Post: #26

The big question IMO is whether Brasil and the players will be able to cope with the enormous pressure of a World Cup at home. Plus add to that he spectre of 'el Maracanazo' by Uruguay in 1950 will come haunting them as soon they face any challenge. Felipao is the right man to lead this team commando style as he did in 2002. IF Brasil can keep cool during the enormous pressure they will feel, then no team will stop them. Specially not at home.

Argentina is a very strong challenger. Their front line is simply all star quality, the stuff of fairy tales like. However, their defence leaves a lot to be desired. Specially in net which has always been their Achilles point ever since 1990.

Spain are very strong, very self aware of their mastery and strength. However, key players are getting older or not here anymore such as Puyol. I see them in the last 4. Plus, let's not forget that their players might be contend and tired if winning, at least subconsciously.

Italy is a team that should NEVER be underestimated. Hey may not play he most sexy football but their resilience is legendary. They are always extremely hard to break down and score against. Italy is the prototypical team that can wear down a technically stronger side and with determination and unity at the back come out winners. For me, along with Argentina, they are the main challengers for Brasil. I'd put them even ahead of Spain.

Portugal, are a very strong team. They play a style which is a mix of Italy and Spain: very tough at the back yet they can play ball and keep position as they have very talented players. Plus, in Cristiano, they have a player that few if any other team have, a true world beater. If he's healthy and defence holds on, I can see Portugal reaching the 1/2 lead by a monstrous Cristiano.

Germany, the Teutons are always a force to reckon with. Just like the Italians, they are always present and a major contender. They have a solid team which plays good football. I like watching them and an be at times entertaining contrary to previous German teams who were less sexy but way more efficient and cynical like a machine. 1/2 final material.

Dark Horses

Belgium has been widely touted as one of the dark horses and for good reason. This is probably the best generation that Belgium has had since the 80's and the likes of Scifo, Gerets, Pfaff and co. They have a very young and exciting group and this will be their first major tourney together. This will be a building block for them for 2016 and beyond when they will be a true contender as these young players truly mature with more international experience. I can see them reach the 1/4 finals and with a bit of luck, and by luck, I mean, having all their top players healthy and suspension free. And if during key moments, some key decisions going their way, they could match their historical run of 1986 where they reached the 1/2 finals.

Uruguay: as always one of these teams that are extremely hard to play. Very tough at the back, experienced midfield and a mouth watering pair up front with Cavani and Suarez. Potential 1/4 finalist.

Chile: this is a very talented team and very hard to play. The are tough at the back, good with the ball in their feet and go forward very fast. Alexis is a super player who can cause havoc in any defence. I'm putting some money on them for getting out if their very tough group at the expense of eithe the Dutch or the Spaniards!

Holland: the eternal mystery. They have a good team, maybe not as strong as 4 years ago, but still strong enough to do some serious damage. I've always been a big fan of them and their attractive football so will be following them with great interest. I hope they won't self hara kiri as they have a tendency to do in major tourneys with internal problems. 1/4 finalist potential with the potential to go higher depending in the fitness of their key players.

England: its always funny with them. They have good players but for some reason, as a team, always under perform. I don't have high expectations from them for this tourney, hey should use it as an opportunity to allow the younger players to accumulate precious international experience for the future competitions. 1/2 round would be a good result for them and from there, depending on how key players perform, they could create an upset and reach the 1/4.

Non Euro/South American Teams which can cause surprises:

Ghana: I like this team, they have talent, experienced payers and flair and can go far. In 2010, they were robbed by the antics of Luis Suarez. I can see them cause a ton of problems to any team that will face them. I'd love to see them reiterate the same result as four years ago. However, they are unlucky to be in the same group as two of the best teams in the compet: Portugal and Germany. If they can get a good result against one of the two tenors, they can create the surprise and go through and from there, a 1/4 finals is not out of sight. ..

Ivory Coast: another super talented team. Any team with the likes of Yaya Toure and Didier Drogba, even tough an aging Drogba, is one to be feared. They have a relatively easy group in the first round so that should give them some confidence.

