Yes, you’re right. That specific term isn't entirely the right one. I’m not sure I fully grasp what you mean, as I rely on a translator due to my lack of English proficiency. Incidentally, I suspect the translation sometimes distorts what I intend to say, though I generally trust it most of the time. Sometimes I highlight the Spanish text in blue, but I didn't do so this time, so I can't verify if the translation captures exactly what I wanted to convey. I’m hesitant to use the terms you mentioned because, even with a very large sample size, the results are never exact or precise—though they are reliable and significant, with a small margin of error. Please forgive me if my reply doesn't quite address what you were trying to explain. Those of us who have studied some statistics know that when surveying thousands or millions of people to predict the winner of a general election and the distribution of parliamentary seats, it’s impossible to ask every single person; instead, diverse groups are selected based on age, social status, and location. The larger the sample, the smaller the deviation from the total population. There’s nothing particularly remarkable about that, as it’s something we all know. What I’m trying to explain is why I aim to use as many sources as possible. Once the World Cup is over, you’ll see the spreadsheet and realize that not all of them are subjective. Regarding the example you used to illustrate your point: in a David-versus-Goliath matchup, it makes perfect sense that *Gazzetta dello Sport* gave clearly better ratings to Cape Verde, primarily because of their extraordinary defense of the initial scoreline. Naturally, all sources—even the objective ones—align with the *Gazzetta dello Sport* ratings. However, we are discussing a single match, whereas my goal is to draw a comprehensive conclusion about the entire tournament. That is where the match-by-match averaging process leads to increasingly fair and balanced conclusions. On the other hand, I would hate to think that evaluators—at least generally speaking—base their assessments on their own expectations. Admittedly, the example you cited could indeed support your theory, but that is a very extreme case where it is glaringly obvious that the Spanish players underperformed while the African players performed well above their usual level, particularly in defense. I am attaching two screenshots.
I think you may have convinced me. At the same time, I'm still not completely convinced that it would be easy to just have players off-side and score off of random deflections. I mean, it sounds reasonable enough / convincing enough on paper. No, but my educated guess is if you actually tried to implement the function of that in a real game... Plot twist: I wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot more diffcult to do than it sounds. At the end of the day, I still find it not sound, not sufficiently coherent, that defending is somehow not by definition intentional when the ball hits you / deflects off of you randomly.
My immediate reaction was, and I quote. Ancelotti just lost this game. End quote. Quickly after Norway / Haaland scored 2 goals. I mean, we all knew that Neymar wasn't fit to play the World Cup. I don't understand why Ancelotti conceded to the media pressure. Personally, I think this was Vini's team, and making space for an unfit Neymar took away from Vini's protagonism. To make matters worse, Neymar couldn't offer any positives cause he's - let's be honest - he's a retired player who shouldn't be playing club football, let alone the World Cup.
I think this is a problem of South America in general. Colombia, for example, tried BUT FAILED to play around this, by simply playing James for 45 minutes and then Quintero for the other 45 minutes, but the problem was still a problem, because even when James and Quintero do the defensive work, the fact still is doing the defensive work cancels out their creative talent, and that's how you get Colombia v. Switzerland. South America always operated around a Pele, Maradona, Valderrama, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Riquelme, Kaka, Messi, James, etcetera, etcetera. In the modern game there's no space for South American football, Pele will get soft fouled out of the game if he tries to play like Pele, Pele needs to play like Mbappe, and if Pele plays like Mbappe... Pele never becomes the player he was. I think South America is going to be replaced by Africa basically, by France, Morocco, Egypt, Congo, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal, etcetera, etcetera. I think Europe will need to become like France / Africa, if Europe wants to compete. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I guess it depends on what type of football you prefer to watch. But anyway, unfortunately in my book, this is what happens when the yellow card becomes literally obsolete. You can't play like Pele cause Morocco / Paraguay will do to Pele, what Morocco / Paraguay did to Mbappe. By the way, Morocco did more damage than Paraguay. Paraguay was pushing using the upper body, it was more wrestling than tackling. On the other hand, Morocco was systematically kicking / soft kicking / soft fouling Mbappe's ankle the entire game. But anyway, there is no space for diversity. We get players like Mbappe and Haaland, instead of players like Pele and Messi. Personally, I prefer Pele and Messi over Mbappe and Haaland. Personally, I think Mbappe and Haaland have a space in the 1990s and the 2000s. The problem is modern football doesn't have space for Pele and Messi, and a lot of people are going to find out the hard way once Messi retires, once football doesn't have those magical players that make you wanna watch the game.
