***2014 Football World Cup*** Discussion Thread

didnt read this thread completely so maybe someone mentioned it but you'll likely hear the following 1,000+ times during the broadcasts: "a European team has never won a World Cup in South America (or Western Hemisphere).

This is the exact reason why I WILL be betting European and/or African teams in this tournament.

South America hasn't hosted since '78 when you practically had to take a boat to get there. I know Mexico & US hosted but don't let people fool you with this. Technology & money has made pre-tournament travel issues non-existent. Yes, Brazil has an advantage. Chile (who normally plays at extremely altitude) does not have any location advantage over France if you ask me. Argentina is getting low odds for this reason only. They haven't produce in a major tournament for years. I'd rather play Germany. See you in 2 months.

so you will be more than happy to wager on Algeria? Cameroon is pretty terrible as well, IC and Ghana are not good they are only known based on their name and past WC.

You don't wager just trends, you wager according to the current situation.
 
I agree that the whole European team never winning in SA will probably be over-hyped..But, I think Brazil and Argentina will have nice advantages over any of their opponents in the knockout rounds. To not think they will is basically saying you don't believe in HCA ( especially if said team is playing Brazil)
 
i think the thing to watch for would be if there are big over-reactions in the lines to Brazil and Argentina...They both have potential to roll through the group stages
 
have a hard time betting big handicaps in big competitions unless the level is absolutely different.
All these teams just want to get that W and move on, unless of course they have to score goals in order for the GD come into play.
 
so you will be more than happy to wager on Algeria? Cameroon is pretty terrible as well, IC and Ghana are not good they are only known based on their name and past WC.

You don't wager just trends, you wager according to the current situation.

Relax Mike. I think you understand what I'm getting at. I am actually looking to wager against the trend of europe/africa/asia not winning in south america based on the current situation that its 2014 and the travel impact isnt the same as 1986. And the way you talk about the African teams is likely why I'll look to get down money on some of them but I'm mostly looking to take a team like greece vs colombia. I felt this line is inflated by perceived homefield advqntage that doesn't really exist.
 
have a hard time betting big handicaps in big competitions unless the level is absolutely different.
All these teams just want to get that W and move on, unless of course they have to score goals in order for the GD come into play.

exactly why i love the WC (and March Madness/NFL playoffs)
 
From another football forum, stats from FIFA rankings....

CoaxtUo.png
 
[h=1]Rio chaos in countdown to kick-off[/h] [h=2]Gunfights and killings in shanty towns have escalated just weeks before the World Cup begins in Brazil[/h]
soldiers_2893781b.jpg
Brazilian soldiers keep watch in the occupied Complexo da Maré, one of the largest 'favela' complexes in Rio Photo: Getty









By Donna Bowater, Rio de Janeiro

7:00AM BST 27 Apr 2014

comments.gif
96 Comments


Ricardo Ferreira Mirapalheta can’t remember whether the bullet mark left on the window of a community centre was fired by a police officer or a gangster.

Nor does it matter. Since it happened, the scar of gunfire has spread like a fracture across the corrugated window, a constant reminder of the violence that has plagued Maré, one of Rio de Janeiro’s biggest favelas.

“There were children in here. Everyone just threw themselves on the ground,” he recalled.

Close to the international airport and home to 130,000 people, Maré is the welcome mat for visitors arriving in Rio de Janeiro, and the biggest target for authorities in the run-up to the World Cup in June.

rio-clashes-1_2893959c.jpg
[SUP]Police try to evict thousands of people who occupied an abandoned telecoms building to create a new favela, Telerj, in the north of the city (Gustavo Oliviera)[/SUP]

[h=2]Related Articles[/h]


After a recent escalation in violence, the authorities brought in the armed forces to try to control the rival drug gangs that dominate the area. Some 2,700 troops from the army and the navy have taken over from the state’s military police to try to secure the territory.
But in the three weeks since the army entered, tensions in Maré remain high — a sign that gangs here will not give in as easily as elsewhere.
So far, at least two people have died including a 67-year-old woman who was killed by a stray bullet, while troops reported an average of two attacks a day from criminals.
“There are two drug gangs and one militia. So it won’t be in two days, it won’t be in a year, that we bring peace quickly,” said Luiz Pezão, the new governor of Rio, after meeting with Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff.
Characterised by its chaotically-built red-brick shanty homes and illicit energy connections, Maré has been a strategic stronghold for Rio’s drug gangs for years, given its location near the airport and one of the main thoroughfares through the city.
In Timbau, where Mr Mirapalheta, 51, runs a music-based social project, the prevalent gang is the Terceiro Comando Puro, or the Pure Third Command.
But neighbouring communities are controlled by the biggest drug faction, the Comando Vermelho, or Red Command, and intense conflict between them has produced what locals describe as a war.
“The children I work with have all experienced violence: shootings, stray bullets, killings. It’s a culture they are used to,” said Mr Mirapalheta, a musician who has lived in Maré for 20 years.
rio-clashes-2_2893960c.jpg
[SUP](Gustavo Oliviera)[/SUP]
The authorities believe that criminals in Maré have been coordinating attacks in other favelas on the police who have been stationed there as part of the ongoing pacification programme. Since the start of the year, at least 16 officers have been killed.
With the World Cup less than 50 days away, and tens of thousands of fans due to pass Maré on their way to Ipanema and Copacabana, Rio’s surge in violence has unsettled the authorities and risked undermining the pioneering peacekeeping programme.
In the past week, conflict also erupted in a supposedly “pacified” favela near Copacabana, on the doorstep of Rio’s tourist district, after residents accused police of killing a popular television dancer and actor.
janeiro-flare-536_2889866c.jpg
[SUP]Brazilian Police Special Force members attempt to control the protesters (AFP/Getty Images)[/SUP]
Clashes spilt over onto the main road through the neighbourhood, forcing hotels to lock their doors while police partially closed roads, a tunnel and a nearby metro station.
“The pacification model, which only a few years ago enjoyed broad support from all sectors of society, has reached a stalemate,” said Verena Brähler, PhD research student at University College London and an expert on violence in Rio.
“The relative advances in security have not brought along improvements in learning and employment opportunities for the many young men and women in the favelas.
janeiro-riot-GHOST_2889832c.jpg
[SUP](Getty Images)[/SUP]
José Mariano Beltrame, Rio’s state security secretary, denied the football tournament was the only motivation for the operation said. “We will not do it because of the World Cup because the World Cup goes and Maré remains.”
But for those who live in Maré, there is a Brazilian saying that sums up their situation: many say that pacification is “para inglês ver” or “for the English to see” — and is simply cosmetic. Residents in other favelas where police have entered have said the same, with some declaring they preferred gang rule because it was, at least, consistent.
Critics of the pacification programme said that police operations in the heart of the city have only driven criminals to its suburbs and outskirts, which, invariably, has lead to more crime — at the start of the month, Scottish oil worker Peter Campsie was killed in an attempted carjacking in Niteroi, a city across the bay from Rio de Janeiro.
One community leader in Maré, who asked not to be identified, said: “The truth is there is no pacification. The police enter inside the favela and there’s still drug trafficking, nothing changes. It’s all for the tourists and the gringos, and it’s just because of the World Cup. It’s not going to change anything.”
Security remains among the foremost concerns ahead of the Fifa event, which starts on June 12. Brazil continues to have a high level of crime with a murder rate of 50,000 a year, according to the UN, making it more violent than Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Nicaragua, and accounting for almost a third of homicides in Latin America and the Caribbean.
And in Rio de Janeiro, where the England team and many of its fans will be based, crime has spiked in recent months despite a concerted effort to improve security, with street robberies increasing last year from 4,700 to almost 6,700.
The figures were a disappointing blow to the government’s pacification efforts. Since 2008, the police and state forces in Rio have been entering favelas in the south zone of the city to install pacifying police units inside communities that had been subjected to drug gang law.
The initiative had appeared to be successful. Before the programme began, the homicide rate was as high as 37.8 per 100,000 in 2007, which was reduced by half to 18.9 per 100,000 in 2012.
But in recent months, the programme has been challenged with attacks on police headquarters in some of the biggest, most problematic favelas including Complexo do Alemão and Complexo da Penha in the north of the city. Gunfights also returned to the Rocinha favela, the biggest in the city, over Christmas, closing a tunnel for hours as police tried to regain control.
Nevertheless, Ralf Mutschke, Fifa’s director of security, has said he is “confident” in Brazilian security forces — despite widespread public discontent in the country leading to violent clashes during last year’s football Confederations Cup in six Brazilian cities.
Around 150,000 police and troops will be deployed throughout the 12 host cities during the World Cup in a security operation costing £475 million. Another 20,000 private security staff will also be working inside the stadiums.
Brazil is under pressure to deliver a trouble-free event after the 2010 World Cup passed without major incident in South Africa, another country with high rates of violence. There were similar clean-up operations of homeless people in Cape Town in the run-up to that event. But back in Maré, cynicism endures as residents continue to live with the constant threat of conflict. While for Mr Mirapalheta, the countdown to the World Cup was not long enough to make real improvements.
“I’ve seen a lot of police operations. The number of deaths in Brazil is greater than in a war.”
 
