World Cup 2022 and the Battle between Confederations

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but I've heard multiple people complain that people say Brazil and Argentina are what makes CONMEBOL. Well, all the stats that the CONMEBOL fans are throwing around are literally supporting that argument.

Personally I see it as CONMEBOL being a 2+1 confederation. Meaning you can count on Brazil and Argentina and usually someone else is really strong, ie Chile some years back, Uruguay or Colombia depending on the cycle. UEFA is kinda like a 6+2 confederation, again the 2 or maybe 3 extra teams being very strong depending on the cycle.

I find this cross confederation stuff very silly. I think it's wise to stick to the teams and not so much the confederation. The confederation means a lot when it comes to fifa rankings and I guess some find it fun, but personally I don't get it.

 

I was literally about to post that it's really Bra/Argentina vs UEFA comparison rather than a conmebol vs Uefa one.

In the past I similarly saw people trying to boost Concacaf by US and Mexicos results as a representation of the entire confederation.

 

Ok, let us look at non-BRA/ARG, second tier Conmebol vs second tier Europe. For these purposes I am defining first tier Eufa as Germany, Spain, Italy, France, and Holland (all recent or multiple WC winners or consistent deep performers), so their games will not be included either. That seems reasonable to me. If we are not counting Brazil over Serbia, we should not be counting Spain over Paraguay either.

For the last 4 WCs (1 in Europe, 1 in SA, 2 neutral territory), So no "home field" advantage:

Here are the Conmebol wins:
Uru 3-0 Russia
Col 3-0 Poland
Uru 2-1 Portugal
Col 3-0 Greece
Uru 2-1 England
Par 2-0 Slovakia
Chi 1-0 Switzerland

Here are the draws:
Col 1-1 England

Here are the Eufa wins:
Portugal 2-0 Uruguay
Denmark 1-0 Peru
Switzerland 1-0 Ecuador

We have 7 wins Conmebol, 3 wins Eufa, and 1 draw.
Goal difference is +10 for Conmebol. It would appear that first tier Europe is carrying Europe much more so that Arg/Bra are carrying Conmebol.

Also, over that some time period 10 Eufa teams out of approximately 52 qualifying teams have finished last in their WC group, zero Conmebol teams have. Some of that is weight of numbers, but not all of it. 10/52 is about 19%. Applying that to Conmebol's 20 total qualifying teams, we would expect 4 last-place in group teams, yet there are none.

 

I completely disagree with this conclusion.

Remember UEFA EURO is a sporting mega-event because of the sheer depth of competition which attracts a global audience.

Just an example from a short video I saw today about depth of quality, 9 of these 10 players are European and only one South American.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kP8IOl0Q2F8

 

Nothing of what you posted contradicts the fact that the second tier Conmebol teams have outperformed the second tier Euro teams head-to-head in the WC. Europe depends more on its top 40% of WC teams (the 5 I mentioned) than Conmebol depends on its top 40% of WC teams. (Arg/Bra). We are discussing WC performance. You did not even address the topic.

 

In order to get a more accurate picture, I would not discount the results of Germany (not past the group stage since 2014), Holland (never winners and not past the quarterfinals since 2014) and Spain (not past the Round of 16 since 2010).

Since the objective at the beginning of the group stage is to qualify for the KO stage, it might be more instructive to compare which teams actually qualified rather than individual results.

 

I don't think you are making the same (good) argument as @Nani_17 . You only read the first half of it. He is also saying the same wrt UEFA (people trying to boost their overall quality by focusing on a few teams that account for just 10 or 15 per cent of its members).

 

You need to include the members that have football impact. Kazakhstan is also part of UEFA with 19 millions of people. We can include Venezuela as someone that has lesser impact in CONMEBOL. Argentina would be 8th or 9th largest country in Europe. The number of people isn't so relevant in terms of football quality. You can have small number of population with 15,16 good players that make solid and compact team. Tradition of football, overall athletic talent, competitive nature are much stronger arguments.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that population is everything. But having a low population does mean you have to be really strong in those areas you just listed to make up for lack of people (i.e. football culture, athletic people, government investment in football, etc.). Yes, a small country can have 15-16 good players to make a solid team, its just a lot more difficult for them. That's why its impressive what some South American countries have achieved (Uruguay in particular).

