I agree the 2014 team had much more individual quality and there was much more flair to them. While I rate Colombia's teamwork highly it feels to me like Luis Diaz is the main man and needs to carry the attack. They need a little bit more creativity in the center of the park and preferably a reliable striker in order to become a world class team. For now I have Colombia down as a top 15 national team.
That 2014 team was very good obviously. Great offensive talent as you mention and Yepes was a real leader in the back. That team could have even been better if Falcao was healthy. However, this team is on a better run than that cycle with the current unbeaten streak and has the potential to play better. This team has an aging James (and other veterans) who knows that this may be the last opportunity to make a run at a trophy. That sense of urgency can help them reach a new level. Just because you list better individuals does not mean that the team dynamic and strategies to win are better. Pekerman was fantastic but made some mistakes tactically that may have tampered with that team's potential. I think Lorenzo may have a better system to make it so that the individuals may not be as important as the sum of the parts, and the results can be better.
The thing is though we have played well without Diaz. In some ways better because we are not waiting around for him to do some magical out of this world play. We are distributing the ball around to other players. Case- and -point the friendly win in Osaka against a very good Japan team. A guy like Jhon Arias who is one of the best if not the best player in South America stepped up and was great. Jhon Duran who is only 19 years old (yet has earned the trust of the manager) scored a goal. Carrascal who is playing in Russia played the Diaz role and was okay out left and provided a different style with crosses and shots from outside the box being more of the focus rather than the fancy dribbling moves and speed that Diaz has to offer. Adjustments can be made and players can be plugged in. That is part of the reason I am very excited.
True. The game against Japan made me believe in Colombia again. I discovered players like Arias, Carrascal, Munoz and Lucumi. Players I didn't knew previously. They played very well as a unit against a top 10 national team. I'm interested to see where this Colombia can go.
Hate to flog a dead horse @Kamtedrejt Indonesia played 2 friendlies against Libya and the ended as follows. Libya 4 Indonesia 0 Libya 2 Indonesia 1 I guess you could say at least their 2nd match was much better. That's literally the best result I can recall Indonesia getting. Maybe the 2-0 loss to Argentina, which I don't know how seriously Argentina took it. I can't imagine all that much. The southern and east Asian teams (not named Japan or Korea) are very very poor IMO
My ratings will be reivised and published on 11 January. I massively overestimated Indonesia. They're quite poor.
Iran's last game before the Asian Cup is against Indonesia although it will be a closed door match so I won't be able to comment about it. But IMO you do have a tendency to sometimes vacillate too wildly regarding some teams. Overall, I see Indonesia at the level they are officially ranked in the AFC. Not much better not much worse. I think CAF and the AFC are comparable when it comes to their top 5 but as you go further down the list, and especially when you get to the 3rd tier in each confederation, the differences become stark. The main reason: most CAF teams are very strong physically. The same often is the opposite from with Asian teams, especially those who lack international experience.
It was a complete joke. ARG players jogged around for 90 minutes and like 20 minutes of play were lost because some indonesian player liked to make long throw ins as if they were corners and he took a full minute (to wipe hands with a towel, etc) every time Indonesia had one in their attacking half.
@Kamtedrejt You said that Namibia was the most overrated team in my rankings. You initially said I overrated them by 50 places. You then downplayed that they beat Cameroon. Well they now beat Tunisia very convincingly. A team you predicted would win bronze at afcon. Time and time again my rankings prove correct.
Except for CAF sides that have the basic infrastructure and decent domestic leagues, the success of the rest is almost totally random and haphazard. They can't be properly rated because they rise and fall constantly based on things that no one can really judge from the outside looking at their past results or roster.
That's what I've been thinking for a while now. To improve the quality and consistency of its NTs, CAF needs to improve the quality of club football on the continent both domestically and in its continental club competitions. A good start would be to scrap the AFL and expand its two club competitions from 16 to 32 clubs each; instead they are discussing scrapping their junior club competition.
Did you see the Tunisia vs Namibia match ? There was nothing "random" about it. There is nothing "random" about any of these teams. They play good football.
By random, I'm referring to the lower ranked CAF teams that suddenly emerge out of the blue to quickly fade away. Namibia is the latest example. Some like "Zambia" even manage to win an AFCON title to then quickly fade.
Not the same. Iraq and Qatar both were well known sides in the AFC who would have rated among the top 10 in the AFC before and after their titles. And my main point isn't about who wins titles in AFCON either, but the almost total randomness when it comes to lower ranked teams that shine in various AFCONS only to quickly fade.
Zambia was well known as well, so yeah their winning afcon is no different than Iraq or Qatar. Neither Zambia, Iraq, or Qatar has been able to maintain such a standard. Also I don't agree with how you frame teams as "random shining and fading" It may seem that way to you, but it's just natural when you have a highly competitive set of teams. For instance teams in Asia just appear more consistent, because much of the opposition is really poor. CAF has about 10 2nd tier teams to AFCs 5 Then CAF would have around 30 3rd tier teams whereas Asia has about 10, the rest of Asia would be 4th tier. Teams like India, Palestine, Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Kyrgyzstan. These teams are not really a threat to Asia's third tier. So Asia's third tier remains relatively "consistent" So it's much easier for teams to "shine and fade" as you put it, when there are many teams just as good as them. It then becomes a matter of form.
Homeboy is right, makes little sense to judge an African continental tournament using Asian standards. Randomness of success is a nightmare for sport fans who like to bring pedigree+tradition into analysis of continental tournament results.
Idk, I'm seeing the parallel @vancity eagle is getting at: they're well-known, but good luck guessing if they'll show up on the day. See: Iraq not even making a WC intercontinental playoff since '86, and Qatar winning the Asian Cup to then promptly fall off a cliff.
I'm no expert on CAF, but I had probably never heard of Zambia before the AFCON they won. To me, their place in the overall pecking order in CAF would make their AFCON championship more akin to if say Vietnam or Lebanon had won the Asian Cup.
You are looking at it from a numerical ranking of either side within their confederation, when you should actually be looking at it more from a tier level. Numerically Iraq and Qatar would rank higher in Asia than Zambia would in Africa. But tier wise those nations are equal. Those are all 3rd tier sides. Stronger 3rd tier sides, while I would consider Vietnam and Lebanon very weak 3rd tier sides.
Fine but my real point isn't about the comparison to Zambia in the AFC. My impression and observation is that there are plenty of CAF teams that can, from time to time, find 11 dudes who can play football well enough, and who have the requisite physique, to frustrate and upset more established sides. But their rise and fall is a lot more "random" since those players aren't discovered and nurtured within a really organized system.
In the case of Namibia they have a large number of their squad playing in the South African league, which is probably one of the top 3 leagues in Africa. Also as they play club football in Africa, they would be more accustomed to the African conditions than teams whose players are based in Europe. There are many factors.
The ELO rankings for the AFC right now see 2 AFC teams (Japan and Iran) in the top 20: Japan (15th) Iran (17th) Australia (26th) S. Korea (28th) Iraq (47th) Uzbekistan (50th) Saudi Arabia (56th) Qatar (66th) Oman (71st) Jordan (74th) For CAF, only Morocco among top 20, and only 2 teams among top 30: Morocco (18th) Senegal (27th) Tunisia (45th) Algeria (48th) Egypt (50th) Mali (54th) Nigeria (58th) Eq. Guinea (61st) Cameroon (63rd) Ivory Coast (68th) However, even under ELO, CAF's better 3rd tier is reflected in the fact that only 13 AFC teams are ranked among the top 100 while 19 CAF teams are ranked in the top 100.