If anyone of you guys believe in the chances of another particular team present your arguments. There is certainly a case to make for almost ten nations if you're less strict than me.
Wait, are you also one of those here who believe that Asian World Cups produce by defaut some magic? Everyone is entitled to his opinion but what team that have never won have as of now the look of a team that has what it takes to win it all? Just asking. I'm curious. I have nothing against surprises and shocks. In fact I'd love to see some of them happening in Qatar. But I will limit my surprises to the group stage and to a lesser extent to some part of the knockout stage. Winning it outright is imo is for a team who have done it before.
It is a feeling I have, one that I'm sure is implicitly affected by a stream of thoughts and impressions but not one derived from any conscious analytical reasoning to project things which we can at best guess at but never quite know for sure. Not even when we might pretend otherwise. In the meantime, though, I see no real magic in the idea of the World Cup in Qatar, even if under slightly different circumstances a World Cup in Iran instead would have certainly sounded magical to me. But with the World Cup hosted in a venue that must have sounded preposterously silly and fanciful when first proposed, the idea of a team other than the usual suspects winning it by comparison doesn't sound remotely as preposterous and fanciful. Indeed, it is not so much the age of the English team you have chosen as a favorite, but this factor (the counter-intuitiveness of England winning the title after so long), that makes me give your pick some credence.
If England were all that they would have won the Euros at home. But it took a phantom penalty for them to prevail in the semis, and they were outplayed in the Final, losing the shootout. I think that right now, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Germany, and France are all more or less equally capable of winning the Cup in 2022. Belgium also remains a strong contender. I think they were unlucky with KDB's injury at the Euros. Even Denmark is still worth watching. The match in Scotland shouldn't be treated with much significance. Most Danish starters weren't on the pitch, and the ones who did play seemed to be primarily concerned with avoiding injury.
England did well at EURO 2020. Coming only two penalties away from winning it. Their team is getting better and better. Spain and Italy have goalscoring issues. Both didn't score more than a single goal in four of their eight qualifiers. Germany looks good but we haven't seen them playing serious opposition under Flick. For France to defend their title will demand a lot. In modern times it's very very hard to do that. Belgium are basically done. They will enter Qatar as one of the oldest teams. They are in for an early exit as far as I'm concerned. I believed in their team at the EUROs and in the Nations League Finals yet they failed to do anything of note at both occasions. Belgium will soon revert back to the 2nd tier European nation they always were. Denmark is a dark horse and could do very well.
I agree about Brazil, but England remains technically very poor in the passing game. If they play as they did at the euro, they will struggle against a more technically talented and well-organized team. Yes, obviously England only lost the final on penalty shootouts, but if you look at the game in detail, you would realize that Italy completely dominated the game past the 15th minute, and England only resisted in full defence mode. Stats are rather clear: Italy had 19 shots, England only 6. Let's not forget also that the euro was all played at Wembley. And playing home is a huge advantage for England. As a matter of fact, England has never been able in all its History to eliminate a powerhouse in a knockout game outside Wembley, not a single time. They had an easy draw being in the good side of the bracket with all other big teams killing each other for the other spot to the final, and even there they've got lucky against Denmark with that soft penalty call. Yes, they've eliminated Germany at Wembley, but the team was at the end of an era. That was nothing like Euro 2016 semifinal with France defeating Germany as current world champions. I'm not saying that England isn't a top contender, but considering it the only contender with Brazil seems very exaggerated. They certainly don't stand out that much. Teams like Belgium and Spain can beat England, maybe even easily, and we never talk about them.
There's another team we rarely talk about yet had very impressive results recently, and it is Switzerland. They are obviously not favourites, but they've proven they can do damages against strong teams. Not only they've eliminated France at last euro, which had big defensive weaknesses I agree, but they resisted against Spain, only losing at shootouts. And in world cup qualifiers, they've won their group forcing current European champions Italy to the playoffs (and having not lost against them). Switzerland has tons of young talents with a lot of potential. People mentionned Denmark here but I would put Switzerland in the same category, maybe even potentially above, it all depends how it will evolve untill next year.
Brazil(or VARsil as they’re known in the Southern Hemisphere) and Argentina have faced the crappiest crop of teams seen in any Conmebol qualifiers in decades. They have seen no competition at all and they haven’t looked that impressive doing it. So they’d be smart to schedule some games with European “royalty” before Qatar to see where they really are. As to England… can anyone name the superstar or superstars that are going to catapult them into WC contention?
