2018 Russia qualifying competitions

Euro 2024, World Cup 2026, etc.
Kroezero
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 17:41

Post by Kroezero »

South American teams had 3 big advantages over European teams the last 3 years. A WCQ with 18 matches and 2 Copa America's. That's not bad for the FIFA ranking. European teams have had only 1 Euro and they have to play teams from the bottom of the FIFA ranking.
Anyone thinking Peru is a better side then Italy, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic or Austria? Seriously....
User avatar
subway14
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:50
Location: Finland

Post by subway14 »

Kroezero wrote:South American teams had 3 big advantages over European teams the last 3 years. A WCQ with 18 matches and 2 Copa America's. That's not bad for the FIFA ranking. European teams have had only 1 Euro and they have to play teams from the bottom of the FIFA ranking.
Anyone thinking Peru is a better side then Italy, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic or Austria? Seriously....
well definitely better than Czech and Austria, and it's not like Netherlands is any good atm either :lol:
User avatar
Firnen
Senior Member
Posts: 12415
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 21:32

Post by Firnen »

Kroezero wrote:South American teams had 3 big advantages over European teams the last 3 years. A WCQ with 18 matches and 2 Copa America's. That's not bad for the FIFA ranking. European teams have had only 1 Euro and they have to play teams from the bottom of the FIFA ranking.
Anyone thinking Peru is a better side then Italy, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic or Austria? Seriously....
Of course better than the Czechs and the Austrians, not sure about the Netherlands too.
Kroezero
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 17:41

Post by Kroezero »

subway14 wrote:
Kroezero wrote:South American teams had 3 big advantages over European teams the last 3 years. A WCQ with 18 matches and 2 Copa America's. That's not bad for the FIFA ranking. European teams have had only 1 Euro and they have to play teams from the bottom of the FIFA ranking.
Anyone thinking Peru is a better side then Italy, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic or Austria? Seriously....
well definitely better than Czech and Austria, and it's not like Netherlands is any good atm either :lol:
Well, I don't think there are many teams with a better record over the last 9 internationals then the Netherlands, 8-0-1. Unfortunately that 1 was costly. This record allready brougth us back in the top 20 of that strange FIFA ranking. :D
User avatar
subway14
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:50
Location: Finland

Post by subway14 »

Kroezero wrote:
subway14 wrote:
Kroezero wrote:South American teams had 3 big advantages over European teams the last 3 years. A WCQ with 18 matches and 2 Copa America's. That's not bad for the FIFA ranking. European teams have had only 1 Euro and they have to play teams from the bottom of the FIFA ranking.
Anyone thinking Peru is a better side then Italy, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic or Austria? Seriously....
well definitely better than Czech and Austria, and it's not like Netherlands is any good atm either :lol:
Well, I don't think there are many teams with a better record over the last 9 internationals then the Netherlands, 8-0-1. Unfortunately that 1 was costly. This record allready brougth us back in the top 20 of that strange FIFA ranking. :D
well if Netherlands is so good why are they missing out on every tournament now :lol:
bugylibicska
Senior Member
Posts: 31059
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 17:21
Location: Canada

Post by bugylibicska »

Well, maybe Andorra are better than Chile? They beat Hungary and the Magyars beat Austria while Chile finished behind Peru. :confused:
User avatar
Forza AZ
Senior Member
Posts: 6720
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 16:57
Location: Alkmaar, Netherlands

Post by Forza AZ »

subway14 wrote:well if Netherlands is so good why are they missing out on every tournament now :lol:
Because the results before the last 9 matches were awful. I think Netherlands is out of the hole now and will get better results in qualifying for the next tournaments.
Not at the level we were at the last 2 World Cups of course, but good enough to qualify again at least.
Sao
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 00:26

Post by Sao »

Forza AZ wrote:
subway14 wrote:well if Netherlands is so good why are they missing out on every tournament now :lol:
Because the results before the last 9 matches were awful. I think Netherlands is out of the hole now and will get better results in qualifying for the next tournaments.
Not at the level we were at the last 2 World Cups of course, but good enough to qualify again at least.
The next tournament Holland could qualify for is the Nations League's final event in June 2019. Next year, in January, Holland could be drawn into a group with e.g. Germany + France and would have to beat both to the top spot in order to qualify for the Final Four main event. Holland being good enough to at least qualify again is a bit of a stretch in NL2018/19 League A groups. OTOH qualification for EC2020 is setting a very low bar. Regular ECQs will merely be an inconvenience.

