Group C Predictions

Ok my prediction time. Friendlies only made the group appear tighter.
Head says:
1. France 5
2. Denmark 5
3. Peru 5
4. Australia 0

Heart says:
1. France 9
2. Australia 4
3. Denmark 4
4. Peru 0

So I will go somewhere in between for my final prediction
1. France 7
2. Denmark 5
3. Peru 2
4. Australia 1

 

First of all, Rossi was on fire that day, the same as for the days that came after, as in those 3 last matches, scored in all of them to achieve being the leading goalscorer for that WC.

Besides, you seem to forget easily that the italian Enzo Bearzot's team of the 1975-1986 era (yes, longest time ever for a coach on charge of the italian team, together with the 1982 WC championship, also were 4th in 1978), was also full of talent, not only Rossi, but also lots of other players, which all together made them be an even more complete team than whatever Brazil could have been at the time. In their favour is that they had the key elements at almost all positions of the pitch, and lots of time working together, while Brazil, those days had very big problems at the back (such as goal keeping), and diferent coaches whom came and go from the NT, as "moths during the night", never having much time to work with the same players for a longer time.

Tele Santana's Brazil, was full of some of the most talented and brilliant players their team has ever had, but despite all the shining they could show at some times, were highly inconsistent and during their time never won anything of importance, except a few matches here or there, scoring lots of goals, but also heavily being scored on. They played beautiful, with all the talent his players had, which together with Santana's mentality (he loved attacking football) allowed them to regain the famously known "jogo bonito" they once were known for. That inconsistency meant Santana at the end his job, as at Brazil he was widely criticised, for not taking a more conservative position (given the quality of the opponent they faced, and specially against Italy, for that WC ).
4 more years (1986), when he asumed again the job as coach of the Brazil NT, for the WC that year, crushed the same way as before, and never again took charge of that coaching job at NT, till he died.

At the end, you can have your opinion on the issue, which is valid, and yours.

But, I also have mine, and you can't do or say much about it.

 

With Mbappé, Dembélé and Griezmann I think France is a big contenders for the trophy

 

Aye, an opinion on a team you didn't see playing.

 

I believe @Rickdog is old enough to have watched that tournament. One thing about the World Cup, is that besides talent, the "choking factor" also plays a big part on it. A team may be better, not just on paper but play better football on the match, but if it cannot overcome the pressure and the variables within a match, it may just end up going home. For that particular match, Brazil never thought Italy would be able to score three goals in one game, since they had scored four goals all tournament up to that point. That quick first goal rattled them and they never fully recovered, even as they tied the match twice.

 

Not as if I'm some sort of dinosaur, but I remember watching Garrincha and Pelé (not playing together though), and many other brazilian legends many times during the late 60's, in Chile (as a matter of fact, they are the ones to guilt why I love so much this game), as in those days, we had lots of summer international tournaments, with invited teams (mostly clubs, but also a few NT's as well) from other countries, where Santos and Corinthians from Brazil were among the teams we invited the most, to take part in them.

 

You also believe that the nerves were responsible of those defensive mistakes. Only that there were no others. That's why I doubt it had to do with nerves.

In 1990, I saw a Brazil dominating Argentina. Brazil could have won 3–0, but instead lost by 1–0. Football is similar to boxing up to one point: There are no wins by points, but by knock–downs.

Most predictions in football tend to consider "how many hits will a team land on the rival's body or face", when what matters is how many times will the rival go down... if ever. That's why we have Sweden in WC instead of Netherlands or Italy. And that's why I find difficult to predict the results in Group C (none in the group concedes goals easily).

 

Since you're not a child on his very first discussions in life you probably have already noticed that one can also extrapolate the data sources and go raisin picking in order to sustain his points.
You start mentioning a wonderful Bearzots 4th place in 1978 but still ignore that the 3rd was the mediocre Brazil under Coutinho, basis of 1982.
And the same "victorious" Italy that finished also 4th (out of 8 participants) in a european championship played at home in 1980, the same that couldn't qualify to the euro 1984 finishing 4th the qualifying stage in a group of 5 with only one victory (against Cyprus) in 10 matches. The same Italy that had not convinced on the qualifying to that WC 82 (finishing behind Yugoslavia in a pretty easy group), and when got to the WC 86 as defending champions they won a single match - a 3:2 against South Korea in their first appearence in over 30 years, being eliminated in the 2nd round completely outplayed by France ...
C'mon ... That italian team entered history for 4 matches and that's all.
If it wasn't for those 4 matches, there would be absolutely nothing that would remember them.
The unrefusable point is that they played the 4 most important matches in a way that left then on the history books. And they beat nobody less than Argentina, Brazil and Germany in a single World Cup. Only Germany in 2014 would repeat such a thing (with victores over France, Brazil and Argentina)

Just some more statistics about this wonderful Bearzot team:
Between the Euro 1980 and the victory against Argentina in 1982 they played 24 matches, winning not more than 8 (including 1-0 and 2-0 against Luxemburg).
After those 4 matches until the end of WC86 they played 33 matches. And won only 13. Top teams? Two defeats to West Germany and one draw to Argentina.

