, a team needs at most 18 players, where the remaining 5 are used mostly to compensate for any injuries. This includes the third goalkeeper. And Portugal used against Greece those players, to test them and test an alternative strategy. Not much can be said about this game, except Portugal will probably struggle to score goals, but should be solid defensively. Nothing new.
I seriously doubt that. Teams usually only rotate in the third match of the group stage if they can. Half the teams does not survive the groups and barely rotates. Among the ones that advance, the strongest are more likely to rotate more players, but never that many. How many times did Spain rotate their main players on the path to the final, for instance? They probably used some players as subs, but never caused an impact unless you count playing the last 10 minutes once as utilising them. Most subs were the same, and the starting 11 were almost always the same, even in the final match of the group.
Use = use Use does NOT mean "start". So when we say most teams use 18-20 field players, we mean ... most teams use 18-20 field players.
First, you are talking about quality of the subs. If you only field a player once in the last ten minutes just to give him an opportunity, then he is causing no impact in terms of resting other players. Most teams can do well with only 18 players. It's the average number of players used during great part of the season. But I was really talking about using in your sense. If half the teams does not reach the last 16, then there barely any need to rotate. You may be right that the best teams that aspire to go far need more depth, but it's not the rule. It always depends on how much depth your team has compared to your starters. And it also depends on injuries of course.
I've posted before about the USA's use of players in the three-substitutions-per-match era, but I'm not sure that that analysis is appropriate for Portugal. Let's look instead at Portugal's 2010 World Cup team. Starters versus Côte d'Ivoire: Eduardo; Paulo Ferreira, Bruno Alves, Ricardo Carvalho, Fábio Coentrão; Pedro Mendes, Deco, Raul Meireles, Cristiano Ronaldo, Danny; Liédson. Subs: Simão, Tiago, Rúben Amorim. Starters versus North Korea: Eduardo; Miguel, Ricardo Carvalho, Bruno Alves, Fábio Coentrão; Pedro Mendes, Tiago, Raul Meireles, Cristiano Ronaldo, Simão; Hugo Almeida. Subs: Miguel Veloso, Duda, Liédson. Starters versus Brazil: Eduardo; Ricardo Costa, Ricardo Carvalho, Bruno Alves, Duda; Pepe, Tiago, Raul Meireles, Danny, Fábio Coentrão; Cristiano Ronaldo. Subs: Simão, Pedro Mendes, Miguel Veloso. Portugal used 20 players in the group stage of the 2010 World Cup: Bruno Alves, Cristiano Ronaldo, Danny, Deco, Duda, Eduardo, Fábio Coentrão, Hugo Almeida, Liédson, Miguel, Miguel Veloso, Paulo Ferreira, Pedro Mendes, Pepe, Raul Meireles, Ricardo Carvalho, Ricardo Costa, Rúben Amorim, Simão, Tiago. Only one field player was unused: Rolando. (Unused goalkeepers were Beto and Daniel Fernandes.) Rolando also did not play in Portugal's sole knockout match at the 2010 World Cup.
Sure, some teams use more than 18 players, especially when they rotate the starting 11 in the third match. But that's not the point. You are discussing how strong a team is for not using less than 6 players, in terms of how likely it is for it to go far. If you make subs close to the 90th minute, then those subs will barely have any impact in the fitness of your team. It is when you rotate your starting team that those subs have a significant impact, which few teams do. And it depends on how much depth you have. In 2010, Portugal actually had depth in the midfield, which is not the case in this world cup. Players like Ricardo Costa, André Almeida, Éder/Almeida, Rafa, and Eduardo, will most likely never play or play a few minutes just to given them the experience.
Nevertheless, the whole conversation started when referring to the quality of the exhibition of Portugal against Greece. Portugal not only rested Ronaldo, Pepe, Coentrão, Moutinho, and Patrício, but also experimented the 4-4-2, which is strange to many players. It doesn't say that the team will fair much better when these players start, but it also cannot be used as a realistic assessment of what you will face.
Spain used 18 players during the group stages, and another 2 in the knockout rounds. Only 1 field player, Albiol, didn't see any time during the world cup.