Finally, one team that is not getting much love but who I feel has all the ingredients to realize a good World Cup and reach even the 1/4. I'm talking about France. They have a solid team, a great keeper, good midfield and interesting attack. I'm having my doubts about he defence but if they keep their focus, they can do some interesting things. Ribery and Benzemma will need to take the team in their hands and be the leaders of the team. I'm curious to see Pogba and Varanne and Griezmann. They are two future world class players who will get invaluable experience of international football for future competitions. Specially for 2016 when the Euro will be in France. Plus, they all want to make us all forget the fiasco of 2010. With Deschamps, we have a good coach who is not afraid to leave undesirables out of the team such as Nasri. Finishing first, France will face more than likely Nigeria thus avoiding Argentina. 1/4 finals are within realistic grasp and then a historical 1/4 finals against Ze Teutons. From there anything can happen...

It's going to be a fantastic tournament. The World Cup in the country of football with the most mythical stadiums anywhere. It couldn't be or get any better than this. If it were up to me, the World Cup would always be in Brasil.

My dream is to see another France - Brasil preferably at the Maracana. And if France were to do the unthinkable of beating Brasil in a world cup yet again, but this time in Brasil, then it would be mega orgasmic! I know very long shot but dreaming is free!

Post: #27

(05-16-2014 03:52 PM)Heathree Wrote:  ^ Its a bit harsh to put USA, South Korea and Greece in the 'ass whooping' list. They got no chance of winning but can at least give a good account and cause the odd upset. Honduras must be the worst team at the World Cup.

They were significantly better than Mexico in qualifiers (3rd vs. 4th in final standings), so...








And if you respect the Americans, then I'm not sure you can't give the Hondurans some credit (2-2 aggregate in qualifiers):

Post: #28

I think final 4 will be Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Germany.

My main hope is that the Aussies don't get too embarrassed. We've got Spain, Netherlands and Chile in our group which is brutal.

Post: #29

- Spain loses Thiago Alcantara to a knee injury; he'll miss the World Cup

- Samir Nasri is left out of the France squad. Drama has ensued - his girlfriend (who has also formerly been romantically linked to Freddie Ljungberg, Ashley Cole, Darren Bent, Jermaine Pennant, Ryan Babel, Kieran Richardson, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Wayne Routledge) went on a twitter tirade and now Didier Deschamps (France's manager) is suing her.

- No Tevez in the Argentina squad

Post: #30

Nasri is a clown. This guy is throwing away a great talent and career by being a dick and behaving like one. I'm very glad that Deschamps had the balls to leave this thug wanna be out of the team. He would have done more harm than good despite his undeniable talent. Too bad he has the IQ of a 5 years old.

WTH is Tevez not in the Argie team? Did he get in a fight with the coach or Messi? That's crazy!

Post: #31

Nasri is a lesbian drama queen. Great player and mindset on the pitch but his psychology off-field is mediocre.

Tevez had a decent season with 21(?) goals in all competitions this year. I expected him to be in based on merit alone.
We must consider though, Argentina's squad, truly powerful and they can afford to drop him.

Quote:Time and again, he has spoken publicly about international retirement and the tiresome task that is traveling back and forth for Argentina fixtures. And when he was included in the squad for the 2011 Copa America on the back of a campaign by media, fans and even members of the government, his response was to turn up overweight, completely underperform and, ultimately, miss the penalty that eliminated the Albiceleste at the quarterfinal stage.

Source: How can Argentina not take Tevez to the WC?

Get your salt shaker out, its goal.com.

I am also disappointed that Coutinho was not given a chance. I have admired him since watching him on TV with my Interista friends and he has been quality for a while now and despite his age, I thought this would be his chance to shine on the international stage.

Post: #32

Football is one of those sports where there is enough luck involved that "good but not great" teams actually have a viable chance to win the cup. I ALWAYS root for those good but not great teams: ivory coast, ghana, japan. Plus their jerseys are so much cooler.