France is on track to become world champion. Unless Messi pulls off a divine intervention. Although Spain is very solid, England is England, and Norway will put up a fight.
How was Italia 1990 in any way worse than Germany 2006?? Italia 1990 had some vibrant games. Colombia v. West Germany. Argentina v. Romania. Colombia v. Cameroon. Argentina v. Italia. Almost all of the games by West Germany - minus maybe 2 out of the 7 games - were great to watch, Lothar Matthaus was awesome and Jurgen Klinsmann was also in fine form. In fact, I don't think it's crazy to say that Jurgen Klinsmann 1990 was probably better than Antoine Griezmann 2016 for example. Lothar Matthaus 1990 was maybe the best midfielder World Cup performance of all time. Carlos Valderrama was such a pleasure to watch in all the games with the exception of the game v. Yugoslavia where he did basically nothing. Paul Gascoigne was impressive throughout. Gheorghe Hagi v. Argentina is one of the most impressive performances of all time. Diego Maradona v. Italia is an underrated performance, and probably the best individual performance against that Italian defense. Yugoslavia 1990 was great to watch even if they were inconsistent, they were crazy in the good way. Germany 2006 was a tournament where all the top players were physically fatigued / physically out of it from day one to day final. Ronaldo Nazario - with all due respect - looked more fit to do a McDonald's commercial, than be playing at the World Cup. Ronaldinho did nothing. Kaka did nothing outside of his one good game, which was the first game. Riquelme was so talented that he still did something even when he was playing at 60% of his physical capacity. Francesco Totti was playing at like 40% physical capacity. Thierry Henry did nothing besides score that goal v. Brazil / very far from his best. Cristiano Ronaldo was super overrated but that's not saying anything, cause CR7 was always overrated. Nedved was old but had one good game v. USA. Figo was old but was probably one of the top 3-5 players of the tournament. Deco was in his prime but never was not even remotely close to his Barcelona version. Ribery was one of the better players. Zidane was probably the best player among the top players, and the fact that everybody else was so dogshit probably maybe made him look better than he really was. Andrea Pirlo was probably the best or the second-best of the top players, either slightly above or slightly below Zidane. Fabio Cannavaro was the player of the tournament, which tells you just how dogshit the tournament was, that a literal central defender was the player of the tournament. But anyway. I think Italia 1990 gets more shit than it deserves. I really don't see how Germany 2006 is better than Italia 1990.
It’s hard for me to see any team beating France. Out of the teams that are left: - Spain probably has the talent to potentially do so and could be a tactically difficult matchup for France. But their best players aren’t really playing particularly well (probably the only big stars in the tournament that that’s true of), so I don’t see them beating France unless those guys really step up. It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it at this point. - Argentina isn’t good enough this time to do it IMO. It’s a very similar squad to the 2022 team, but the loss of Di Maria without a good replacement is a massive downgrade, and the team overall isn’t in as good of form. Messi himself has been absolutely fantastic, but he’s 39 years old, so I just think it’s too much to ask for him to carry them against a team as loaded as France. Crucially, to go back to the 2022 comparison, I think this France team is stronger than they were in 2022, in significant part because they now have Olise and Dembele is way better than he was back then. So yeah, France is better and Argentina isn’t as good, and the 2022 match between them was close, so I’d be very skeptical of Argentina beating them this time. - England is theoretically capable of beating France. They’ve got the talent to make it a match IMO. I’d root for them if it were a France vs. England final. But I just can’t trust England. - Norway, Belgium, and Switzerland just aren’t good enough to beat France in IMO. I think they’re good enough that they could potentially win their matches against England/Spain/Argentina, but France is a different beast, and if these teams did get to face France I think it probably would’ve been so tough for them to get there that they would probably be mentally and physically exhausted before the match even started. Out of these, I guess Norway is the one I’d give the least bad chance against France, just because Haaland could potentially just score every chance he gets or something. But it’d still be unlikely IMO.
