In terms of ranking points it's a draw. In every other respect it's a win. After all, Italy in 2006 and Brazil in 1994 didn't draw the world cup, they won it.
The AFC at the Group Stage of the 2022 World Cup Games Played (GP):18. Wins: 8 Draws: 1 Losses: 9 GF: 19 GA: 30 GD: -11 Average Points per Match (APM): 25/18= 1.39 Teams advancing from group stage: 3 (Japan 6p GD +1 1st, Australia 6p GD -1 2nd, Korea Rep 4p GD 0 2nd) Teams failing to advance from group stage: 3 (Iran 3p GD -3 3rd, Saudi Arabia 3p GD -2 4th, Qatar 0p GD -6 4th) AFC v UEFA: GP: 9 Wins: 5; Draws 0; Losses: 4; GF: 12 GA: 15 GD:-3 AFC v CONMEBOL: GP: 3 Wins: 1; Draws: 1; Losses: 1; GF: 2 GA: 3 GD: -1 AFC v CAF: GP: 3 Wins: 1; Draws: 0; Losses: 2; GF: 2 GA: 6 GD: -4 AFC v CONCACAF: GP: 3; Wins: 0; Draws: 0; Losses: 3; GF: 1 GA: 4 GD: -3 MD1 Ecuador 2 Qatar 0 England 6 Iran 2 Saudi Arabia 2 Argentina 1 France 4 Australia 1 Japan 2 Germany 1 S. Korea 0 Uruguay 0 MD2 Iran 2 Wales 0 Senegal 3 Qatar 1 Poland 2 Saudi Arabia 0 Australia 1 Tunisia 0 Costa Rica 1 Japan 0 Ghana 3 S. Korea 2 MD3 Holland 2 Qatar 0 USA 1 Iran 0 Mexico 2 Saudi Arabia 1 Australia 1 Denmark 0 Japan 2 Spain 1 S. Korea 2 Portugal 1
It literally says nothing 8 years ago other people were claiming CONCACAF was better than CAF and AFC. Japan and S Korea runs in 2002 again proved to be nothing in the grand scheme of things The traditional big teams will still continue to be the favourite and UEFA is still be continent with the biggest chances of having a new winner. CONCACAF CAF and AFC taking turns of who is the best by having one 1QF between them every few years means nada. Also saying x was close to the semi is true for many countries so I don't want to hear about Ghana now 2002 is the best ever year for non UEFA CONMEBOL countries with CONCACAF CAF and AFC having 1 representative and yet since then 1QF at best from the 3
I'm wondering if this is a one off or a sign of things to come. To be fair UEFA is doing alright, but CONMEBOL has been underwhelming relative to their usual standards.
Decline of CONMEBOL (minus Brazil/Argentina) and rise of AFC/CAF. Anyway, it's a question mark, not a period in that initial post. I am asking a question. You can answer the question if you want. Don't see what there is to be confused about here.
East Asian teams (Japan/Skorea/Australia) got luckier than Iran and Saudi (though Saudi was lucky against Argentina, but they still played decent against Poland and Mexico). Saudi vs Argentina was 1 in 20 game fluke, same with Japan against Germany/Spain (though to be fair Japan then lost due to a fluke against Costa Rica, but still they didn't impress against Costa Rica regardless). Australia and Skorea played a France and Portugal who had nothing to play for, and I don't know much about the Australia vs France game but the Skorea vs Portugal victory was a fluke, though SHM's individual flash of brilliance did play a part in that goal. Japan or South Korea didn't do anything different from Iran and Saudi, but the ball is round and sometimes it goes in sometimes not, and it worked in their favour this world cup. As for Qatar, they were worse than I thought, and a cut below any other AFC team. After how they played in Asian cup I thought they would at least put in a respectable performance and get 1-2 points, but they lost all 3 games with a high negative GD. It is amazing how much difference it makes whether your opponent has something to play for in the last game or not. For example Iran went up against a US that had a do or die game and they played the games of their lives, meanwhile South Korea went up against a Portugal with nothing to play for, and Australia went up against a France with nothing to play for, and despite being a big team name on paper on the pitch this pales in comparison with how important the match is for the opponent. This is truer than ever this world cup: not a single big team got 9 points, even Brazil lost to Cameroon (despite dominating, but they seemed to be playing for fun with subs? with no urgency). I don't see Japan/Skorea/Australia doing anything in the round of 16. Overall, I think South Korea has been the best asian team so far by a thread. Though they got Uruguay and tied them, Iran beat Uruguay a few weeks before the WC, it was a friendly but we could have easily tied Uruguay in the WC as well, their style is not a threat to us, but instead we got the worst possible match up for us, which is physical and speedy teams, all 3 opponents were like that, though we were fortunate Wales was weak overall and we capitalized on that. On a sidenote, the worst teams of this World cup: Qatar and Costa Rica. They were the whipping boys of this world cup. The only 2 teams who didn't belong and were clearly a cut below the rest.
