S.Korea's WC02 team played in AC04. S.Korea's AC2000 team was much weaker, even though they beat Iran against the run of play on the golden goal rule after equalizing in regulation a game they should have lost due to a ridiculous 90th blunder. That Korean team (AC2000) made the quarterfinals as a 3rd place finisher that had lost 1:0 to Kuwait and tied China, easily losing to Saudi Arabia in the semifinal.
My view of the overall quality in WC-02 isn't unique to me. It is widely shared and commented by many football pundits and historians.
Would West Germany in 1954 be considered in the 2nd or 5th category? They weren't among the pedigreed football elite at the time, got utterly crushed by Hungary in the group stage, and did little of note in the following decade. Due in large part to the ridiculously early start, with the opener on May 31st. With no break from the club season, most of the Europe-based stars were just gassed... similar to what what we just saw in the UEFA NL this month
1954 is well before I was born I can't really comment on it. But what you mention about WC-02 is indeed often mentioned as one of the reasons why so many average sides did so well.
You misunderstood me. I said the foundation of your argument is not unique. In other words, many World Cups have had lower ranked teams make it to the later knock-out rounds. The 2002 field was not unique or exceptional in that respect. I'm done, you can have the last word, if you want.
1954 is called "the miracle of Bern" in Germany. Germany was not a major player by that time. I'd say it was a huge surprise they won. So fifth category.
WC-02 is unique when it comes to the percentage of such sides being represented at the quarterfinals (4/8 or 50%), with 3 teams from outside of UEFA/CONMEBOL in the last 8. Or maybe you can point to another tournament where fully half the quarter finalists were ranked between 22-50th as I'm not sure how the teams you mentioned ranked at the time?
Yeah, Brazil had a pretty poor qualifying campaign for that WC. They only managed away wins in Venezuela and Peru. Collected only 1 point and 3 goals in their other 7 away matches.
I recall that being the case with Brazil and Germany was also going through or rebuilding from a very rough period where they had done poorly.
The really strong countries (=those regularly popping up in semi finals) go through rebuild stages. That never is the case with countries with fluke appearances, because these only have fluke generations that lead to it, not a habit of strong performances. I wonder what causes this separation between the strong countries and the one day wonders. One can make a list of 10 countries from which three of the last four almost always come from since 1970.
On rebuilding, the general pattern is similar: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but if it is broke or too old, rebuild it. Successful teams don't "rebuild" after the World Cup. In fact, they sometimes cling for longer than they should on the fellows who had made them successful. Teams that have done poorly or failed, however, go through a rebuilding phase after a World Cup/WCQ cycle or after a Euro one. Top footballing countries are distinguishable because they have more to draw on when they do rebuild. That makes them overall more consistent.
So, given the tiny footprint of the Netherlands, on what do we draw on to be a regular semi finalist? There are countries in Europe with far more people to draw from etc. The thing is, and that's the point I'm wondering about, is the fact that a few countries have it in them to rebuild and as such on a regular way appear in semi finals. Spain for instance have a far less impressive semi final stat than the Orange Squad, despite being a country with a 3 time bigger population and a league with far more respected status. Those countries with the best semi final appearances must have something that sets them apart from the others.
Success begets success: it spurns interest, facilities, focus, expectations, traditions, confidence and more. The earlier the success (e.g. Uruguay) the greater the head start to offset population issues. The criteria for "success", however, isn't the artificial ones fans carve out to show off or market their team. Spain and Holland both have enough to draw upon, albeit not exactly in the same things. Holland have a decent league but Spain have a better one overall. Holland have better access to a more "diverse" player pool despite a smaller population. Spain "looks" basically the same as it did in the 1970s but Holland hasn't been the Holland of the Johan Cryuff era for some time now. Besides, the indigenous Spanish player pool isn't exactly of the same physical attributes of Holland's indigenous European/Dutch pool, never mind Suriname and other immigrants and natives...
Since Argentina dismantled Italy in the Finalissima pretty much everyone seems to be very high on Argentina. I get even the sensation some rate them first favourites to lift the trophy. I know that they are a very gritty outfit. But I still think that they are lacking truly world class quality in some positions. They have also less depth than most other favourites I'd say. I can see why people put them top three top four favourites but I don't agree with putting them on the very top.
I like to see Argentina against the kind of sides that typically trouble them the most: the likes of Denmark, Sweden, Croatia even say Norway. But since the Italian team Argentina thrashed was itself not without some of the same aerial and physical attributes (and limitations), my general sense is that this Argentina may win more aerial and physical duels than some recent ones.
Huge doubt about their midfield, backline and GK. I don't see Argentina winning a World cup with this team. I see them in 1/4 finals.
I see them getting eliminated in the semi-finals. Have been feeling that since the draw came out. They will just miss out on the final.
Emiliano Martinez is one of the best goalkeepers in the EPL and in the world rn. I agree that Argentina lacks depth in the midfield and backline, but they have a great GK.
Martinez seemed a bit off his game this year though. Quite a few mistakes compared to earlier years. I don't think he's in EPL's top 10.
Spain has several good EPL keepers. De Gea, Sanchez, Raya. I don't understand why Luis Enrique prefers Simon, particularly instead of De Gea.
He was bad at the beginning when they were losing all games, got better this year, just like the rest of the team.
As someone who follows Spain regularly, I don't want De Gea anywhere near the team. I don't know how he performs in the Premier League but he's made too many mistakes and is simply unreliable when representing his country. Anyone but De Gea.
Depth lacking at LB. RB has 3 solid players. CBs plenty good options in bench (Martinez, Senesi, Medina) even if Scaloni also calls trash like Pezzella. Midfield yeah not looking great if Paredes and De Paul catch even a cold but not like the guys behind are unplayable either. Everyone is at least a decent 6/10 for elite football standards.
I don't know much about emiliano Martinez but alright. When it Comes to backline and midfield it's not just a problem of depth though. I just find them very average even the starters. I Can see them having a fair run but i don't see them playing 7 games without having their weaknesses exposed.