I don't think ppl have a problem with this. Most ppl understand the experimental component of pre-WC tune-up scrimmages, which is what these are essentially. I think ppl take exception to you dismissing WC bound players just bc they're not starters b/c we know all too well that the opening round in a tough group is about managing fatigue. In 2006 we had to recover from 2 red cards and extreme exhaustion after the Italy game (several players had to be put on oxygen after the game!), while in RSA we had 1/3 of our legit goals called back for horrible calls and we were chasing the game the last 2 games, which forced our hand on substitutions, So by the time we reached Ghana, we were on empty. And then we had to go into overtime. So we're a bit sensitive to the issue. The point is that in the heat and humidity of the tropics, we firmly believe that even those 80th minute subs (which ends up being almost 15 minutes!) really add up after 3 matches.
Portugal's experience is the opposite. We never had any significant injuries in recent tournaments, and I may have a wrong impression because of that. Still, in terms of managing fatigue, we can do without Rafa, Éder, André Almeida, Beto, and Eduardo. Ricardo Costa may be used to rest some defenders, while Ruben Amorim will be the second substitute for the midfield. If injuries strike, then the situation will change. Ronaldo is still in doubt.
um....1 name carlos queiroz there was a reason that his entire tenure was a disaster. you might want to use much more relevant information: Paulo Bento's squad in Euro 2012 I'll save you the trouble, his starting lineup was exactly the same for all 5 games (except the last one where postiga was injured and almeida replaced him) There will be 4/5 key substitutes used, and that's about it. Either William Carvalho starts as he should, with meireles/veloso coming off the bench, or he subs in. Rafa the young talented playmaker is another sub Eder/Almeida as the alternate forward Vieirinha from Wolfsburg as a winger Neto from Zenit as 3rd CB. That's about it. The others wont see the field at all, maybe varela in place of vieirinha. The only issue is at fullback if one of Joao Periera or Coentrao get suspended, so praying to God that wont happen.
So, predictions on the friendly against Mexico? I know all us US fans will have our eyes glued to that one.
So I projected 18/23 correctly, and included Andre Almeida and Ruben Amorin on my list of other candidates. Portugal's final 23: GOALKEEPERS: Rui Patricio (Sporting), Beto (Sevilla/ESP), Eduardo (Braga) DEFENDERS: Andre Almeida (Benfica), Bruno Alves (Fenerbahce/TUR), Fabio Coentrao (Real Madrid/ESP), Joao Pereira (Valencia/ESP), Neto (Zenit St. Petersburg/RUS), Pepe (Real Madrid/ESP), Ricardo Costa (Valencia/ESP) MIDFIELDERS: Joao Moutinho (Monaco/FRA), Miguel Veloso (Dynamo Kiev/UKR), Raul Meireles (Fenerbahce/TUR), Ruben Amorim (Benfica), William Carvalho (Sporting) FORWARDS: Cristiano Ronaldo (Real Madrid/ESP), Eder (Braga), Helder Postiga (Lazio/ITA), Hugo Almeida (Besiktas/TUR), Nani (Manchester United/ENG), Rafa (Braga), Varela (FC Porto), Vieirinha (Wolfsburg/GER)
Our only unused field player in 2006 was Brian Ching. Our only unused field players in 2010 were Spector and Goodson. It's a long tournament and you have to be able to go 18 deep minimum.
I'll be there. I'll take notes. I think Portugal wins 2-1. I also think they revert back to Bento's preferred 4-3-3, whether or not ronaldo plays.
I will say it differently. The discussion is about managing fatigue, not injuries. What is more important? The number of players you use or the distribution of minutes that each player is used? I am arguing that the latter is much more relevant. I admit that I was wrong in that teams use more than 18 players often, but the main point stands. Unless you can afford to make different subs in every match, you end up using some players (I would say 5 or more) less than 10 minutes each. This is because teams only make the last two subs in the last 10/15 minutes, and it is common to make the same subs, unless you have an extraordinary depth and you can manage to make different subs in every match. Often, some players are only used to waste time. If you drop those players and you have no injuries, then the impact in the overall fatigue is minimal. That's why I first stated that only roughly 18 players are strictly needed, while the remaining 5 are to compensate for injuries. I was never discounting those players, but it is a fact that if you cannot afford to rotate your starting 11 in any match, then some players will never be used for a significant amount of time. Just to give some examples, you never use the third goalkeeper and even the second is hardly necessary, since this position is not critical in terms of fatigue. The same applies to the fourth CB, third striker, fourth SB, fifth midfielder, and fourth winger. At least, that is the case of Portugal. I am not discounting those players, but my experience of the WC and the Euros is that this is the case when you don't have many injuries.