86 was originally Columbia

Mexico took over when it was clear Columbia wasn't going to work

This is when FIFA fucked the USA over...if they had awarded us that 86 World Cup the NASL would have survived and then prospered and we would have never had a deadtime of no pro soccer league in the US. That set back the USMNT a decade and the NASL today would be a much stronger league than the MLS currently is.

I still fume whenever I am reminded that FIFA awarded fucking Mexico that WC.

in a connected note, the ESPN 30 for 30 The 2 Pablo's is outstanding and worth your time...amazing how much of an impact the narco dollars had/has on South American soccer.
 
Skimmed through some preview mags today at B&N and came away impressed with the Beckett preview mag of all of them. Ended up buying it and been perusing it the last few hours. It's not a huge magazine but has some solid information IMO
 
The first paragraph is classic. The second is pretty damning. Bottom line, if Brazil plays poorly Dilma Rousseff is toast. Probably toast anyway.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/593b0a12-d1fc-11e3-8ff4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30mze5r2Q



Brazil’s Olympian World Cup blues



Poor Dilma Rousseff. Brazil’s president projects the tedious aura of the efficiency of Angela Merkel, except with the delivery of the Marx brothers. Late preparations for the World Cup have already embarrassed the country, while those for the 2016 Olympic Games are “the worst” the international committee has ever seen. The economy is also in a slump. Brazil, once a market darling, has fallen out of investor favour. The country needs a credibility shock. If Ms Rousseff does not deliver it, October’s presidential elections will.

Her government faces three immediate challenges. The first is a corruption scandal at Petrobras. In 2006 the state-controlled oil company paid a total $1.3bn for a Texas refinery that had been bought by its seller for only $42.5m a year before. As Ms Rousseff was then chairwoman of Petrobras, the deal damages her supposed reputation as a savvy manager, competent to run the country.

The second is the growing risk of energy shortages. Brazil’s power grid essentially runs on hydropower, with more expensive fuel-fired turbines as back-up. The trouble is that a prolonged drought has drained many of Brazil’s reservoirs, even as government subsidised electricity has increased consumption. As a result, the grid is working at full capacity, but only thanks to the more expensive generators. Blackouts are a real risk. As Ms Rousseff is a former minister of energy, this further damages her image as a technocrat.

Neither of these problems has yet resonated much with the electorate. But the third one, the World Cup, which kicks off on June 12, surely could. Last year widespread disquiet over the high cost of the tournament, versus the shoddy state of public services, led to 1m-strong street riots (“We want Fifa-standard hospitals too,” was a common protest slogan). There is a high chance of more protests again – not enough, perhaps, to spoil what will surely be a splendid event, but it will still be seen worldwide by millions who will be watching the soccer on television.

It would be worse still for Ms Rousseff if the national team does badly. Brazilians might forgive the costs of the tournament if they win, but not if they fail to notch-up a respectable performance – reaching at least the semi-finals, say. Otherwise, the cost and disruptions of the matches will have been for nothing. And by mid-July, when the football ends, the election will be getting into full swing.
Investors and many Brazilians are becoming increasingly itchy about this state of affairs. Although Ms Rousseff is, for now, the favourite to win the October 5 election, even some in her own party have lobbied for former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to be their candidate instead of her. Ms Rousseff is renowned for talking rather than listening, yet there are signs that even she is taking the criticism on board.

Last week she raised social welfare payments and cut taxes to help goose the economy. Nice idea, except what Brazil needs are supply-side policies that boost efficiency, not more demand-led measures that boost already-high inflation. Against that, however, there is talk she might give the central bank formal independence in a second term (originally, an opposition idea). She may also recruit central bank chief Alexandre Tombini to replace Guido Mantega, her hapless finance minister. Both moves would be welcome.

Whether the Merkel-seeming but Marx brothers-delivering Ms Rousseff is indeed the right person to set Brazil back on track is another matter. After all, her first administration has been a disappointment. But at least there are signs that the country’s political markets are working as they should, by transmitting widespread and growing concerns. These are now starting to push the policy debate in an investor-friendly direction. That can only be a good thing.
 