"Iran was unlucky. We deserved more". I always hear this when Iran gets eliminated early at the WC and Asian Cup. Iranian football will continue to struggle if you can't get over the victim mentality. Btw, luck was on Iran's side this time. Iran got the easiest group among the AFC teams yet you failed.
I agree. Iran was not unlucky. Iran was just not good enough. They were as a squad already passed their prime. If failures pile up it can't be bad luck, right? All Asian powerhouses advanced at least once in their history. Only Iran didn't. That speaks volume.
Uh I can smell some level of bitterness around between some Iranian fans and their local Asian Rivals. I like it.
I don't think Iran was unlucky on the pitch. And we did have a manageable group and yet we failed again to advance. Even when a draw in our last game would have been good enough.
No doubt that on the American Continent South American teams are a terrible matchup for European teams, that's for sure. USA 94 actually European teams performed very well, but they do struggle playing with so high temperatures like in Mexico, Texas or Los Angeles.
As an Asian team, Iran will always need to overcome the odds to advance. Even this time when, purely objectively, the odds were not that much against us. I think there are reasons why Iran has never overcome the odds but I don't think the reason is what you mention. Individually, in times when you can find meticulous stats about every move a player makes, our players rate well. But success in football requires, among other things, a personality that this team under Iran's current conditions off the field could not muster. In fact, I give Queiroz a passing grade because of how well he managed the off-the-field issues. Tactically, however, he made some curious mistakes.
If there was a team whose weaknesses are best exposed using a low block which Queiroz is famous for, it was the current US team. If there was a match were a low block is justified, it is one where you just need a draw to advance. If there are sides that have even better tools than Holland to do great damage to the US on the counter and playing directly, on paper one of them would be Iran. Yet, as a matter of fact, Iran employed a medium block against the US -- and fielded players who were exhausted and not totally fit, when it had a bench of regular starters it could have gone to instead.
You realise Australia played France in the 1st game right? They played and beat Denmark in the 3rd game.
Australia is a great example of what a side that believes in itself, even when no one else does (not even its fans), can accomplish if it has the right attitude, some basic tools, and the right guidance. The success of some of the other teams in Asia can actually help the very voices responsible for placing ceilings on what Iran can achieve find greater resonance. People who mix in quite a bit of their politics with their sports. But Australia achieved its success without any real friendlies, with a domestic coach no one would confuse with Guardiola, and a squad rated below even sanctioned Iran on the transfer market. And did it without help from the schedule and in a tougher group. Great job.
For those who wish to blame our failure on the individual technical ability of Iran's players, I can give a detailed break down of all their individual stats. None were below average individually (as opposed to collectively). 2 of them even made the XI among eliminated teams which included the likes of Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Uruguay, not to mention some others.
I wonder whether all of the games in 2026 will be played during the daytime like was the case in 1994.
Not all matches in '94 were played in daylight. Four were played at dusk in the Eastern time zone with 7:30pm kickoffs Netherlands v Saudi Arabia (Washington DC) Bolivia v South Korea (Foxborough) Sweden v Russia (Pontiac) - DOMED VENUE Greece v Nigeria (Foxborough) Others kicked off at the same time but were in different time zones. So daylight was a factor although the stadium lights were on. 6:30pm kickoffs in the Central time zone. Spain v South Korea (Dallas) Nigeria v Bulgaria (Dallas)' Argentina v Bulgaria (Dallas) 4:30pm kickoffs in the Pacific time zone. Colombia v Romania (Pasadena) Cameroon v Sweden (Pasadena) United States v Colombia (Pasadena)
Not sure why the reading comprehension issues, my guess is that you got personally triggered because I did not say South Korea is amazing for beating a Portugal with nothing to play for. Not sure why you cherry picked my entire post and related this solely to South Korea en route to a straw man argument erroneously implying that I was somehow making excuses for Iran, I was not talking just about South Korea in particular, I was talking about something broader. I am fully aware of Iran's deficiencies this world cup and have mentioned them: they are ubiquitous in my recent posting history, if you put your bias aside you might even start to comprehend them. Your strange trollish selection bias and straw man doesn't change that fact. I was not talking about Iran, I was not even talking about AFC teams in particular, if you go back and reread instead of waiting to use selection bias to troll, you will see that I was comparing Iran/Saudi to Japan/Skorea/Australia, and my central argument was not even about Iran, and not even about AFC teams, it was the importance of which team you play at which point/which game.