Post: #33

You guys saying USA would advance in any other group... haha you can't be serious. They mightve been better as Honduras or Mexico during qualifications but let's face it, both those teams are going nowhere as well. I don't think USA would go through in any group. Their best players are B or even C players in Europe, which admittedly they make up for a bit with team strenght and enthusiasm, but that wont get you far in a world cup. When Belgium played them a while ago, it was probably our easiest win in the year. Fi a team like Switzerland which many people probably don't know too much has so much more quality. Shaqiri, Xhaka, Drnic, Inler vs. Dempsey, Altidore, Bradley and the likes... easy. Outside of Oceania the N.American qualification poule is the worst, even weaker or on the same level as Asia perhaps. Japan would def win as well from USA and Honduras. Mexico I find harder to rate this year, because their selection is very unknown and the strenght of their competition is hard to evaluate.

Post: #34

^^^

I don't disagree with this, but remember Americans have the US sports press telling them 'we can do it' and pumping up the team to be better than it actually is.

It's probably not as bad as it is in England (and IMO England are a better squad and the Premier League is miles ahead of MLS) but it's enough for the average guy on the street to somewhat believe the US has a chance to go far, even if they really don't and are middle-of-the-pack at best.

The press also love playing the US up as the underdog when they can (despite having over 300 million people and being the richest country ever!).

Post: #35

The thing I have noticed about the US - is that they play with a lot of energy, a lot of organisation and high levels of fitness.

Compared to a lot of teams - they are better than the sum of their parts.

Post: #36

(05-17-2014 11:55 AM)cardguy Wrote:  The thing I have noticed about the US - is that they play with a lot of energy, a lot of organisation and high levels of fitness.

Compared to a lot of teams - they are better than the sum of their parts.

I agree with this, you see this also with Japan, South Korea, Australia and Greece. And it wouldnt surprise me if Iran turns out to be better than expected. But as said before, on a worldcup this will make you a tougher opponent and you can get a point here and there, but it wont get you passed second round.

Post: #37

Mexico another dark horse for me.

They have Brazil in their group but Cameroon and Croatia are teams they should beat.

Post: #38

(05-17-2014 07:15 AM)SHANbangs Wrote:  Football is one of those sports where there is enough luck involved that "good but not great" teams actually have a viable chance to win the cup. I ALWAYS root for those good but not great teams: ivory coast, ghana, japan. Plus their jerseys are so much cooler.

These "good but not great" teams you speak of have a chance to get out of their group but very little chance to win the whole tournament. Historically the world cup champion has been an elite team. Only 8 countries have ever won with Brazil winning 5 times, Italy 4, Germany 3. And no champion has ever come from outside Europe or S America

Post: #39

(05-17-2014 10:55 AM)rottenapple Wrote:  Outside of Oceania the N.American qualification poule is the worst, even weaker or on the same level as Asia perhaps. Japan would def win as well from USA and Honduras. Mexico I find harder to rate this year, because their selection is very unknown and the strenght of their competition is hard to evaluate.

I think you're underrating CONCACAF (North America) somewhat.

Over the last four World Cup cycles, CONCACAF and the AFC have played each other twice in intercontinental playoffs. CONCACAF has advanced each time.

If you look at the final AFC team and final CONCACAF team to qualify during the last 4 cycles and then compare their results at the World Cup, CONCACAF has been stronger in all four cycles.

2010 – Honduras 0-1-2 -3; North Korea 0-0-3 -11
2006 – T&T 0-1-2 -4; Saudi Arabia 0-1-2 -5
2002 – Costa Rica 1-1-1 -1; Saudi Arabia 0-0-3 -12 (Costa Rica's win came over China)
1998 – Jamaica 1-0-2 -3; Saudi Arabia 0-1-2 -5 (that win for Jamaica came over Japan; Jamaica is the smallest nation ever to win a World Cup match)

That's an overall record of CONCACAF 2-3-7 (-11 GD); AFC 0-2-10 (-33 GD).
We can also look at a comparison of the best teams in each Federation.