Any idea which players are expected to carry the team in the WCQs for Qatar2022? The ones that will be in the 25-30yo bracket by then don't look very promising.
User avatar
Forza AZ
Senior Member
Posts: 6720
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 16:57
Location: Alkmaar, Netherlands

Post by Forza AZ »

Sao wrote:The next tournament Holland could qualify for is the Nations League's final event in June 2019. Next year, in January, Holland could be drawn into a group with e.g. Germany + France and would have to beat both to the top spot in order to qualify for the Final Four main event. Holland being good enough to at least qualify again is a bit of a stretch in NL2018/19 League A groups. OTOH qualification for EC2020 is setting a very low bar. Regular ECQs will merely be an inconvenience.
I was not talking about the Nations League final 4 of course, but about Euro 2020 and WC 2022.

Might be a low bar, but last Euro's we didn't qualify, so let's first set the goal of qualifying again for a tournament. And then let's see if we can get any further. We just don't have many top level players any more at this moment.
Sao
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 00:26

Post by Sao »

I wouldn't worry too much. Holland qualifying for EC2020 should be a safe bet.
Vickzq
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 22:27

Post by Vickzq »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... tournament

It's really hard to predict what a Team like Peru will be doing at the world cup - that doesn't mean I consider them weak or s.t.
But fact is, behind Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay... the average of south american teams during world cup is really rather average compared to 'second row' UEFA teams- and nothing special. I don't mean they do not get out of the group, on the contrary. What I mean is this: Behind the european powerhouses... there are several other european teams people in south america (according to some of their TV discussion concerning world cup) would consider 'weak' compared to 'their team/s'... but reality is, the 'group B' from Europe on average does quite well.
E.g. there is no real reason to consider a team like Sweden any weaker than Peru.

I tried to get rid of factors like 'how many appearances' (but that leaves the time factor... so there is relativity in this comparison) - this is the number of average points made by every team PER SINGLE world cup game, based on all appearances. The list is not showing all teams ever playing world cup.

BRAZIL 2,18
Germany 2,05
Italy 1,87
Netherlands 1,86
ARGENTINA 1,81
Spain 1,67
Denmark 1,63
France 1,62
Poland 1,61
England 1,58
Croatia 1,43
URUGUAY 1,41
Ucraine 1,40
Austria 1,38
Romania 1,38
Sweden 1,32
ECUADOR 1,30
COLOMBIA 1,28
CHILE 1,21
Wales 1,20
Switzerland 1,18
PARAGUAY 1,15
Ireland 1,08
PERU 1,00
BOLIVIA 0,17

Evidence for claims like 'CONMEBOL is so much stronger than UEFA' are hard to prove or reject... but the claim becomes much harder to prove when the 'second row' of south americans on average is par or below Romania and Sweden on average with points per game. And that's only for the 'bigger names' like Colombia & Chile... Paraguay and Peru are behind Wales and Switzerland, too.
There are other overachievers for UEFA in world cup history like Bulgaria, Serbia, etc. - something hardly ever seen within any other confederation.
"Help a man when he is in trouble... and he will remember you... the day he is in trouble again."
- old chinese proverb
fillow
Senior Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 14:57
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Post by fillow »

Nice job, comparing the teams on the basis of 50 and even 80 years old results.
SimonB
Senior Member
Posts: 2515
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 12:19
Location: Surrey, England

Post by SimonB »

Vickzq wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... tournament

It's really hard to predict what a Team like Peru will be doing at the world cup - that doesn't mean I consider them weak or s.t.
But fact is, behind Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay... the average of south american teams during world cup is really rather average compared to 'second row' UEFA teams- and nothing special. I don't mean they do not get out of the group, on the contrary. What I mean is this: Behind the european powerhouses... there are several other european teams people in south america (according to some of their TV discussion concerning world cup) would consider 'weak' compared to 'their team/s'... but reality is, the 'group B' from Europe on average does quite well.
E.g. there is no real reason to consider a team like Sweden any weaker than Peru.

