I'm ruling out that a non powerhouse team makes it even to the final. This won't happen in back to back World Cups. In my humble opinion Croatia 2018 had more talent as well as more grit than the current Denmark team. Croatia had the balls to knock out a powerhouse in England. I struggle to see Denmark doing that to be honest. Let's not forget that Denmark reached the EURO semifinals by beating "only" Wales and Czechia. Other than a win over England in the Nations League when England were reduced to ten men for about an hour this generation of Denmark have still to show that they can beat the absolute best when it matters.
We have a fairly small sample size though (~20 world cups). I would say 50:1 are good odds. If we could run 50 simulations of the 2022 WC I think a darkhorse would win multiple times, and Denmark is probably the most likely of them. But of course its still very unlikely to happen when we do the single real run. And I agree that Denmark isn't particularly impressive compared to some "smaller" nations of the past (though it could be argue that the traditional powerhouses are more beatable, in general).
I have a difficult time seeing Spain doing anything until they find a way to reliably score goals. France I think is handicapped by Deschamps' limitations and needs to move on but probably won't until after Qatar at least. England remains strong, although Southgate's conservatism may hold them back. Italy won the Euros but don't look like world beaters. The South American powerhouses have underwhelmed the last few WCs so I'm not going to bet on them at this point. And of course it's always hard to gage the quality of teams across confederations. Now that I think of it there really isn't anyone in particular that stands out at the moment. One team that might go under the radar a bit might be Flick's Germany.
I'm inclinied to pencil Brazil and England into the semi-finals. Those are for me the two biggest contenders. Both lost their major finals this year. Hence both will be very hungry and have a certain thrist for trophies. Both have World Cup experienced managers. Both teams have a system in place and both have been in good form for years. I don't believe in Germany doing much at the World Cup. Flick showed with his first list that he set his sights on EURO 2024 when Germany will host the event. I guess he will take quite a few internationally unproven players without any tournament experience to Qatar. He has the backing of the DFB and the German public. Even in case of an early elimination there. It's just that we expect him to build a squad that can feasibly win EURO 2024. Other potential semi-finalists could be Italy, Argentina, France or the Netherlands under Van Gaal as far as I'm concerned. Or some surprise team. I don't believe in Portugal or Belgium doing much either. Both decided to keep their managers after relatively dissappointing EURO campaigns. Portugal made only a single deep run in their last four major tournaments and that was when they won it all in 2016. They seem still not having adressed their issues on the attack. It's still an one-dimensional attacking game that relies heavily on Ronaldo. Belgium started to install some fresh blood into their squad. They will probably suffer some drop off in terms of individual quality. And last but not least the last tournaments showed us that we better don't expect them to go all the way. They are an excellent qualfying type of team but not good at knockout stage football when stakes are very high.
I forgot to mention Spain. They are for me a wild card. They could make it far or they could totally dissappoint. I want to see them a bit more in order to make up my mind on them.
England has not been a powerhouse since the nineteenth century when they played Scotland every other week.
An England -Argentina Final would be epic. But I have a feeling neither will be in the Final. (But as I said it is still a bit early for any predictions from me.)
This would be a fair comment if South Americans didn’t also insist on referring to Uruguay as a powerhouse when they have reached the quarterfinals of the WC a grand total of two times in the era of color TV.
Uruguay are for me the perfect example of an hybrid team. They are no powerhouse but better than most 2nd tier nations. A category I would put also Croatia and Denmark in. Those nations just aren't made to be in the powerhouse category. No country with less than 10 million people can consistently develop players and stay at the top for decades. Portugal and Belgium are for example of that size. Portugal really burst into the scene in this millenium and remained always relevant. In a few years of time when the generation of De Bruyne and Hazard will whine we'll see whether Belgium can do the same. Countries like England, Germany, Spain, France and Italy will forever be powerhouses just due to to the size of the country and the powerful league they have. Their leagues supply them with the necessary talent.
