World Cup Draw
- Thread starter Jeff Van GULLY
- Start date
Turrable said:
No, it's not. As long as geographic diversity is thought to be important in the tournament - i.e., making sure that you don't wind up with four European teams or three South American teams in the same group - you're going to have to live with a system like this. And why does fairness have to be central to the system? In most domestic cup competitions (like the FA Cup), there are no seeds at all and everyone is drawn out of the hat randomly, and everyone loves that. The only reason the World Cup draw system seems unfair is that there is only one short tournament every four years, so a bad draw can seem to have momentous consequences for almost a decade.
But anyway, for all of the doom and gloom around here...who says that Germany is automatically going to be a world-beating team in the heat of northern Brazil? Who's to say that Ronaldo won't get injured in the Champions League semifinals and miss the summer, in which case Portugal becomes a virtual minnow? The World Cup is like what the NFL would be if its season were only three games long before the playoffs start - SO much can happen in those three games to completely confound everyone. Injuries? Suspensions? Crazy own goals (think USA-Portugal in 2002 or USA-Colombia in 1994)? It's a crapshoot. And if the US can escape the group stage, they get to play someone in Group H...and I don't fear anyone in Group H. And then, if they win that game, in the quarterfinals the only scary team they could play is Argentina...and Argentina always loses in the quarterfinals. Really, there's nothing to be afraid of, and a lot to look forward to: I can't say I was excited about watching USA-Slovenia or USA-Algeria when the draw was made four years ago, but I'm definitely excited about all three of these matches.
ConigliarosPotential said:
I apologize if this has already been covered, since I haven't gone back through the entire thread, but there's no reason you can't seed within regions or the pots they created, and then simply assign based on those seedings. Break things up geographically, and then seed each pot to end up with balanced pots.
That being said, I'm actually pretty excited about the games that we're going to get to see next summer. Sure, I'd love to see the US advance through, but I'm more interested to see how they actually play up to a higher level of competition. It's the World Cup. We're going to have to bring our A-game to move forward, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Jonathan Wilson at SI.com breaks down Group G and gives the reader a bit of a primer on the USA's opponents.
How much does everyone put into the SPI metric? We both know it has Portugal and the US with a 40/39 percent chance to escape, but how do you view it? I'm not sure what to think. All I know is that as far as ESPN statistics go it's better than Total QBR.
I think two draws and a Ghana win is believable. Bring on the Belgians (and a 3-1 L).
I think two draws and a Ghana win is believable. Bring on the Belgians (and a 3-1 L).
Though team USA got a pretty bad draw, I have to say that of all teams that got screwed, there is no team that got more jobbed than Spain. They win their qualifying group rather easily (only a three point gap, but for all intents and purposes they had the group won with 2 matches to go) and they got drawn alongside with Holland for a repeat of the 2010 final for their first match, and they also have to contend with a very dangerous Chilean side that scores tons of goals and will likely have a large contingent of fans present. Even worse, if they do pass the group stage, but fail to win, they will almost certainly be stuck with playing against Brazil in the first knockout round.
Meanwhile, France gets to be in the second easiest group that if they win (which they should comfortably) they get to play against the second best squad from group F. I guess that would likely be Nigeria.
This is even before that we consider the fact that group B will be played exclusively in the tropical northern part of the country. Spain struggled mightily with fitness in the hot and humid conditions of the Confed Cup, and that factor will certainly play a role.
Meanwhile, France gets to be in the second easiest group that if they win (which they should comfortably) they get to play against the second best squad from group F. I guess that would likely be Nigeria.
This is even before that we consider the fact that group B will be played exclusively in the tropical northern part of the country. Spain struggled mightily with fitness in the hot and humid conditions of the Confed Cup, and that factor will certainly play a role.
sdiaz1 said:
What are you saying here? It is after all a draw. There is some kind of seeding, so you don´t have a group of Netherlands, Germany, Brazil, Uruguay. Do you want a complete seeding by FIFA through world rankings with teams picking their stadiums/locations to play?
I doubt that France will have a comfortable road to the group win. After all, they didn´t win their qualifying group and almost lost knockout matches to Ukraine. Switzerland has lost like two matches since (and including) WC 10, including playing Spain at the top of their game.
In Group F, I see Argentina as the Top Dogs and then Nigeria and Bosnia with about the same chance to go to next round. If Bosnia qualifies and runs into France, so be it. There´s always a huge early knockout match, a la Spain-Portugal 10, France-Spain 06, etc...
--> There is always a more or less easier way to the WC title, see Germany 2002, who had a pretty easy road (group: Ireland, Cameroon, Saudi Arabia, knockout matches vs. Paraguay, USA, South Korea and then the final loss vs. Brazil...) into the finals. And it could also shake out completely different.
As someone said someday..."if you wanna be the champion, you have to beat everyone."
Worth remembering that everyone thought France had a cupcake draw in 2010 with South Africa, Uruguay, and Mexico. Nobody rated Uruguay at the time and South Africa were widely seen as the weakest seeded team by far. But the French self-combusted and only managed to draw one game. I wouldn't take anything for granted.
Quick thought experiment - I wanted to see what a completely balanced draw would look like under the following somewhat practical conditions:
• use FIFA rankings (not perfect, but there's no use in going to ELO; we know they'll always be used)
• seeded in a continuing serpentine fashion (i.e., the first 8 WC qualifiers are placed as 1 seeds in A»H; the next 8 as 2 seeds going H»A; the next 8 as 3 seeds going A»H, and the final 8 as 4 seeds going H»A).