This are the facts.
If you say that was such a great team you've probably watched something other than their matches. Because they've done absolutely nothing special.
Neither before the Argentina match nor after the final against West Germany.

 

Travel distances between the three group play venues for the teams:

1. Australia: 2202 km (1321 mi)

2. Denmark: 1121 km (672 mi)

3. France: 2734 km (1640 mi)

4. Peru: 4105 km (2463 mi)

Peruvian fans have obviously gotten the shaft here. Over 4000 km. That is crazy. In contrast, Danes only have 1121 km. That could be driven pretty easily, subject to road conditions, of course.

 

Well, I was thinking more about the fans. Peru starts play in Saransk, which is kind of in the center of European Russia. Then they go to Yekaterinburg, which is almost in Siberia. And end up in Sochi, far in the south along the Black Sea. I can't imagine a more difficult travel itinerary to try and follow your team.

 

The moment I read him praising that Italy and downplaying that Brazil, based on results outside that WC, I had to conclude that he picked up a book and read the stats on that WC alone, and guessed the rest.

Anyways, the point is that previous (or future) history suggests but not define a result in a WC match. I used Italy–Brazil 1982 as an example, but could have used North Korea–Italy 1966 as well.

It explains why I haven't talked much about Australia. Too few matches to gather something concrete, most predictions would be based on baseless guessing. And since USA draw with France, I see it possible for Australia to do the same. Would that be the case, there will be four in dispute in Group C.

 

I'm not an expert, but a fan, so I don't pretend to know everything there is about it. I do have my opinions on what I see and read, though.

You are right in saying that the player bases for those teams from 1978, were about the same as for 1982.

But there is one point where you fail terribly, is that while the Italy from 1978, played the same style in 1978 and never changed it till 1982, which means that the players in the team, had over 4 years to practice the same things over and over till they finally mastered them almost to the point of being automatic.

While for the case of Brazil, Coutinho was the completely opposite to Tele Santana, as Coutinho was highly pragmatic, and in many ways he played a style lots more similar to how the italians played, instead.
The 1978 brazilian team, lead by Coutinho had nothing even close to the "jogo bonito", which characterisized the Brazil of the past, so despite all the individual talent and skills, those players had back then, by the style pretended to be imposed on them, it kept them back, from showing themselves more on what they were really capable of doing. What Telé Santana, basicly did for 1982, by leaving behind pragmatism, was to liberate players to do what they did best, and thats probably the reason why for 1982, Brazil with the same players as for 1978, "shined".

For Italy, it was the same team , same coach, and same style. And lots of work, to finally get what was being seeked for (WC champions).

For Brazil, was same team, but diferent coach and of course, diferent style as well. And not much work on anything clear. Players really never knew what was expected from them, or what style they were suposed to be playing as team, and depended basicly on what they could achieve individually, which given their talent, of course produced and promised a lot, but never really won anything, and what's worse was being catched up, by others in Conmebol (not talking about Argentina here, as at the time, Brazil had to look up to see where they were, while if Brazil wanted to see it's pairs in Conmebol, had to watch Uruguay, Colombia, Paraguay and even Chile)

And after all of this, and not winning the WC in 1978 and 1982, what did Brazil do after Tele Santana ?, they get rid of Santana, replace him for another pragmatic coach for a short term (Parreira), then Edu, then Evaristo, then re-hire Tele Santana again for the next WC, and right after it, they replace him again. The list goes on almost eternally, as most coaches in Brazil, never last more than 2 years on charge of their team,


(in conclussion, Brazil due to their own lack of patience, and need to get results fast, simply wasted one of the best crop of players, they have ever had)

 

Better late than never. Old FIFA ranking system is gone, and the ranking will be based on Elo, to stop manipulation for draw seeding.

But as FIFA is FIFA, rather than use the reliable Elo++ system, they're coming with their own variation.

 

The ELO ranking system can also be manipulated, although not as fast and efectively, as FIFA's current ranking system.

Anyhow, it is a good thing they finally accept that their ranking system was horrible and decide to change it. We will have to wait though, for some time to see if the new system is better or if at the end happens to be worse.

 

The only possible manipulation is if someone takes a dive, as sandbagging in "friendlies" gives close to nothing.

Anyways, a ranking based on average results dating as far as 4 years in the past, won't reflect the current strength of a team, and that's the first and foremost thing that ranking should've done. Not to mention the questionable "punishment" (in points earned) some confederations took (other than Uefa and Conmebol, that is).

 

Could replace Denmark and Eriksen with Argentina and Messi.

That said, simple tactics can be the most effective.