Look I'm speaking facts. Do you know where these days the most talent is coming from? From the suburbs of Paris and London. In case of France only the best end up playing for France. France is producing so many players that it's also supplying a lot of African national teams. It's literally a talent factory. I say only Riyad Mahrez and Kalidou Koulibaly out of the top of my head. The Ligue 1 is called "League of Talents" for a reason. It's in my view the league with some of the best raw talent you could ever find. I can highly recommend to watch some Ligue 1 matches. However I admit that as a league it's not on par with the other top leagues I mentioned but just look at how French clubs did in the CL the last five years and compare that to Italy as I know that you're from Italy. FRANCE 1x PSG finalists 1x each of PSG, Lyon and Monaco semi-finalists ITALY 1x Juventus finalists 1x Roma semi-finalists Even though football isn't deeply anchored in the French culture recent results of national team and clubs show that France belongs to the list of countries that will for forseeable future never have any lack of talent and hence maintaining its status as a powerhouse. If you like it or not.
oh i wasn't saying France doesn't belong. take a look at the chart below.. it's easier to see who i meant. The country thats tied with Greece and Denmark in major INTL trophies can never be considered a powerhouse. France: WC 1998, 2018.. Euros 1984, 2000 Italy WC 1934, 1938, 1982, 2006. Euros 1968, 2020 Germany WC 1954, 1974, 1990, 2014... Euros 1972, 1980, 1996 Spain WC 2010 Euros 1964, 2008, 2012 England WC 1966 Euros n/a
So if Sancho and Saka had converted their penalties suddenly England would have been a powerhouse in your view? Come on man. England is the motherland of football. We can make a case for England being the most underachieving powerhouse in the history but things are starting to change. They reached the semi-finals in back to back competitions and are in my view very likely to get once again to the last four in Qatar.
Even with one Euro they wouldn't compare with those others you listed. And it's not just about winning, how often does England even come close/ reach a final?
Hey stats boy… go look them up… I put Uruguay’s record against anybody… unless you’re from Brazil, Italy or Germany I bet you’d love to have that record… Why is it that previous WCs don’t count? They were there for the taking… why didn’t the “powerhouses” win them? And I suggest you look up when color TV was invented
We're very fortunate to see some of the favourites in action against each other in October when the UEFA Nations League finals will be hosted by Italy. Whoever finishes fourth there we can pretty much discard them from the list of potential winners in Qatar. I can barely imagine a team that loses to two of its main competitors only one year away from the showpiece event could be a serious contender for glory in Qatar. It just doesn't bode well.
I would not put too much stock into a tournament like that. The way teams approach a World Cup is way different than a made for tv thing like Nations League. Also , the World Cup is all about the draw and match ups and how you adapt to different styles from different continents early on.
One thing you have to take into consideration for the WC is that though most foreigners may think of it as a huge success for Denmark, considering that they reached the semi-finals, the Euro-20 was actually the worst nightmare possible for Denmark in every possible way, except for adding new talent (because of what happened to Eriksen) and so the Denmark coach will be much better prepared, both tactically and regarding the starting 11 and squad, also adding even more quality, especially to the attack, like replacing a now long-term injured Braithwaite with the only 19-yo Denmark U-21 NT €12 million signing by Ajax this summer, Mohamed Daramy (by his own request, because there were plenty of other big offers from the top leagues).
Denmark was an absolute powerhouse in the early days of soccer in the early 1900's, the problem being that the highly old-fashioned Danish FA of 1889 stuck with this amateur Olympic philosophy way too long, so that paid amateurs were not allowed before the early 1970's and full-time professional soccer was not introduced before the mid 1980's which quite clearly reflect the results achieved by the Danish NT in the big tournaments, because the professional Star players earning their living abroad were not allowed to play for Denmark and the very first Denmark NT full-time professional manager was the German Sepp Piontek signed in 1979. The rest is history : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_national_football_team#Competitive_record
IF Sancho had scored... IF Saka had scored. what about what IF the ref didn't give the penalty for Sterling diving in the Semis? you can't live in hypotheticals. "underachieving powerhouse" is an oxymoron. you just admitted yourself their flaw on why they aren't a true powerhouse.
totally agree. and especially with an English coach they will never win. trivia question time. How many english coaches have won the premier league?