Yeah, I noticed that yours are kind of equivalent to those from l'Equipe perhaps (or maybe El Grafico or Argentinian sources in general) in that respect: 5 as the standard rating with quite a bit of variation between high and low ratings awarded I'm guessing/interpretting. Happie and his friends of course use the methods of Shoot/Match magazine (that Happie began to read in the 1980s): 6 as the standard rating but also fairly big variance (using the range of options). I remember, on the English 1st Division ratings thread where one source (from the Star newspaper) was added that had 5 as more the average, it kind of looked like adding a point to the Star averages would make them near to equivalent to Match/Shoot, but I think it wouldn't be quite so exact. I guess also adding a point to your averages would be too much for the top-rated players at least, but if Titanlux wanted to incorporate them I guess there wouldn't be an issue really with doing so without adjusting them at all (like for l'Equipe if all were available, or for any Argentinian source even if maybe this year none will be used....).
Italia 90 did have several players contributing some quality/entertainment (also Milla, Scifo, Baggio, Giannini for example), but I suppose it was just that there was deemed to be too much pragmatism and to an extent cynicism (new rules were introduced afterwards to crack down on tactical fouls and slow play) and it followed the 1982 and 1986 tournaments which had more goals and attacking intent: FIFA World Cup: goals scored per game 1930-2022| Statista But yeah 2006 did also become low scoring in latter stages, and less entertaining than how it began generally, and like you say if anything had less stand-out performers individually.
Also Paraguay vs Germany I guess (somewhat surprisingly because foul play would sometimes be frowned upon by media - albeit for an Italia 90 example, though Argentina possibly got progressively worse re: committing fouls and Cameroon became entertaining/open as the tournament progressed, I guess the opening Cameroon 1 Argentina 0 example would be kind of similar because of the under-dog factor even though Cameroon used some rough play and fouls that day - some of them amusing maybe somehow though!) in some cases (I haven't re-checked before posting though), for example. I did see pep pep had Paraguay with low ratings himself though.
Yeah, some Morocco fouls on Mbappe were a bit naughty; Mbappe's overall performance was a bit mixed anyway I thought, but the goal alone makes his contribution positive/decisive I suppose. Nice assist by Doue to be fair, though Olise nearly had an even nicer one shortly before (though it would have been offside anyway, and Mbappe missed the target without knowing that I guess also). Re: progressing my own idea of a 26 player squad, I think Dembele maybe played himself into the #7 shirt for now, and Ounahi and Kone provisionally enter the 26 I think (obviously 3 quarter-finals are left to play though)....
goals against togo & south korea in the groups, winner vs brazil, won the penalty vs portugal, frances best player in the final. Is that nothing?
Many football fans has this belief that goals/assists or performance in WC group stages doesn't mean anything because only the knockout stages matters. I disagree heavily with this notion.
For example I in my ratings, I try to avoid the kind of perceptual errors made by *La Gazzetta dello Sport* .And I don't take into account expectations. Spain was the better side in play, and the opposing goalkeeper and defenders didn't do enough to offset that. My average ratings for the match were: ESP 5.00 CPV 4.81
Just remember: VAR should only intervene when the referee makes a clear and obvious howler. Not awarding Lisandro a free kick way up at the other end of the pitch is not a clear and obvious mistake — at least not in my opinion. Even if it was a foul on Lisandro, it wasn't so clear and obvious that VAR should have stepped in. I'll also keep arguing that if Lisandro should have been awarded a free kick, then Salah should have been given a penalty when Argentina scored to make it 3–2. I've always been a huge fan of VAR because it prevents incidents like the Hand of God, Bayern vs. Leeds in the 1975 European Cup final, and similar controversies from happening again. But at this point, I'm not even sure I'm still a VAR supporter.
FRANCE vs MOROCCO 2-0 ** Maignan 6, Kounde 6, Digne 6, Upamecano 7, Saliba 7, Kone 6, Rabiot 6, Dembele 7, Doue 7, Olise 7, MBAPPE 8* Subs: Zaire-Emery, Barcola, Mateta, Gusto BONO 8*, Hakimi 6, Eddine 6, Mazraoui 5, Diop 7, Bouaddi 6, El Aynaoui 7, Ounahi 7, Talbi 6, Diaz 6, El Khannous 5 Subs: Amrabat 6, Rahimi 6, Yassine, El Ouahdi, Sbai MAN-OF-THE-MATCH: KYLIAN MBAPPE
Exactly; in this specific case, I do not intend to apply any weighting. I reiterate: I have access to enough sources—thanks in large part to @kroos46—that I do not need to prioritize one over another. The "Pep Pep" ratings, being lower because they start at 5, will pull the averages down by a few hundredths; however, for me, that is a non-issue, since the drop will affect everyone equally and, naturally, will not result in a radical shift in the final rankings.