USA: 7-5-17 (-24 GD)
Mexico: 12-13-24 (-37 GD)

South Korea: 5-8-15 (-33 GD)
Japan: 54-24-24 (+125)

Only Japan stands out, and even they've proven fallible in recent cycles (loss to Jamaica in 1998, loss to Mexico in 2013 and 2005 Confed Cups, etc). Whenever they've run into CONCACAF's champion in recent Confed Cups, they've lost. The record shows that CONCACAF matches up quite well with the AFC, and has actually been superior in head-to-head competition. At worst, the two Confederations are even. You could easily argue that CONCACAF is superior from top to bottom.

Post: #40

Excelsior?

What are your hopes for the world cup? Is it to see the players with a Jamaican background do well?

Cardguy

PS I love your posts about Jamaican football. I really dig your enthusiasm. It is really interesting seeing you so passionate about a small nation like Jamaica. It gives a different perspective to the usual 'I hope we win the tournament - if we don't the manager should be sacked.'

Post: #41

(05-17-2014 03:10 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Excelsior?

What are your hopes for the world cup? Is it to see the players with a Jamaican background do well?

I'm highly conflicted. England's squad is almost a quarter Jamaican (Glen Johnson, Smalling, Sturridge, Sterling, Chamberlain) and I'm also actually English (my mother is from London), so it would make sense for me to spend this entire world cup just rooting for England.

On the other hand, I'm still pretty bitter about the fact that many of those English-Jamaicans in England's side are not playing for Jamaica. I understand perfectly the very rational reasons why they're not with Jamaica and why England has every right to them, but the disappointment is still there. This is particularly the case with Sterling and Sturridge, both of whom could realistically have represented us (they keep much closer ties to the island than the other diasporans). I mean, just look at this:




This man grew up idolizing Jamaican athletes. His mentor in the game just happens to be a person widely considered the best player in the history of Jamaica's national team. And now, despite being a full England international, he still takes the time to publicly honor his heritage and credit his success to those roots.

And then this:



He takes the success he and Sterling have had, switches to patois and credits it all to "yam and banana", as many a typical islander would do. It is all about the roots, and he knows it. They mean something to him. Jamaica matters.

That last picture is particularly poignant to me, as it contains two players who are certainly the best Jamaican footballers on the planet right now, both succeeding and enjoying the moment. Every time I see these two in an England kit or hear them mentioned as part of England's setup, I am reminded of the fact that neither of them will ever be able to help Jamaica. That still hurts a lot, especially when I consider how much they both love the country, how complicit Jamaica was in losing them (we took too long to get in touch with Sturridge, and didn't act quickly when a younger Sterling allegedly came to try out for our youth team years back) and how far they could have taken Jamaica (we'd be in Brazil right now had they joined us). I see them together in that picture and wonder what could have been, what could we be...

That being said, I've slowly been coming to terms with the unfortunate reality. I've gone through all of the stages of grief: denial (hoping against all odds that those two would still someday rep JA even as they both lit up the EPL this year and became certain England locks), anger (pissed off at England), and now, finally, acceptance.

With that done, my objectives for this World Cup are as follows:

1. Hope that all of England's Jamaicans play well and, by extension, help England do well. As painful as it is to see true Jamaicans who love Jamaica representing England, it would please me more to see my countrymen do well.

2. Hope that all of CONCACAF's representatives (Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras, and the USA) escape the group stages. The better these teams do at the tournament, the better the perception of North American football and, by extension, Caribbean football. That could lead to more World Cup berths for CONCACAF down the road (especially if the WC expands to 40 teams), which would be especially good for Jamaica.

That's basically it for me. My main focus right now is on Jamaica's upcoming international friendlies (3 this summer, starting May 26th). I'll watch the tournament after that and then look forward to September when we play Canada and begin gearing up for the Caribbean Cup in November.

Quote: I love your posts about Jamaican football. I really dig your enthusiasm. It is really interesting seeing you so passionate about a small nation like Jamaica. It gives a different perspective to the usual 'I hope we win the tournament - if we don't the manager should be sacked.'

"Wi likkle but wi tallawah"

Post: #42

Well I'll be supporting Australia, but they will get their arses slain. They've been drawn in a group with Spain, Germany and Chile and are currently going through a rebuilding phase... the only two remnants of their 2006 campaign when they reached the knockout phase are Tim Cahill and the aged Mark Schwarzer. The domestic league in Australia is going from strength to strength, but it will be interesting to see how their new coach Ange Postacoglu (sp?) handles the campaign. It won't be a question of winning games, but how many goals they can restrict losing by.