you are erroneously conflating 2 different concepts: A) Iran not advancing due to luck vs it being deserved B) how lucky Iran was in relation to teams like Skorea/Japan These are not mutually exclusive. It is logically valid for Iran to have deserved to not advance + still have been unluckier than Skorea/Japan. That is my stance. Yes, Iran made many mistakes this WC (most of it due to CQs horrible coaching), and I have stated these in detail in my recent posting history, nobody has highlighted these as much as me. However, this does not necessarily mean that because Iran wasn't good, South Korea or Japan did not get lucky. Again, I have wrote more than you about Iran's flaws this world cup, however, when I see Japan with 17% possession and a random out of nowhere goal against Spain, or Skorea being dominated even by a Portugal who had nothing to play for and somehow win 2-1 out of thin air, while we had more dangerous chances than US that too a USA who was much better than Portugal as USA team was playing the most important game of their lives, I don't think unreasonable to say with the same luck we could have easily at least drew USA. Also we played bad against England overall but the 6-2 was simply inflated, it was one of those days when literally every single shot England took went in despite how many defenders were around the strikers and how little space and time they had, they created chances against USA and Wales too but not with the 100% clinical finishing. Argentina scored like 3 milimetre offside goals against Saudi and dominated Saudi as much as England dominated us, but somehow Saudi won 2-1, or Skorea played a Portugal that was only Portugal in name, they literally had nothing to play for and still dominated yet somehow lost. This is football, Saudi played much better against Russia in 2018 compared to against Argentina in 2022 yet lost 5-0, then they get dominated by Argentina and win 2-1. This can happen with small sample sizes. I don't see how it is unreasonable to say overall, despite not playing good and making mistakes (largely due to CQ's horrible coaching), we did not have the luck that teams like Skorea and Japan had. Japan beat Germany and Spain, you simply need some luck to do that, nobody can claim otherwise. Yet Iran missed out on group stages in 2018 and 2022 by a thread, that Taremi chance against Portugal in 2018, and all out chances in 2nd half against USA, nobody can say with some luck we may have advanced. In 2018 we had the toughest group and barely missed out, yet Skorea and Japan played not as good as we did in 2018 yet they ended up advancing this time. Yet some teams simply don't have the luck, not just Iran, also Tunisia, it happens. Eventually it will even out. Against USA we lost due to CQs horrible decision to make us play the first half with 10 men for the entire first half, and I was the first to say this. We did deserve to lose that game overall but a draw would ALSO have been fair, considering how we played the 2nd half. So there is a reason other than luck that we lost, we cannot say we got "unlucky" against the USA, but AT THE SAME TIME we certainly didn't have any luck in that game either: if we had same luck as Skorea/Japan did we could have easily drew USA. Our Wales win was all us, we had no luck, we created many chances, Wales showed absolutely nothing offensively, though I guess technically we could say we got lucky to have Wales in our group as they were so poor overall in the first place. So overall we had 0 luck this WC, against England and US RELATIVE to Skorea/Japan we got unlucky (again, this does not mean we didn't deserve to lose for other reasons, but RELATIVE to Skorea/Japan we got unlucky this WC). Then against Wales we got no luck either, we completely deserved what we got in that match, it was all our own doing, there was no luck that guided us.Could the same thing be said for Skorea vs Portugal, or Japan vs Spain + Germany? WC is only 3 games, very small number. 1 lucky/unlucky game is sufficient to make all the difference, especially for relatively weaker teams such as AFC teams. So nobody can say luck did not play any part in terms of these teams' outcomes, that would be irrational. 3 is a very small number, like a coin toss, you can easily get 3 heads in a row and someone else can get 3 tails. The sample size is still too small, when each team has been at the world cup only around 5-7ish times, but once we hit 10 the luck will even out. Tunisia is same as us, for some strange reason they never made it out of the group despite going to WC multiple times, but again, small sample size.
This World Cup will be wildly different in terms of temps because they can avoid the temps by playing mid day games in the stadiums with roofs. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, LA can all close their roofs to keep temps normal. San Francisco is never warm and Toronto, Vancouver, Seattle shouldn't be too bad.
In 94 I remember Germany playing against South Korea in Dallas with high temperatures during the day and it was clear on the second half they barelly could move, let alone play.