I wonder if I'm the only one who doesn't really trust Portugal. They only seem to beat the teams that they are decidedly better than. I feel that when playing teams of equal ability or slightly superior skill and team work they can't be trusted to make critical stops and score clutch goals. I don't have the same database of knowledge that some of you have and I haven't seen their friendlies or recent form. Maybe they really are a contender and I'm just being unfair. My opinion is derived from watching them over the last decade plus in WC's and EC's, but little else, so maybe my sample size of viewership is too small. Germany will certainly advance from that group, no questions asked, but I wouldn't be surprised if either States or Ghana advanced along with the Germans. I will be looking for good opportunities to go against rather than go with the Portuguese. Just call it a prediction that in the middle of July we will look back at Portugal and CR and say there were at least a handful of teams that looked to be a lot better, even if they shouldn't have by all rights.
 
hard to imagine Utd had Tevez, Ronaldo and Rooney as the attack now they have Rooney RvP and someone other lad forgot the name
 
I wonder if I'm the only one who doesn't really trust Portugal. They only seem to beat the teams that they are decidedly better than. I feel that when playing teams of equal ability or slightly superior skill and team work they can't be trusted to make critical stops and score clutch goals. I don't have the same database of knowledge that some of you have and I haven't seen their friendlies or recent form. Maybe they really are a contender and I'm just being unfair. My opinion is derived from watching them over the last decade plus in WC's and EC's, but little else, so maybe my sample size of viewership is too small. Germany will certainly advance from that group, no questions asked, but I wouldn't be surprised if either States or Ghana advanced along with the Germans. I will be looking for good opportunities to go against rather than go with the Portuguese. Just call it a prediction that in the middle of July we will look back at Portugal and CR and say there were at least a handful of teams that looked to be a lot better, even if they shouldn't have by all rights.

doesn't hurt that they have the most recognizable player in the world scoring goals for them

(and why did this thread die all of a sudden?!?!)
 
doesn't hurt that they have the most recognizable player in the world scoring goals for them

(and why did this thread die all of a sudden?!?!)


It'll pick back up after the NCAA baseball tournament. Everyone's probably preoccupied with that right now
 
There was a tremendous piece in the racing post on Wednesday about the fate of the favourites and the fate of the outsiders in the betting for the group stage.
I searched for it online but it isnt there,Im going to get it on here somehow,very enlightening.
 
Giuseppe Rossi left off the Italian squad. This is good news indeed. This is why green made the right move, and Rossi is a moron.
 
There was a tremendous piece in the racing post on Wednesday about the fate of the favourites and the fate of the outsiders in the betting for the group stage.
I searched for it online but it isnt there,Im going to get it on here somehow,very enlightening.

Pinnacle is doing a Q&A starting tomorrow.

Also, some may find this interesting. Seems this guy is playing around with a PR





Thought it would be fun to play around with this for the upcoming World Cup. You regulars know this is not a sport I follow on a regular basis (though I do actually watch every World Cup game I can on the Spanish channel because ALL sports coverage ALL THE TIME should be like World Cup soccer on the Spanish channel!). I played around with early prices for the openers today…as well as odds to win the Cup. These are admittedly pedestrian early estimates. I’m hoping those of you who follow the sport closely will free to offer any guidance you can in the comments section or on twitter @JeffFogle.


My goal initially is to take a shot at getting accurate to within a tenth of a goal. So, if I have Brazil at 3.0, and the Netherlands at 2.5, then Brazil would show up as a favorite of -0.5 goals in the market. Probably not going to get that close. But, at least it’s a scale that fits the brain for how casual fans see soccer margins. Maybe, deeper into the event…and with guidance from world football sharps who read the blog, we can get there.


Here’s an initial estimate. Again, feel free to offer suggestions. Just remember that we’re trying to capture how THE MARKET is pricing teams. Don’t tell me if you think Chile is a darkhorse or something, or you think France is overrated by the media.Definitely let me know if you think I’m not capturing how the market is pricing those teams. We’re trying to build something that reflects market Power Ratings.


3.0: Brazil
2.8: Argentina
2.7: Germany, Spain
2.5: Netherlands, Belgium
2.4: France, Uruguay
2.3: Italy, Portugal, Columbia, England
2.2: Chile
2.0: Russia, Switzerland, Ecuador
1.8: Ghana, USA, Japan, Ivory Coast
1.7: Croatia, Greece, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nigeria, South Korea
1.6: Mexico
1.3: Costa Rica
1.2: Honduras, Cameroon, Algeria, Iran, Australia


Really guessing at the bottom. I’m hoping some sharps can help me out down there. And, the large hunk of teams at 1.7 to 1.8 was giving me some headaches. Also, you may think the scale is wrong…that Brazil should be more than 1.8 goals better than the dregs. If we start now…we may have something by first kickoff that pins things down really well. Would give us something to talk about through the summer, which will be fun to have in place as the NBA winds down.


Thanks in advance to anyone who provides assistance. See you late Wednesday night for numbers and notes from Heat/Pacers.
 
Giuseppe Rossi left off the Italian squad. This is good news indeed. This is why green made the right move, and Rossi is a moron.
Why is this good news? Feel bad for the dude, very talented a
player who will likely never get to taste a World Cup bc he got unlucky and got injured at the wrong time.
 
article from pinny

[h=1]Examining World Cup outright betting[/h][h=2]Is historical performance useful for predicting the World Cup winner?[/h]
world-cup-outrights-xl.jpg