I tried to get rid of factors like 'how many appearances' (but that leaves the time factor... so there is relativity in this comparison) - this is the number of average points made by every team PER SINGLE world cup game, based on all appearances. The list is not showing all teams ever playing world cup.

BRAZIL 2,18
Germany 2,05
Italy 1,87
Netherlands 1,86
ARGENTINA 1,81
Spain 1,67
Denmark 1,63
France 1,62
Poland 1,61
England 1,58
Croatia 1,43
URUGUAY 1,41
Ucraine 1,40
Austria 1,38
Romania 1,38
Sweden 1,32
ECUADOR 1,30
COLOMBIA 1,28
CHILE 1,21
Wales 1,20
Switzerland 1,18
PARAGUAY 1,15
Ireland 1,08
PERU 1,00
BOLIVIA 0,17

Evidence for claims like 'CONMEBOL is so much stronger than UEFA' are hard to prove or reject... but the claim becomes much harder to prove when the 'second row' of south americans on average is par or below Romania and Sweden on average with points per game. And that's only for the 'bigger names' like Colombia & Chile... Paraguay and Peru are behind Wales and Switzerland, too.
There are other overachievers for UEFA in world cup history like Bulgaria, Serbia, etc. - something hardly ever seen within any other confederation.
Interesting comparison above and good work Vickzq:-

Leaving aside the comment by fillow and assuming that you wanted an "all-time" comparison as opposed to just now, there are several complicating factors at play here which you may have recognised including:-

1. European teams will quite often play each other
2. South American teams will quite often play more than one European opponent
3. European teams may get to play more teams from other continents
4. The world cup has more often been played in the northern hemisphere which favours the European teams somewhat

None the less some interesting stats.

If you have kept the data set, what happens if for instance we were only to look at direct confrontations between European and South American teams, perhaps separating them between northern and southern world cups?
Vickzq
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 22:27

Post by Vickzq »

SimonB wrote:...
If you have kept the data set, what happens if for instance we were only to look at direct confrontations between European and South American teams, perhaps separating them between northern and southern world cups?
Hmm... interesting, but that takes quite some extra work.
fillow wrote:Nice job, comparing the teams on the basis of 50 and even 80 years old results.
Well... the best 'approach' to prove that CONMEBOL was better than UEFA (not because it was good, but because it was the only approach... usually people just 'say' CONMEBOL is better... without any substancial evidence) was to claim how hard it would be to qualify in europe if only the 10 best european teams would play each other in home and away games, sending 4 to the world cup, and the 5th playing playoffs.
The problem here is - the average of the 10 best european sides is quite much better than the 10 south americans on average... or is anybody scared of Bolivia? Venezuela?
UEFA ranking has Iceland as #10 at them moment, just ahead of Croatia and the Netherlands. Nobody can possibly believe that the top7 in europe with Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Spain, England, France and Italy (although not qualifying now) could be matched by the top7 of any other federation.

To cite 'Little Britain': "Computer says NO!"
"Help a man when he is in trouble... and he will remember you... the day he is in trouble again."
- old chinese proverb
Ed
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 16:35
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Ed »

Another simple method to compare the confederation strengths is to look at the confederation weighting used in the FIFA-ranking. That weighting is determined over all inter-confederational matches at the last 3 world cups. A confederation receives 1 point for a won match and a half point for each drawn match. Intra-confederational matches do not count.
The average number of points per interconfederational match (over the world cups of 2014, 2010 and 2006):
CONMEBOL 0,66
UEFA 0,65
CONCACAF 0,34
CAF 0,29
AFC 0,24
OFC 0,17

With a somewhat complex formula (take the fourth root of the ratio of a confederations average and the maximum average i.e. 0,66) and applying a minimum-threshold of 0,85, this leads to the well known confederation weights for the FIFA-ranking:
CONMEBOL 1,0000 => 1,00
UEFA 0,9947 => 0,99
CONCACAF 0,8468 => 0,85
CAF 0,8131 => 0,85
AFC 0,7786 => 0,85
OFC 0,7078 => 0,85
Post Reply