 

People usually aim on high population and great infrastructure. But, both elements are mostly irrelevant. There are still many old and historically important stadiums in most successful countries. Country needs regional or national talent, the sense for football since childhood. Natural selection usually moves the better ones over the line and they continue. Yes, Uruguay is very impressive in terms of national team, but also their clubs in Copa Libertadores, Copa Sudamericana.
If someone aims on wealth, infrastructure, than we would see Scandinavian countries, Canada, USA, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Japan, Singapore, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE on top.
Players like LB, RB, LM, RM are very hard to find, even in talented soils. It's much more than some relevant talent, desire. Those positions usually demand exceptional players.
Defenders can be average, solid, central players can have flaws (lack of speed, technique...),

In one country, majority of footballers arrive from one region, not country. They are distant maybe 50-150 km from each other in the sense of family background. And they create pretty competitive World Cups, EURO's.

 

Indeed. But I don't think anyone expects Canada to overtake Uruguay even if they manage to quadruple their population. Where population makes a difference is: 5 World Cups for Brazil and 2 for Uruguay. 2 WCs for France and 0 for Holland. Those differences are mainly down to population.

Also, small countries where football is the #1 sport will tend to have golden generations, but then also disappear for a decade or two because they weren't able to generate enough good players (e.g. Chile).

 

Yes, I agree. Smaller countries in terms of population create the golden generations and they sometimes vanish: Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Denmark, Sweden, Uruguay, Netherlands...good example is when such teams don't qualify on every major tournament.
Some continental regions are also interesting in football sense: Western Africa, North Africa, South Europe. Pacific side of South America create players with high running abilities, endurance: Colombia, Chile, Mexico...Atlantic side demonstrates more technical skills. For example, East Africa is very weak in football. You have countries with strong running heritage: Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Tanzania...but they have problems with football. Congo is talented region, just like Angola, Mozambique. But, more developed South Africa has problems to create great footballers. Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria have good players. Impact of Berbers? On the other hand, Egypt is less good. Libya is weaker because of their political situation.
Their president didn't want to have someone greater than him.
Countries with Viking past are good in football. On the other hand, Finland, Estonia are not that good. Without the Viking past.
Japan and Korea are much more talented than China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia...

 

I think this is more down to populations again.
SWE: 10 million
NOR: 5 million
FIN: 5 million
EST: 1.5 million

Finland might be at a further disadvantage by its climate. Helsinki has 5 really cold months per year plus 2 pretty cold months. For Stockholm its more like 3+2.

 

See what you did here was give a h2h record over 4 World cups between CONMEBOL and UEFA. Then came to the conclusion that UEFA relies more on 1st tier teams over CONMEBOL. That statistical manipulation may work on those with a lack of critical thinking skills or people so bias they'd rather not think too much about it. If you want a fair representation then first I'd go back until atleast the turn of the century for a larger sample size, and also include other confederations in the h2h, or more simply put, the second tier overall records.

I don't have much time on my hands lately but I can do the research for you sometime this weekend possibly.

Let's come to a consensus first. Brazil and Argentina representing 1st tier CONMEBOL and France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Netherlands representing 1st tier UEFA? Every team qualified outside those we can count as 2nd tier? Let's exclude inner confederation matches? How about we start in 2002, increasing sample size and making it the turn of the century? Once we agree on the terms I suggest we go with average points earned per match, again excluding inner confederation matches.

For the record I'm not suggesting either or, just what you wrote was very misleading.

Also without yet doing the research, my guess is England, Portugal and Croatia will have outperformed every 2nd tier CONMEBOL team not named Uruguay.

We also need to factor in total wins and points, because If you qualified only once or twice but average a good points per game but also haven't qualified the majority of the times, well you just aren't that good are you? Or we can just lump all teams together just to simplify it? I'll leave it up to you.

Let's first lay the ground work for what we can agree makes the most sense. Because again going with h2h between the 2 confederations over 4 world cups is only answering the question "who did better over the last 4 world cups h2h between UEFA and CONMEBOL" which wasn't the question you attempted to answer, but one you did a good job answering.