By Mirio Mella May 21, 2014







[h=4]In the lead-up to the World Cup the discussion is focused on World Cup outright betting, and who’ll lift the trophy on July 13th. Given the tournament only takes place every four years, is historical performance useful for predicting the eventual winner? And if not, what is?[/h]For any bettor looking to predict the winner from the World Cup outright betting market, historical form would appear to be an obvious place to start. There have been 19 FIFA World Cups since the inaugural tournament in Uruguay in 1930, so analysing nations’ historical performances could be considered a reasonable way to arrive at a rough idea of their chances and match this against the World Cup outright betting market.
[TABLE="width: 665"]
[TR="class: red-header"]
[TH="align: center"]Year[/TH]
[TH="align: center"]Host[/TH]
[TH="align: center"]Host confederation[/TH]
[TH="align: center"]Winner[/TH]
[TH="align: center"]Winner confederation[/TH]
[TH="align: center"]Runner-up[/TH]
[TH="align: center"]No. of participants[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1930[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Uruguay[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Uruguay[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Argentina[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1934[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Italy[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Italy[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Czechoslovakia[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1938[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]France[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Italy[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Hungary[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1950[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Brazil[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Uruguay[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Brazil[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1954[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Switzerland[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]W. Germany[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Hungary[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1958[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Sweden[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Brazil[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Sweden[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1962[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Chile[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Brazil[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Czechoslovakia[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1966[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]England[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]England[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]W. Germany[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1970[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Mexico[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Brazil[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Italy[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1974[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]W. Germany[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]W. Germany[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Netherlands[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1978[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Argentina[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Argentina[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Netherlands[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1982[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Spain[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Italy[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]W. Germany[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1986[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Mexico[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Argentina[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]W. Germany[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1990[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Italy[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]W. Germany[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Argentina[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1994[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]United States[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONCACAF[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Brazil[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Italy[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]1998[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]France[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]France[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Brazil[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]2002[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]South Korea & Japan[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]AFC[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Brazil[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CONMEBOL[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Germany[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]2006[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Germany[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Italy[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]France[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]2010[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]South Africa[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]CAF[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Spain[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]UEFA[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]Netherlands[/TD]
[TD="class: centre-data, align: center"]32[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Continental shift
With the majority of World Cup winners (including the first five) coming from the host Confederation(table 1) there seems to be good grounds for focusing on this relationship when predicting the 2014 winner. However, detailed analysis of the evolution of the tournaments shows thatthis should come as no surprise. Take the first tournament in 1930, hosted and won by Uruguay. Only four of the 13 competing teams were from Europe, the reason being that it took them three weeks to make the Trans-Atlantic journey.
Aside from there being more South American teams, the implications on performances for the travelling Europeans would have been significant – not much chance of training on board a ship – compounded by the fact that few European players would have had any experience playing overseas.
Travel remained a key issue at the 1934 & 1938 events in Italy and France, which respectively saw only 4/16 and 3/16 nations represented from outside Europe. Both tournaments started in the knockout stage, giving teams no chance to settle into the event. The Italians won both.
Even by 1950, holders Italy travelled by boat to Brazil, where many teams withdraw due to financial constraints, or the difficulties of travel.
Even by 1950, holders Italy travelled by boat to Brazil, where many teams withdraw due to financial constraints, or the difficulties of travel. Only 13 teams participated (one Group had only two teams), and India, instructed that they couldn’t play in bare feet, withdrew. It is clear few countries participated on merit. The final saw Uruguay defeat Brazil.
[h=3]Home Continent Advantage[/h]In these early World Cups, the skewing of participation towards home continent teams, the serious challenges of travel and the haphazard nature of qualification, all contributed to Home Field Advantage.
Though the difficulty of getting to World Cups receded as air travel became more prevalent, HFA was still a significant issue up to the era of the modern format (considered to be 1986). Very few players were based overseas, and tournament organisation remained amateurish by modern standards. The hosts won in 1966, 1974 and 1978.
In the modern game HFA has been widely researched, with studies such as Harvard’s Research Assistant Ryan Boyko who suggesting a 0.1 goal advantage for every 10,000 fans present. It is believed HFA provides an influence on refereeing decisions and psychological benefits to home players.
Beyond the influence of these universal HFA measures, World Cups have seen inferred examples of bias, particularly in 1974*and 1978**, as well as explicit imbalances. In both 1978 & 1982, final group games weren’t played in parallel, leading to the infamous ‘Schande von Gijón’ – ‘the Disgrace of Gijon’ – where West Germany and Austria openly contrived a 1-0 result which saw both progress to the second round of the ’82 event, at the expense of Algeria.
Given that since 1978 the host has won just one of the eight tournaments held, we might infer that the game has become more global, organisation more professional and scrutiny has increased. For example, the rules changed following the open collusion in Spain, ensuring that all final group games were played in tangent.
Equally important is the fact that the choosing of hosts had become more political and moved away from established nations. Only two of the last eight hosts had previously reached a final.
[h=3]Power Shifts & UEFA/CONMEBOL Bias[/h]The relationship between hosting continent and eventual winner was first broken in 1958 when Brazil and a teenage Pele won in Sweden. This was the dawn of the Golden era of Brazilian soccer, with the national team winning again in 1962 in Chile and 1970 in Mexico. The success of the Selecao illustrates another key factor for bettors to consider when predicting World Cup winners – power shifts.
In 1977 Pele made a now infamous prediction – ‘an African nation will win the World Cup before the year 2000’. Though Pele’s playing ability didn’t qualify him as a pundit, the failure of his prediction is relevant as it underestimated the enduring strength of Euro-South American axis of power in soccer.
FIFA places more value on games featuring European and South American teams than otherwise. This explains why only three teams from outside Europe and South America are ranked in FIFA’s top 30 – the USA, the Ivory Coast and Ghana. If all continents were treated equally, then in theory the Ivory Coast and the USA would be seeds for the World Cup, impacting their chances of success.
Though the power of Europe and South America has withstood, there have been significant power shifts within that duopoly. This was seen at France 1998 and South Africa 2010, with two first time winners – France & Spain – going on to win European Championships.
The power dynamics of soccer reflect its geographic origins, and other random factors that have influenced its adoption around the world (e.g. English public schools in Argentina). There isn’t a direct relationship, for example, between population size and success, but socio-economic factors are relevant to improvement at grass roots, as well as influencing migration, but these factors are relevant over decades not years.
Changes to the landscape of international soccer are easy to divine in retrospect, but Spain had flattered to deceive on many occasions before winning in 2010 – burning many bettors in the process – while the French went into the 1998 event 18th in the FIFA World rankings.
[h=3]Luck – The best laid predictions[/h]Brazil’s trio of wins from 1958-70 was interrupted by England’s solitary victory in 1966. The Canaries failure highlights another key factor that World Cup bettors must consider – luck.
Pinnacle Sports has previously written about how success=skill + luck. In a sport where luck plays a part, and in the context of a short format event, it should come as no surprise that the winner may not necessarily be the most talented team, or even the team that has played the best football.
Every modern tournament begins with a qualifying tournament, the basis for which is a random draw, then the finals themselves are preceded by the glamour and often confusion of the draw (again random), where national coaches nervously wait to see what hand fate will deal them.
Any bettors who bet on the World Cup before the draw would have been equally nervous as this random process has a significant impact as witnessed by the drift in Spain’s outright odds since being drawn in a tough Group B which could see them meet Brazil as early as the 2nd round.
The difference between the longest and shortest distance travelled in the Group stage is 3,047 miles
Once the tournament is underway fate can lurk in many places, not just the pitch.
At the 1950 World Cup in Brazil venues were mainly in the milder south east. Fast-forward to 2014 and the north east – with ferocious heat in June – will stage a third of the World Cup, with 24 matches kicking off at 13:00 local time to satisfy European TV audiences. To put this into perspective, domestic Brazilian games avoid that time of the day because of the intense heat, so those teams at the 2014 World Cup drawn to play in the North East, are at a significant disadvantage even more so those teams toiling in the unbearable heat of early kick-offs.
Conditions will be akin to Mexico in 1986 where England’s Gary Lineker reported losing more than half a stone (in excess of 3 kg) per game. The impact of conditions on the day, and the drain on energy levels later in the tournament, cannot be overstated.
The team bases are scouted many months in advance to try to ensure the best environment, but the draw in Brazil has put thousands of miles between base camps and game venues – the difference between the longest and shortest distance travelled in the Group stage is 3,047 miles. Even when preparations go smoothly it doesn’t mean that this will translate to success on the pitch.
Up to the 1966 World Cup Garrincha & Pele had played 40 international games together without defeat. In their opening 2-0 win over Bulgaria at the tournament in England they both scored, but Pele picked up an injury after being targeted by the Bulgarians, which meant he missed the game against Hungary and they lost 3-1, then the unthinkable happened as Brazil – without Garrincha – lost to Portugal, and were eliminated; their worst performance at a World Cup.
The pair would never play together again; what would have happened if Pele and Garrincha had avoided injury? We will never know, but this kind of circumstance and countless other unforeseeable events in other World Cup tournaments will have had huge bearings on the outcomes.
What constitutes luck is hard to define; poor refereeing decisions are a good example. HFA suggests that the referee is influenced by home support, which could account towards South Korea’s unlikely passage to the last four in 2002. However most games at the World Cup do not involve the host, so infamous episodes such as ‘the Hand of God’ (1986 quarter-final); the Schumacher/Battiston***incident (1982 semi-final) or the mystery surrounding Ronaldo shortly before the final in Paris (1998) were all extremely important, but impossible to predict.
Luck operates on another level by for example bringing together an unusual concentration of talented players within a generation, which could be said of the current Belgian side.
[h=3]Unpredictability – Strange things will happen[/h]Sometimes, luck isn’t the issue but sheer unpredictability. Who would have predicted that a 38-year-old African (Roger Millar) would be a hero at the 1990 World Cup, or that a largely unknown Italian striker, Toto Schillaci would top-score for the hosts. In 1994 the Golden Boot was won by a Russian who’s six goals were his only ever at international level, with five in one game against Cameroon. (Read more about betting on the Golden Boot winner here)
It is now clear that there were huge differences across the previous 19 World Cups in terms of participation, format, regulation, biases and luck but outside of these tournament specific elements, the socio-economic and political context were also entirely different which is very relevant.
[h=3]World Cup comparability – Out of Sample[/h]The challenge of making predictions where a large number of important contributing factors and variables persist, but there is a comparatively small sample size, is known as being ‘out of sample’. The World Cup provides a potent example of this.
With such difficulties in the data bettors should instead focus on a probabilistic approach to picking a World Cup winner
Given the difficulty in direct comparison against previous World Cups and the role that luck and wider context play, any tipsters who proclaim certainty about predicting winners should be treated with caution. With such difficulties in the data bettors should instead focus on a probabilistic approach to picking a World Cup winner, employing something like aBayesian method, and seeking value in odds, rather than trying to draw clear conclusions based on historical tournament trends.
[h=3]Things to consider:[/h]
  • Given the format of the tournament has been consistent since 1986, barriers to travel removed and soccer become more globalised, results since then should be given far more weight. For example Uruguay’s World Cup wins in 1930 & 1950 are less relevant than their 2010 Copa America success.