 

Ok, if you want to switch the discussion to the style ...
Actually it was fun to watch to Tele's Brazil. I don't consider that period a waste at all.
My point the whole time is that in football the best team is not necessarily the one taking the title - at least in a short tournament in cup format where you can take it all with 4 good and lucky matches. Unfortunately after the losses of 1982-1986 (although in 1986 it was against a real team, which would have deserved the title) Brazil indeed abandoned the style. And still failed terribly in 1990 - and if you remember the conditions how it happened, the reason was neither the players nor the style. It was fate, like it is in football the whole time. The final victory in 1994 just consolidated the lie.
Football belongs to the entertainment industry. If we're still talking about Brazil 1982, and we remember them 36 years ago, it's because they entertained us.
And actually this is more valid than one more star on the jersey - specially because not entertaining is not a garantee that you win.

 

This looks again like you are suggesting that in 1982 they didn't lose to any "real team", and Italy did not deserve the title, which is something I would strongly disagree with.

I am old enough to have watched all those games in 1982, and I was even rooting for Brazil in that match against Italy (and in all previous matches played by Brazil), but it is also quite obvious for me that Italy was simply a better team in WC82. BTW, they should have won that game 4:2, as one of their perfectly good goals was disallowed.

 

It is worth noting that the first team that beat three former world champs in a single WC tournament was Brazil in 1970 (they defeated England, Uruguay and Italy).

A very unusual tournament in this respect was that in 1974 when the title was won by the Germans who didn't need to fight any former world champion, yet they defeated two teams that did manage to beat three world champs in that tournament. These were of course Poland (beating Argentina, Italy and Brazil) and Holland (beating Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil).

 

Perhaps it sounds like a suggestion.
But actually it was supposed to be an affirmation

That match could have finished either way. I'll never say that Italy didn't deserve that victory, because they really played a perfect match. You can find that match in youtube, I've watched to it again a couple of months ago. If you have 90min time, have a look and you'll see if Italy really played that better. They played their best, and still they weren't that superior. But well ... they won. And the winner has the right of writing the history.
To say that Italy was a better team in that WC is sort of complicated. As they played each other my opinion is that they were most probably at the same level (yes, there was a 4th goal - as there were a couple of ref calls in the beggining Brazilians didn't care because they ware arrogantly thinking they couldn't lose anyway). But still that was Brazil's worst match and Italy's best one in the competition (besides the final, as they were clear stronger than WGermany). But it's difficult to compare, since Brazil didn't have the chance of playing further. Up to that day there can be no doubt Brazil had played better. Just have a look at anything written previous to that match. Among most experts Brazil was the clear favorite. And if it hadn't been a surprise, we wouldn't be talking about it right now.
But it's always the same thing. If you win, everything you did was right and if you lose, everything you did was wrong. And sometimes what decides on an abyssal difference in the post game analysis could be a couple of inches on a single shot.
If you were old enough in 82, this means you have already experienced this many times listening to sport reporters in all kinds of competitions. After all if I build my comments in the correct direction is as if I had known the outcome before, so I'm an expert. After the final Italy became suddenly a great squad.
This is what I dislike in the comments post '82 - that Italy was a great squad.
They played 4 very good matches, but that's all. Of course they deserved the title - for the 4 matches, not for being such a great team (even if you don't need to be a "great team" to win a WC - Brazil has already had that too). They weren't Greece 2004 that counted more on luck than on anything else because they played 4 very good matches, but there were similarities. And the biggest one: the one-day-fly issue.
They weren't a strong team before the WC, they waren't a strong team in the group phase, and they weren't a strong team after the WC. They were a strong team in 4 matches. If Milla (I think he was the one) had scored that 200% chance against Peru, perhaps we wouldn't be talking about this world class team right know. A world class team that could have scrumbled to Italy's 2010/2014/2018 WC-level due to a result of a Peru vs Cameroon match.
This is the difference to France, that eliminated Brazil in '86. That was a world-champion-like team.
But they also lost.

 

That Italy generation made the semifinals of WC78, beating Argentina, France and drawing with West Germany in that tournament. They did lose to Brazil in a meaningless third-place match. At Euro80, it's true they did not make it past the group stage, but they placed second on goal difference to Belgium, and were top four for that tournament as well, the equivalent of a semi-finalist. And then they won WC82.

Their group stage performance was subpar, but it was a team still finding its form at tournament kick-off. I see them as a great team under-performing at the group stage and performing to their level thereafter, rather than the opposite way around, which you seem set to. That Italian squad had players of vintage quality in Zoff, Gentile, Bergomi, Scirea, Cabrini, Tardelli, Conti, Antognioni, Rossi, Causio, Vierchowod, Dossena, Collovati and Altobelli. Unfortunately for them, it was the tail end for most of these player's prime, and the results for Euro84 and WC86 show them as an aging team past its best. Their performance in the rounds following the group phase remains to me arguably the strongest collectively in the WCs I have watched.