 

You make very good points. And I agree that more data is better, and how one does versus the field is better a better indicator that head-to-head. But please understand that this tangent started off with others comparing head-to-head of other confeds specifically within the 2022 WC. So, my posts were a take-off of that idea and the idea floated that comparing South America to Europe is really comparing Arg/Bra vs Europe. I wanted to show the Arg/Bra were not carrying South America any more so that the top teams were carrying Europe, I think I accomplished that within the limited methodology used.

I went back 4WCs for a larger sample size and to avoid giving one confed more "homefield advantage". Going back any further would give Europe more "home" WCs than South America.

If one wanted to dig deeper. Here are some options:
How about average points per 2nd tier team per game in the first round of the WC? (excluding intra-confed games). This would probably do the best to equalize the level of the opponents. Or average points per 2nd tier team per game for entire WC? Or median and average finishing place for 2nd tier teams for each WC? Or do them all to see what shakes out?

 

Yes, just lump all teams together to simply it. Why in the world would you exclude a Turkey 2002 or Chile 2014?

Nor should a team that rarely qualifies and then does poorly in the WC when they do qualify be discounted. Sorry, but the Bosnia's and Slovenia's must be counted too!

 

I agree. I'll break down each team for a more detailed report but the main answer will just be what was the average performance from all teams not part of the 7 first tier teams listed.

 

Yes, probably Sweden is better thanks to population.
On the other hand, Finland is weaker in alpine skiing, compared with Norway who is leading country in all winter sports.
Sweden isn't that good in winter sports, Denmark also very weak.
Finland is much better in basketball. Sweden and Denmark in handball. Norway is also solid in handball. The sense for certain sports also prevails. Finland could also be great in handball. Sweden, Norway, Denmark...why can't they have good basketball team?

Just like in rugby...you have around 10 countries...who are great in that sport. Others struggle or don't even care about this sport.

 

I know it isn't a pressing matter, but just wanted to say I haven't forgotten about doing the average point tally for the 2nd tier CONMEBOL and UEFA teams from 2002 to 2022. I took a month off work during the WC so now I'm having a difficult time finding enough free time to do the research, although it probably won't take that long. I'm catching up on my work so I should be able to during this week.

 

This is how my ranking for the landscape of international football looks like as of right now:

1) UEFA
2) CONMEBOL
3) CAF
4) AFC
5) CONCACAF
6) OFC

I don't think anyone with their right mind would dispute that UEFA is first. Argentina was an unconvincing maybe even undeserved winner while all of Brazil, Uruguay and Ecuador couldn't reach their goals.

CAF, AFC and CONCACAF are interchangeable. But I don't see how you would rank the latter in third given all the facts. CAF's big strength is its depth. That makes me putting them in third.

Opinions?

 

Irrelevant. They earned it.
But since I'm in the mood to be amused, who would you say "deserved" to win it and please do not say Netherlands or Portugal?

 

Undoubtably, CONMEBOL has 2 of the top 3 teams in the world right now. But then there is a pretty huge gap until you get to the third-best team in CONMEBOL. So, yes, UEFA is #1 right now even though many of their top teams are on the decline.

The only debate is CAF or AFC as #3. I think CAF has more depth but difficult to prove when we only see the top 8% of their teams compete in the WC. This hunch might be proven or negated in 2026.

CONCACAF definitely #5, imo. Mexico and Costa Rica are right now both at the lowest level they've been in the past 20 years. Canada's rise makes up for some of the decline of other's but only some. USA has been stuck at roughly the same level for the past 20 years.

 

Sorry but there is no debate.

CAF is easily #3 as an overall confederation.

Best team of both confederations = CAF
More quality sides = CAF

You even had Ghana (who failed to make it out of the last afcon first round) beat Asia's second best team.

You just had Morocco go to a World cup semi final, yet the last time they made the semi final of a biennial Afcon was back in 2002.

There is a reason the same Asian teams keep qualifying. There is no depth.

To suggest we don't know which confederation has more depth is laughable.