In the simplest terms, I would summarize my point as follows: Averaging ratings across multiple newspaper sources brings you closer to the consensus (the total population of interest) view on player performance, rather than to an objective evaluation of the performance. Newspapers that closely align with the consensus aren't more objective than those newspapers that deviate more, because consensus is not inherently the truth on performance.
I think this is an overly negative outlook on football. I think that football will be just fine and continue down the road of evolution in a circular manner, as it has always done. I think that we will not see only France copycats from now on, and anyone who tries to play differently will be doomed. I think football is fundamentally resilient against the great convergence. I don't think there is only one best way to win in football, and that we are on the crossroads or at risk of it happening EVER.
It is doable for Spain imo. I think what they need to do is put a very high intensity on France from the first minute. High press that steers France's possession towards Digne and Kounde. They are the weakest links. They have to win these duels in the middle and dominate possession. They have to pin them to their own third through frustratingly-long possession sequences. Make France's wingers (Dembele, Doue/Barcola), and Olise work defensively. The closer to their own goal these players have to operate, the more they have to cover their defensive responsibilities when Spain is in possession pining them back, the less of a threat they are in counter-attacks. Make them tired in defense, so they become less of a threat in offense. Spain MUST impose their game on the pitch under all circumstances. They have to aim for total domination in possession and control of the game. Anything short of such dominance spells massive troubles for Spain. They can't let France have possession and play their game as they wish. Spain can't defend like Paraguay from a low block and minimize France's chances that way, so they have to go the opposite route. And there are chances here. So far in the tournament, France has had the freedom to play how they want. Nobody dared or managed to challenge and play against France for the ball head-to-head so far, which is understandable. France has a lot of quality players on the ball that can beat any press. They are excellent at that, of course, but this remains the only route I see Spain actually having a chance to win. It is a high-risk, high-reward gameplan, but if any team can pull this off, it is Spain. If they do that, of course, France will eventually create chances from counterattacks. But this is something that Spain will have to live with and surmount. Perhaps, concede a few goals, to score a few more. Spain can't go toe-to-toe with France in many areas and phases of the game. That is why they MUST impose their positional game. They have to pose serious positional questions in France's defensive structure. If Cucurella makes an overlapping run, who defends him? Dembele? Kone? The worst thing Spain can do imo is that they neither aim for absolute dominance and control on the pitch, nor play conservatively and defensively. Spain has to commit to a gameplan. If they play in an uncommitted grey zone: we will press a bit, but not commit to it, or we will make some overlaps, but not really try to score goals, etc., they will not succeed, imo. France has more quality and options in grey zones. Either way, I think this will be a spectacular WC classic. Can't wait.
Everyone can beat anyone in a single match. This is the thing that is so beautiful about football. You can be inferior than opposition in almost all areas of the game and still win through smart strategy and disciplined execution and big moments. This France is probably the best national team I have ever seen, but they are beatable. Everyone is beatable.
Btw, Rodri is again absolutely brilliant this WC. An unparalleled defensive midfielder of his generation imo.
Yeah, I agree with all of this. The problem I see for Spain is that, as you mention, even if they impose their will in terms of possession, they won’t be able to fully prevent counterattack chances. And if it becomes a high-scoring match where Spain has possession but France gets goals on the counterattack, I don’t think I really trust that Spain can convert their possession into enough goals, given the not-particularly-great form their best attacking players are in. Meanwhile, I agree with you that they wouldn’t succeed at the Paraguay strategy, and that trying to do something in the middle is probably just the worst of all worlds. So I think they have to try to dominate possession and hope that their attackers actually are clinical (or get lucky with France’s elite attackers missing chances). I wouldn’t bet on this working, but I do agree they’re the team with the best chance against France because it feels like they’re the only one that has a potential gameplan that could work without just needing a ton of luck.