  • Early tournaments provided extreme HFA but this has waned in modern times.HFA will play some role but so will luck and unpredictability– since 1978 the host has won just once.

  • Though Pele was wrong with his prediction about an African Nation winning by 2000, past success doesn’t guarantee future success; the same teams won’t keep winning but power dynamics within World soccer change relatively slowly, and are the result of a multitude of factors, some entirely outside of the game.

  • Fifa’s Ranking system is inherently biased toward CONMEBOL and UEFA which in turn influences the seeding for the tournament and chances of progression.

  • Pay close attention to those teams playing in the North East, especially early kick-offs.
Click here to see the latest 2014 World Cup outright winner odds.
Notes
*In the run-up to the 1974 World Cup final between Germany and The Netherlands, German tabloid Bild were involved in a “setup”. After bribing security guards the paper paid for a group of escorts – in various states of undress – to jump into the pool the Dutch team were relaxing by as paparazzi lay in wait. As the story circulated, Cruyff’s wife was furious and the star spent the night convincing her that nothing happened. The damage was done however, and Germany won 2-1.
**Controversy surrounded the 1978 World Cup. None more so than the second round game between Argentina and Peru. The hosts needed to win by four goals to proceed to the final and did so by 6-0.Conspiracy theorems ranged from interference from the Argentine military dictatorship, to the Peruvian goalkeeper – who was born in Argentina – throwing the game. Argentina went on to win the World Cup, while no conspiracies were ever proved.
*** Battiston was knocked unconscious, and later slipped into a coma. Michel Platini later said that he thought that Battiston had died, because “he had no pulse and looked pale”. The Dutch referee Charles Corver did not even award a free kick for the incide
 
Wanted to offer I'll take Brazil and Argentina and you can have the field even money....anyone interested let me know.
 
I cant find that specific prop at 5 dimes, but I do see Uefa team to win at even, which is essentially the same bet
 
Wanted to offer I'll take Brazil and Argentina and you can have the field even money....anyone interested let me know.

Braves with my offer you also get Uruguay, Columbia, and Chile so that is better than just UEFA...those are 3 of the top 12 teams in the Cup.

Arturo Vidal also a go for Chile and that is big.
 
I get what you are saying, but none of those other South American teams are winning the World Cup

I'm not interested I just wanted to point out that the offer was priced fairly in case someone else is
 
I get what you are saying, but none of those other South American teams are winning the World Cup

I'm not interested I just wanted to point out that the offer was priced fairly in case someone else is

:shake: though I think your selling Uruguay a little short if Suarez is healthy by time the knockout round starts.
 
The PTI should stop talking about soccer yesterday. Wilbon already wants Klinsmann OUT
 
Across all general public sales phases on FIFA.com including the sale of the participating teams’ quotas, 1.5 million tickets have been allocated to supporters to date: 57% to Brazilians and 43% to international fans. Brazil remains the nationality with the most assigned tickets (906,433 allocated tickets so far), followed by the USA (125,465) and Colombia (60,231). Germany (55,666), Argentina (53,809), England (51,222), Australia (40,446), France (34,971), Chile (32,189) and Mexico (30,238) complete the list of top ten nations with the most ticket allocations. In total, through all sales channels including the hospitality programme and other constituent groups, 2.3 million tickets have been assigned.
 