Post: #43

Football winners have little to do with luck.

If you check the FIFA world cup or the Champions League winners, you'll see a very small group of ever-repeating winners. This trend has accelerated the past 15 years. Sure, there's the freak winner like Uruguay in 1930 for FIFA or Porto in CL2004, but in general it's the big clubteams & the big countries who win. This time won't be different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifa_world_cup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League

I don't think Latin American countries will do well this time, even if the tournament is in Latin America, they've been on a downtrend in performance in recent tournaments. Brazil and Argentina didn't get past the QFs since 2002. Don't be misled by marketing babble. Last time, in South Africa, the experts said African countries would do well for that reason, they didn't even exit the group stages.

What matters is: raw amount of talent (depth), the top teams these players play at (quality) and form of these players (performance past year in prestigious leagues).
- If you look at that, we can say that Spain & Portugal have that going for them, but Portugal won't win it, because they lack depth compared to, say, Germany, Spain or Brazil.
- Spain has had, whatever people say, a phenomenal year. Three teams in semis CL, that's stellar form. Barca's decline doesn't matter here.
- Italy: worst years. in football. ever. I wouldn't rate them at all. Form is horrendous. Depth isn't that good either.
- Argentina have a mediocre squad with some extraterrestial stars, but lack depth & form.
- Germany almost never misses a SF spot, and they won't miss it this time either.
- Which leaves Brazil, they have depth, quality & form, so they'll go far, but they shouldn't meet a good, but not great team (like France or Portugal) early on.
- There'll be a surprise SF contender like Uruguay or South Korea, I'll be rooting for them.
- England, US, Belgium,... Sorry. No.

Post: #44

Marciano,
I agree with the premise of your post that its usually the same teams which have tradition are the ones winning the major tournaments. However, wanted to correct one thing:

Uruguay winning the World Cup in 1930 was anything but freaky. Between 1920 to 1950, they were dominating world football, had the best players and thus, the best team winning every international tournament they participated in during that time. They won the 1924 and 1928 Olympics football tournament which was the world championship by default as the World Cup as we know it, didn't exist yet. They didn't win in 1934 and 1938 as they didn't send a team to Europe for the tourney. But when the competition resumed after WWII in 1950, in Brasil, they created one of the all time biggest upsets in not just football but sports by winning it against all odds against a mighty Brasil team at the Maracana. Which is referred to in Brasil as the Maracanazo.

However, Greece winning the Euro in 2004 was a freakish event. Just like Porto that same year. I'm tempted to add Denmark winning the Euro in 1992, to that list. The Danes had failed to qualify behind Yugoslavia and were only notified to take part in the tournament just 2 weeks before the start of the competition. Since Yugoslavia was disqualified by Uefa for political reasons and the team that finished 2nd in their qualifying group, Denmark, was called to replace them just 2 weeks prior to the start of the tournament. I said tempted to include them on that list as despite not being a traditional power house, they did have some true world class players in their team. Unlike Greece.

Post: #45

(05-18-2014 02:58 AM)Vacancier Permanent Wrote:  Marciano,
I agree with the premise of your post that its usually the same teams which have tradition are the ones winning the major tournaments. However, wanted to correct one thing:

(...)

However, Greece winning the Euro in 2004 was a freakish event. Just like Porto that same year.

Well, OK, Greece as an example fits as well, that's what I was trying to point out. Every FIFA Worldcup you have this huge enthusiasm fueled by nationalist marketing, but the general trend is the same. The EC is also a smaller, shorter tournament. That matters a lot for the depth (amount of talented players) you can field later on in the tournament -- when the competition becomes exponentially harder -- bc of suspensions, fitness & injuries and ability to hold on to winning streak.