• exceptions: Give the host (Brazil) A1
• when done, make minor adjustments to keep regions apart if possible.
Here's what I ended up with:
A
Brazil
Croatia
Côte d'Ivoire
Australia
B
Spain
Chile
Mexico
Korea Republic
C
Germany
USA
France
Cameroon
D
Argentina
England
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Japan
E
Colombia
Greece
Ghana
Iran
F
Portugal
Belgium
Ecuador
Honduras
G
Uruguay
Netherlands
Russia
Nigeria
H
Italy
Switzerland
Algeria
Costa Rica
I had to make 2 swaps to get here after seeding: Mexico and France swapped groups, and Ghana and Russia swapped groups. That's it though. I have to say, this would make for a pretty balanced tournament. USA still gets relatively jobbed, of course - it's basically the deal as we got anyway.
• use FIFA rankings (not perfect, but there's no use in going to ELO; we know they'll always be used)
• seeded in a continuing serpentine fashion (i.e., the first 8 WC qualifiers are placed as 1 seeds in A»H; the next 8 as 2 seeds going H»A; the next 8 as 3 seeds going A»H, and the final 8 as 4 seeds going H»A).
• exceptions: Give the host (Brazil) A1
• when done, make minor adjustments to keep regions apart if possible.
Here's what I ended up with:
A
Brazil
Croatia
Côte d'Ivoire
Australia
B
Spain
Chile
Mexico
Korea Republic
C
Germany
USA
France
Cameroon
D
Argentina
England
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Japan
E
Colombia
Greece
Ghana
Iran
F
Portugal
Belgium
Ecuador
Honduras
G
Uruguay
Netherlands
Russia
Nigeria
H
Italy
Switzerland
Algeria
Costa Rica
I had to make 2 swaps to get here after seeding: Mexico and France swapped groups, and Ghana and Russia swapped groups. That's it though. I have to say, this would make for a pretty balanced tournament. USA still gets relatively jobbed, of course - it's basically the deal as we got anyway.
It's kind of interesting that three teams in the same group -- England, Italy, and Uruguay, are all in the top 11 at 25/1.
Uruguay seems to me the best value of teams that I think have a realistic chance of winning this thing. South American team with its top player approaching other-worldly status in a top Europe league and a strong supporting cast. Sounds a lot to me like Argentina, which is second favorite. Argentina has reason to be a higher favorite, with an easier group and being on the other side of the bracket as Brazil, but if one were handicap this thing, 25/1 looks like the best value on the board.
Uruguay seems to me the best value of teams that I think have a realistic chance of winning this thing. South American team with its top player approaching other-worldly status in a top Europe league and a strong supporting cast. Sounds a lot to me like Argentina, which is second favorite. Argentina has reason to be a higher favorite, with an easier group and being on the other side of the bracket as Brazil, but if one were handicap this thing, 25/1 looks like the best value on the board.
DrewDawg said:Also, how the odds changed after the draw:
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
IIRC, Uruguay has defensive problems. Which makes them even more like Argentina, who always seem to have one of the three best collections of attacking talent in the world and then a bunch of miscast midfielders trying to play the back line in big tournaments.
To me Uruguay is overrated because it's on everyone's radar right now, while their results during their qualification suggest that they aren't world beaters. Those South American qualifiers should have a good deal of predictive value: everyone plays everyone, so the final standings aren't a byproduct of easy competition in a bad group. Uruguay struggled to finish on the same spot as Ecuador and everyone would love playing them, but somehow Uruguay is a top team. Plus Forlan is going to be 35 in 2014 and 2010 was a lucky run as much as skill; there's a good chance they are up for disappointment this time around.
Ecuador matching Uruguay on points is mainly due to their home pitch being 9,000 feet above see level. They were 7 wins and 1 draw at home and zero wins, 3 draws and 5 losses on the road.
Uruguay at least won two road matches in qualifiers. They got in the same way in the 2010 World Cup, and made it to the semis.
Uruguay at least won two road matches in qualifiers. They got in the same way in the 2010 World Cup, and made it to the semis.
Also Uruguay have a top-5 player in the world right now, and Cavani is also capable of taking over matches. Nobody wants to play Uruguay right now because there's always the possibility that Suarez will do something amazing and win the game by himself. Ecuador don't have anything remotely similar. Their best player is probably Antonio Valencia.
I don't think it's Ecuador matching Uruguay; it's Uruguay having dropped lower than you would expect them to. If Brazil wasn't the host nation and the Cup was in Europe, Uruguay probably wouldn't have made it to the finals.Infield Infidel said:
Saying they reached the semifinals in 2010 sounds impressive until you think they were in a weak group where the strong team on paper self-combusted, then facing South Korea and Ghana which aren't minnows, but are definitely not giants and only going through on a missed penalty by Ghana in the 120th minute.
What is impressive is their Copa America win. And Kavani and Suarez are world class. But all of those things are taken into account by the tons of people who pick them as a team to make waves. What's not taken into account is their luck during the last world cup, the tougher road they have ahead this time around and signs of a mediocre performance during their qualifying this time around. These factors are what makes them overrated.
Klinsmann talks Brazil
I'm hoping they do decide to take this route. Going back to Sao Paulo in between games doesn't make much sense, especially between the second game in Manaus and the third game.
I'm hoping they do decide to take this route. Going back to Sao Paulo in between games doesn't make much sense, especially between the second game in Manaus and the third game.
They should set up camp in Suriname based on that map! Why the fuck would they go back down to São Paulo?
This is a more accurate image of the cities where USA will play, with the base camp in green and the games numbered in red.