I found this an interesting read from Nate Silver










WORLD CUP 2:09 PM JUN 9, 2014
[h=1]It’s Brazil’s World Cup to Lose[/h]By NATE SILVER

Looking for a World Cup favorite? All you really need to know is this: The World Cup gets underway Thursday in Sao Paulo, and it’s really hard to beat Brazil in Brazil.
Today we’re launching an interactive that calculates every team’s chances of advancing past the group stage and eventually winning the tournament. The forecasts are based on the Soccer Power Index (SPI), an algorithm I developed in conjunction with ESPN in 2010. SPI has Brazil as the heavy favorite, with a 45 percent chance of winning the World Cup, well ahead of Argentina (13 percent), Germany (11 percent) and Spain (8 percent).[SUP]1[/SUP]
Here’s where I’d insert the punchline about how you didn’t need a computer to tell you that Brazil is the favorite. But some of you apparently did.
True, Brazil is the betting favorite to win the World Cup — but perhaps not by as wide a margin as it should be. The team’s price at the betting market Betfair as of early Sunday evening implied that it has about a 23 percent chance of winning the World Cup[SUP]2[/SUP] — only a little better than Argentina (19 percent), Germany (13 percent) and Spain (13 percent).
silver-feature-wcpreview-1.png

Argentina, Germany and Spain, like Brazil, are wonderful soccer teams. You could perhaps debate which of the four would be favored if the World Cup were played on a hastily constructed soccer pitch somewhere in the middle of the desert.
But this World Cup is being played in Brazil. No country has beaten Brazil on its home turf in almost 12 years. Brazil’s last loss at home came in a friendlyon Aug. 21, 2002. That game against Paraguay, incidentally, is one the Brazilians may not have been particularly interested in winning. Brazil had won the World Cup in Japan earlier that summer; the Paraguay match was the team’s homecoming. Although Brazil started most of its regulars, by midway through the game it substituted out almost all of its stars.
To a find a loss at home in a match that mattered to Brazil — in a World Cup qualifier, or as part of some other tournament — you have to go back to 1975, when Brazil lost the first leg of the Copa América semifinal to Peru. None of the players on Brazil’s current World Cup roster was alive at the time.
It may be that the impact of home-field advantage is gradually declining in international soccer. Travel conditions are somewhat better than they were a few decades ago — provided you’re not flying coach, which international soccer stars normally aren’t. Meanwhile, the rise of the international transfer market means that those stars may be playing far from home to begin with. Of the 23 men coach Luiz Felipe Scolari selected for the Brazilian team, all but five play for club teams in Europe. (It’s hard to know for sure, but one imagines that if Pelé were playing today, it might be for Real Madrid or Bayern Munich — not Santos.)
Even so, home-field advantage is large in soccer as compared with other sports — especially in transcontinental competition, where travel distances are longer. In World Cups since 1990, a period that includes several hosted by countries that didn’t have winning soccer traditions, home teams have a record of 27 wins, six draws, and six defeats.[SUP]3[/SUP] SPI’s estimates of home-field advantage are based on more recent data still — games from late 2006 onward.
But Brazil’s edge is not based solely on home-field advantage.
The challenge of rating international soccer teams
Suppose we insist on a purist’s approach to rating the teams. First, we look only at relatively recent matches (those since the completion of the previous World Cup in South Africa). Second, we look only at important games, excluding all friendlies. Third, we pay no attention to the scoring margin — wins, losses and draws are all that matter. And fourth, we look only at games against top-flight competition — specifically against other teams that qualified for this year’s World Cup. Each team’s record in such games is as follows[SUP]4[/SUP]:
silver-feature-wcpreview-1-table1.png

Our first problem comes with the small sample sizes. Brazil and Germany have played just six of these games in the almost four years since South Africa, for example. But it gets a lot worse. England has played only four. The Netherlands has played only two. Cameroon and Ghana haven’t played any at all. This isn’t a completely useless list. In fact, Brazil, Argentina, Spain and Germany emerge as a reasonably clear top four.
The other big problem is that almost all of this play occurred within continents, such as for continental championships and in World Cup qualifying matches. (The Confederations Cup, held in Brazil last year and dominated by the home team, was the major exception.) The United States’ record of five wins, three losses and one draw looks relatively promising, for instance. But all those games were played against the three other North American teams who qualified: Mexico, Honduras and Costa Rica. It’s pretty well established that the U.S. usually gets the better of Costa Rica and Honduras, and can hold its own against Mexico. That doesn’t say much about whether the U.S. can beat Germany, Ghana or Portugal.
There simply isn’t much information about how particular national soccer teams play against one another when they have the most on the line, especially in games involving teams from different continents. That’s why they play the World Cup, of course. But that isn’t very helpful in trying to anticipate the tournament’s outcome.
A quick introduction to SPI
I designed SPI to address some of these problems. SPI is a little complex as compared with something like our NCAA basketball projection model. Complexity isn’t necessarily a good thing when it comes to a forecasting model. Among other problems, more complex models may require more computational power (SPI takes a long time to run) and more time to prepare and clean data (SPI requires us to link players between club and international competition, not so easy given the state of soccer data). Also, more complex models may be less transparent and harder to explain. There’s something to be said for a simple model that you know to be flawed, so long as you can point out when and where those flaws are likely to occur.
With that said, we’ve been reasonably pleased with SPI’s results in 2010 and since, and it’s less complex in principle than in practice. The principles behind it are as follows:

  • It’s predictive, rather than retrospective. It’s not trying to reward teams for good play — it’s trying to guess who would win in a match played tomorrow.
  • It weights matches on a varying scale of importance based on the composition of lineups. Sometimes even friendly matches are taken quite seriously, such as if a team is playing against a historic rival, or if it badly needs a tune-up before an upcoming tournament. Sometimes even tournament matches are blown off if a team has already clinched its position. Where there is sufficient data to do so, SPI evaluates whether a team has its best lineup in the game by comparing it against the lineups used in the most important matches. We’d know that Brazil wasn’t taking its 2002 friendly against Paraguay all that seriously, for instance, because it pulled all the players who helped it win the World Cup just months earlier.
  • It assigns both offensive and defensive ratings to teams (as some basketball-rating systems like Ken Pomeroy’s do). The offensive and defensive ratings are meant to reflect how many goals a team would score and allow if it played an average international team.[SUP]5[/SUP] A lower defensive rating is therefore better, while a high offensive rating is good. Soccer is a fluid sport, so offense and defense aren’t easy to separate. Nevertheless, there are some useful reasons to handle things in this way. In particular, we’ve found that SPI defensive ratings have a little more predictive power than offensive ratings in games against elite competition, like most of those matches that will be played in the World Cup. This may reflect the fact that high offensive ratings can result from running up the score against inferior competition. (Among the “big four” teams this year, Germany is notable for having a prolific offense but a back line that sometimes concedes soft goals.)
  • Finally, in addition to rating national teams, SPI uses data from major international club leagues (England, Spain, Germany, Italy and, newly this year, France) and competitions (like the Champions League and the Europa League) to rate their players. This works by assigning a plus-minus rating to each player on the pitch for a given match (see here for much more detail). The plus-minus system isn’t that advanced because the data isn’t either — we basically have to make a lot of inferences from goals, bookings and starting lineups and substitutions. Still, merely knowing that a player is in the starting lineup for FC Barcelona or Chelsea tells you a fair amount about him.
Technically speaking, SPI is two rating systems rolled into one: one based solely on a national team’s play, and one that reflects a composite of player ratings for what SPI projects to be a team’s top lineup. Usually the two components are strongly correlated with one another. But there are some minor exceptions. The United States, for instance, would rank something like 15th in the world based solely on our national team’s play, but SPI has us a little lower because American players aren’t accomplishing much in Europe. The contrast would be a team like France — its national team results have been inconsistent, but it always has a lot of talent, which may or may not come together.
A tiny bit more housekeeping about SPI and the interactive: First, in addition to an offensive and defensive rating, each team also has an overall SPI rating (for instance, 89.1 for Spain). This reflects what percentage of the possible points a team would accumulate[SUP]6[/SUP] if it played a round-robin against every other national team.
This definition is fairly obscure; the more interesting question is about a team’s chances against the others it will actually face in Brazil. These are also listed in the interactive: For instance, the United States has a 38 percent chance of beating Ghana and a 29 percent chance of drawing with it. We’ll be updating the numbers at the conclusion of each match.[SUP]7[/SUP]
There’s a lot more detail available on SPI here and here. The main improvement in the model since 2010 is that Alok Pattani and his colleagues at ESPN Stats & Info have put a lot more work into using SPI to predict the results of individual matches, and particularly the distribution of possible final scores. These match projections are calibrated based on the historical results that most resemble the World Cup, i.e. competitive (non-friendly) matches between the top 100 SPI teams. They use something called a diagonal inflated bivariate Poisson regression to estimate the distribution of possible outcomes. The fancy math is necessary because goals scored and goals allowed are used as tiebreakers in qualifying out of World Cup groups, so knowing the chance of a 1-0 win compared to a 2-1 win or a 2-0 win is sometimes important.
Travel distance and South America vs. Europe
We also put a lot of research into evaluating whether travel distance matters (above and beyond home-field advantage). Is it important, for instance, that Uruguay is traveling much less far to Brazil than Russia or Japan is?
Our findings were a bit ambiguous. We found, first of all, that east-west distance traveled matters much more than north-south distance. In other words, any geographic advantage may reflect the avoidance of jet lag rather than the mere fact of being close to home. However, we also found that while the travel effect was reasonably significant when evaluated based on all World Cup matches dating back to 1952, it’s been much less significant in competitive matches taken from the era for which SPI has highly detailed data (from late 2006 onward).
This may be for the reasons I described above — international travel has probably improved, and the notion of a home country is a little different in a period when most of the best players for Brazil or Argentina now play in Europe anyway. We had a lot of debate about whether to include a “strong” adjustment for east-west distance traveled (one calibrated based on data from 1952 onward), a “weak” adjustment (one based on the much weaker signal from 2006 onward) or not to include it at all, and wound up going with the weak adjustment. The weak adjustment makes little difference — it might reduce the advancement odds for a team like Japan by a couple of percentage points, for instance, but not more than that.
You’ll notice that SPI is nevertheless favorably disposed toward the South American teams. It’s not just Brazil — SPI is also slightly higher on teams like Chile, Uruguay and Colombia than other systems are. (The same was true in 2010, when Uruguay and Chile were good bets against the prevailing odds, according to the system.)
The South American teams to qualify for this year’s World Cup have compiled 16 wins, 11 losses and 14 draws against European qualifiers in games played since the completion of the last World Cup. All those matches except those in the Confederations Cup were friendlies, so they may not be that informative. Nevertheless, SPI is placing a big bet on the notion that the level of competition between national teams in South America is at least the equal of and perhaps slightly superior to the level of competition between national teams in Europe. Historically at least, the odds have been somewhat in South America’s favor when games are played in this hemisphere. In World Cups in the Americas since 1950, South American teams have 39 wins, 21 losses and 15 draws in games played against teams from Europe.[SUP]8[/SUP] Indeed, no European team has ever won a World Cup played in the Americas.
[h=3]A WHIRLWIND TOUR OF THE EIGHT GROUPS[/h]On the off chance that your eyes didn’t glaze over after “diagonal inflated bivariate Poisson regression,” here’s how SPI sees the groups — and the United States’ chance of advancing.
Group A: Brazil, Cameroon, Croatia, Mexico
There’s little doubt that Brazil is the class of the group — SPI gives the team a 99.3 percent chance of advancing to the knockout stage — and that Cameroon is the weakest link. Just how weak is an open question given Cameroon’s lack of competitive matches against top-flight teams and athreatened boycott over how much its athletes will be paid. But most likely the second knockout slot will go to Mexico or Croatia.
SPI is not fond of either team. It sees Croatia as having the slightly better player talent but Mexico as playing a little better as a unit — despite its struggle to qualify for the World Cup at all. It’s worth mentioning that Mexico’s international record is not so bad outside of this cycle’s World Cup qualification — it dominated the 2011 Gold Cup, for instance.
Part of this is about how much to weigh a longer history of results against more recent ones. The SPI view is that a team’s form can vary a lot from competition to competition but not necessarily in a predictable way, and that you should generally err on the side of the team with the better long-term history. Either way, Brazil (and SPI) would really have to blow it to not pass through the group stage with relative ease.
Group B: Australia, Chile, Netherlands, Spain
This group — not the one the United States is in — is the “Group of Death,” with three teams ranked in the SPI top 10. That’s unfortunate for Australia, which is the odd team out and has less chance than any other squad of advancing to the knockout stage, according to SPI.