The consolidation of talent from world -> Europe also makes form for non-Europe countries (excepting Brazil) very hard. It's very hard for, say, a Nigerian squad to have 8+ players winning big prizes that year, even if they have the needed amount of talent. Form matters a lot. For a Spanish, Brazilian or German team that's possible, because their players are overrepresented among prestigious teams in Champions League. (UK fits that model as well, but don't field many English players; Italy could, but can't this time.)

Post: #46

(05-17-2014 01:30 PM)philly22 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:15 AM)SHANbangs Wrote:  Football is one of those sports where there is enough luck involved that "good but not great" teams actually have a viable chance to win the cup. I ALWAYS root for those good but not great teams: ivory coast, ghana, japan. Plus their jerseys are so much cooler.

These "good but not great" teams you speak of have a chance to get out of their group but very little chance to win the whole tournament. Historically the world cup champion has been an elite team. Only 8 countries have ever won with Brazil winning 5 times, Italy 4, Germany 3. And no champion has ever come from outside Europe or S America

Yes but I don't put much stock in "sports history" because 1) the sample size is so small and 2) the variables are not fixed. This is obviously true with any sport, but football - and especially world cup - exacerbates these two conditions. It's a four year event. A large portion of its history didn't include many of the modern national teams we have today. Each world cup will feature some very different players for any national team. Team programs, managers, training styles all change.

Even if we take a larger-sample sized sport like basketball - nobody puts much stock in the "historically this franchise wins majority x championships" argument. It's like saying the Lakers and Celtics should still dominate because they've won a combined 33 championships. All that means jack shit when you have jerry buss running show. Same with the clippers - all of their "shit show" history means shit when sterling is gone.

Post: #47

(05-18-2014 07:37 AM)SHANbangs Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 01:30 PM)philly22 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:15 AM)SHANbangs Wrote:  Football is one of those sports where there is enough luck involved that "good but not great" teams actually have a viable chance to win the cup. I ALWAYS root for those good but not great teams: ivory coast, ghana, japan. Plus their jerseys are so much cooler.

These "good but not great" teams you speak of have a chance to get out of their group but very little chance to win the whole tournament. Historically the world cup champion has been an elite team. Only 8 countries have ever won with Brazil winning 5 times, Italy 4, Germany 3. And no champion has ever come from outside Europe or S America

Yes but I don't put much stock in "sports history" because 1) the sample size is so small and 2) the variables are not fixed. This is obviously true with any sport, but football - and especially world cup - exacerbates these two conditions. It's a four year event. A large portion of its history didn't include many of the modern national teams we have today. Each world cup will feature some very different players for any national team. Team programs, managers, training styles all change.

Even if we take a larger-sample sized sport like basketball - nobody puts much stock in the "historically this franchise wins majority x championships" argument. It's like saying the Lakers and Celtics should still dominate because they've won a combined 33 championships. All that means jack shit when you have jerry buss running show. Same with the clippers - all of their "shit show" history means shit when sterling is gone.

I understand what you are saying - it is still a relatively small sample size.

With the NBA example due to the salary cap, draft lottery etc the best talent gets spread out. (although the stars due tend to collect on certain teams). Whereas Brazil gets to keep all its stars for their international team. Likewise, Spain keeps all its homegrown talent. They produce so many elite players compared to other nations it leads to so many deep runs in the WC when most countries have none. The talent disparity is so large in some matches with the stars of certain teams likely wouldn't make the squad on others.

I could possibly see a Japan or Ghana making a deep run. My money however has been placed on Brazil and Germany

Post: #48

I will roleplay as the English media; "England will win it, we deserve it!"

Reality; Knocked out in group stages or as far as quarters.

Post: #49

(05-18-2014 01:40 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  I will roleplay as the English media; "England will win it, we deserve it!"

Reality; Knocked out in group stages or as far as quarters.

I dont think that has been the attitude in England for a long time now.

Expectations for England in the major tournaments are fairly muted.

Post: #50

The FIFA world cup stats don't lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_ta..._World_Cup

Look at that table, it says it all. I only think France & Spain will switch places w/ Argentina & England long term.

Btw, England could be an easy contender if they'd add the top players of Wales, N-Ireland & Scotland to their squad & started giving youngsters a chance in their prestigious league.