I agree we severely lack of points of reference against European teams to really evaluate where Argentina and Brazil stand today. Yet, we only need to get a look at current Brazilian players to have no doubt it's a very serious team.
I absolutely agree that the overrall level in CONMEBOL dipped quite a lot. The current standings are indicative of a huge gap in quality between Brazil and Argentina and the rest. Unfortunately for both they'll be barely any window this time to play European top nations as UEFA will run the third edition of the Nations League. At the EUROs England was overrall a very solid unit. Not many standout performs but the team did the baiscs very well. Sterling and Kane were decisive, Phillips and Rice did the job in midfield, center back partnership with Maguire and Stones was rock-solid.
Sure, Italy was the commanding side from the 30th minute onwards. There's no doubt on that. England could have done better in the final. They were clearly too negative. I will not consider the historical facts too much in England's case. This generation of players and their mentality are different than previous generations. England achieved a milestone by winning their first ever penalty shoot-out against Colombia at the last World Cup. England eliminated Germany from the EUROs granted at home. It was nevertheless psycholigically a very important victory. It will give them confidence for the next time they meet a powerhouse. England had the 2nd youngest squad at the EUROs. The players will grow and mature. By that valuable experience at the EUROs, by the important games they regularly play for their clubs. It's reasonable to think that this team can raise the bar in Qatar and set new benchmarks. Every team have their issues and flaws after all. You mention Spain or Belgium. Personally I'd much rather bank on England as favourites than on these two. Spain can't score goals even if their lives depend on it. I watched their games against Greece and Sweden and I couldn't see a significant change to their struggles they had at the EUROs. They lack effectivity in the final third. Spain struggle to dispatch teams they should beat. Contrary to England who usually don't have any issues with that. Belgium peaked in 2018. A decline was noticeable at the EUROs. Another noticeable decline in Qatar is predictable. You just need to look up the age of their key players. Very old teams such as Belgium won't stand much of a chance in Qatar.
I think it was the coach'es tactical error to go into defense after the lead that costed the English the title. The Italians dominated because the English gave them the domination. I dunno which Italian team is the real one, that of the EURO or of the qualification. The same goes for the English team.
Are you really sure that was a matter of choice rather than a matter of ability? From what I've seen, England wanted from start to create a physical challenge against Italy, trying somehow to walk over them out of pure physical strength. Their plan was to compensate their lower technical skills in constantly chasing the ball, but after 20 minutes, they got exhausted and could no longer follow the more skilled Italian passing game. That's how Italy took control of the midfield, keeping it untill the end of the game. From then, Italy constantly assaulted the English defence and England was unable to counter-attack efficiently, only throwing some long balls from behind directly to their forwards from time to time that could get easily neutralized by Italian backwards. Italy was a lot closer to win the game in regular time than was England, the team was somehow lucky to reach shootouts. We will see what will happen next year, but I believe the poor technical abilities from England is a major weakness which will remain difficult to compensate.
It's a different thing to lack of stamina and to be pressing with high intensity to catch the ball during 120 minutes. It can last for a while, but after a certain point the team is constrained to back down. Italy took control of the midfield thanks to a superior passing game, not because England left it to them. Now, frankly, it's way too early to know in which shape will be the different national teams in November 2022. Maybe England will reveal great young talents winning it all, maybe not. However, I can't find any convincing argument to consider that England is the only European top contender at this stage.
Your reasoning doesnot make sense, as the English after 20 minutes and the lead goal started to play defensive. No English team/player is gasped after 20 minutes.
Backing down due to a more collectively skilled team progressively winning the midfield doesn't equal to being gasped. Sorry but you answer beside the point. Do you deny or not that Italy had a better technical passing play? That's the only question which matters.
That was due to the choice made by the English to sit back. That backfired. There was no such thing when the English were proactive playing. In the Euro the Italians struggled against the teams that didnot sit back, but from the start till the end kept their forwards momentum alive.
Well then that's where we disagree. I don't believe that was only a matter of choice as if England could have kept the control of the midfield, it would have done so. When England plays against Albania, Hungary or Poland, it doesn't let them the ball as far as I know. England dropped it to Italy because it couldn't beat them in the passing game. They first tried compensating with a high pressing, but it couldn't last beyond the first 20 minutes.
My argument is simple: 1) The draw can create a group of death 2) Injuries are going to be a huge factor 3) PK shootouts in the knockout rounds can eliminate anybody 4) Even with VAR, refs can still make bad calls/decisions I would put the chances of the most talented team on paper actually winning the World Cup (or any knockout tournament) at only about 20-30%.....