Instead the questions are, first, whether the Netherlands or Chile is superior, and second, whether both might be strong enough to deny Spain a place in the knockout stage.
SPI’s answer to the first question is Chile — but both teams are hard to rate. Chile has been prone to playing well against weaker competition but not so well against the world’s elite; that could be a sample-size fluke or it could be something real. The Netherlands, meanwhile, played quite miserably in Euro 2012 after advancing to the World Cup final in 2010. That could also be a fluke, but the team is aging, as Robin Van Persie, Wesley Sneijder and Arjen Robben each recently celebrated their 30th birthdays.
Put it like that, and Spain seems safe. But SPI estimates there’s a 20 percent chance that both the Netherlands and Chile play up to the higher end of the range, or they get a lucky bounce, or Australia pulls off a miracle, and Spain fails to advance despite wholly deserving to.
Group C: Colombia, Greece, Ivory Coast, Japan
This is one of the weaker groups and sets up nicely for Colombia, which has plenty to recommend it despite playing in its first World Cup since 1998. In contrast to Chile, Colombia has held up reasonably well against the world’s elite: a draw against the Netherlands in the Netherlands and against Argentina in Argentina; a win against Belgium in Belgium. The team also has some questionable results, however, like draws in friendlies against Senegal and Tunisia.
But who can challenge Colombia? Greece is just the sort of team that SPI usually isn’t keen on: a mid-tier European squad that lacks elite talent. However, the alternatives are Japan and Ivory Coast, and this does not look like a promising year for teams outside of Europe and South America, who collectively have just a 2.2 percent chance of winning the World Cup. Japan also has as far to travel as any team in the field and is indeed nearly antipodalto Brazil. The better bet is probably Ivory Coast, which is well ahead of both Japan and Greece in the player-ranking component of SPI, but whose captain, Didier Drogba, is now 36 years old. It’s a flawed group of opponents, although Colombia has sometimes lost or drawn against flawed opponents.
Group D: Costa Rica, England, Italy, Uruguay
Betting markets see England, Italy and Uruguay as about equally likely to advance while Costa Rica is in a distant fourth place. SPI, by contrast, has England and Uruguay ahead of Italy and views the group as middling enough that Costa Rica could pull off a huge upset.
Both England and Italy rank more highly according to the player-rating component of SPI than based on their play as national teams. This is a common state of affairs for England but less so for Italy, which rarely has among the best offenses in the world but which has normally played more consistent defense. Instead, Italy conceded 10 goals in five matches in the Confederations Cup last year.
It also might not matter much in the end. England, Italy and Uruguay are the sort of teams that might be able to entertain championship dreams in a World Cup with more parity, but not in one where they would have to overcome Brazil, Argentina, Germany or Spain at some point.
Group E: Ecuador, France, Honduras, Switzerland
SPI is bearish on most European teams as compared to the consensus. France is one of the closer things to an exception: SPI has it as the seventh-best team in the world, whereas it ranks 12th in the Elo ratings and 17th according to FIFA. (As a side note, the Elo ratings are perfectly reasonable whereas the FIFA ratings are not. FIFA ranked Brazil as just the 22nd-best team in the world a year ago — it has since climbed to third — a proposition about as ridiculous as hoping to host a World Cup in Qatar.) The reason is the player-rating side of SPI. France has arguably as much player talent as any team but Brazil, Germany, Spain or Argentina — but its national team results have been inconsistent for a long while.
But France is drawn into a reasonably good group. Switzerland, for some reason, ranks sixth in the world in the FIFA rankings but Elo has it 16th and we have it 21st. Ecuador, which has some credible results against European teams (a draw last month in the Netherlands; a win last year against Portugal) might be the tougher out.
Group F: Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Nigeria
It would be a major upset if Argentina failed to advance to the knockout stage — SPI gives the team a 93 percent chance of doing so, the second-highest total in the field after Brazil. SPI also has Argentina as the second-best team in the world, so that’s no huge surprise, but it has an easier draw than Germany or Spain.
Still, Bosnia-Herzegovina, playing in its first World Cup under that flag, is the 13th-best team in the world according to SPI. It’s also one of the most offense-minded teams in the field and not one that will allow opponents to play it safe. For that reason, the first match of the group — between Argentina and Bosnia-Herzegovina on Sunday — could dictate how the rest of the group plays out. Even a loss, however, probably wouldn’t prevent Argentina and Lionel Messi from advancing.
Group G: Germany, Ghana, Portugal, United States
American coach Jurgen Klinsmann is the anti-Joe Namath: He made news by predicting that the United States wouldn’t win the World Cup, and suggested that the team’s goal instead was to advance to the knockout stage.
Statistically speaking, Klinsmann’s assessment is prudent. The U.S., according to SPI, has a 36 percent chance of advancing through Group G, but only a 0.4 percent probability (about 1 chance in 250) of coming home with the World Cup trophy.
Every now and then teams defy the odds. The Villanova Wildcats had perhaps only a 1-in-800 chance of winning the NCAA men’s basketball tournament in 1985 based on their play up to that point, and they won. Still, in such a top-heavy World Cup — one where teams like England and Italy are stretching to entertain championship dreams — this probably isn’t the tournament for Cinderella stories.
And yet, there may be ever so slightly more pessimism than there ought to be about Klinsmann’s lesser goal of leading the U.S. to the knockout stage. The 36 percent chance SPI gives the United States isn’t great — and it’s fallen some since the World Cup draw was announced in December. But it’s a little higher than the prevailing betting odds, which put the Americans’ chances at about 26 percent.
It’s not that SPI takes an especially optimistic view of the U.S. team. The player-rating component of the system hurts it, as I mentioned. While Klinsmann has somewhat deliberately tried to steer the roster toward players who are seeking to gain experience in Europe — and not in MLS — there’s a big difference between playing for Stoke City or Sunderland versus Arsenal or Man U.
However, there may be a bit of irrational fear around Ghana. The African teams did little to distinguish themselves in the 2010 World Cup despite a wonderful opportunity in South Africa. They’re hard to peg because they don’t play competitive matches against the rest of the world all that often, but SPI does not have them on the rise this year.
Portugal? SPI is more down on the Team of Five than it seems it should be. In SPI’s defense, Portugal was a little underwhelming in World Cup qualifying, drawing twice with Israel and once with Northern Ireland. And the team isn’t deep: While Cristiano Ronaldo is one of the best two or three footballers in the world, Portugal has no other player who clearly belongs in the top 100.
Germany? Well, they’re really good. But as an offense-minded squad, the team might be ever so slightly more prone toward letting in a soft goal and drawing (although probably not losing) a game that it shouldn’t. Keep hope alive, America.

Group H: Algeria, Belgium, Russia, South Korea
This is the weakest group in the field by some margin just about any way you slice and dice it. According to SPI, it has both the worst best team (Belgium is dangerous but ranks 11th in the world — every other group has at least one team in the top 10) and the worst worst team (Algeria ranks 65th in the world per SPI, the worst in the 32-team field).
The group does provide an opportunity for Belgium to gain a little momentum. It will be important for the Red Devils to win the group outright because the second-place entrant from Group H will face the winner of Group G in the Round of 16 — probably Germany.
The biggest threat to Belgium is from Russia. Russia is hard to peg because it doesn’t play highly competitive international matches all that often as a national team, and because the entire roster is drawn from players whose club play is in Russia itself — not one of the leagues that SPI tracks. From what we can tell, however, Russia is a fairly defense-minded team — possibly a prudent approach in a weak group where a draw against Belgium and a 1-0 win against either Algeria or South Korea would do the trick. It’s also a team that, like the U.S., might take some pride in advancing. Russia will host the World Cup in 2018 but has never made it past the group stage.[SUP]9[/SUP]

 
Back
Top