Quick Sim Update

November 21, 2009

•

Have finished writing the code for the World Cup Simulations. Some features in this one:

1. 10,000 sims as usual.
2. Results of all 640,000 matches in dump file.
3. Win percentages for each team in both percentage and fractional odds form.
4. Current version alternates between CONMEBOL/CAF and CONMEBOL/AFC/OFC composition of pots. Will change when we know for sure which is which
5. Penalties decided by coin flip.
6. New match simulator using a binomial function instead of Poisson (this further reduces the problem of underrating favorites).

Will try and get a full roll out by tomorrow. Unsurprisingly, Brazil are the tournament favorites winning roughly a quarter of the time.

67 responses to “Quick Sim Update”

Amir

November 21, 2009

I don’t like some of your decisions:

1. The CONMEBOL/CAF composition is as sure as the seeded teams, so I don’t see any reason not to use it.
2. As you know, the binomial distribution converges towards the Poisson. I don’t think it makes sense to use binomial distribution. Besided, it suppose to increase the problem of underrating favorites. (BTW, what parameters are you using? Are you using 31 trials, as it is the international scoring record?)

Reply
california viola

November 21, 2009

Amir, I think is very likely FIFA will place S. American and African teams together. This will make for a very simple draw – first two African team picked in Brazil and Argentina’s group; first CONMEBOL team picked in South Africa’s group; no other restrictions needed anywhere else. But what makes you think this is a sure thing?

Reply
Voros

November 22, 2009

I’ve heard nothing suggesting that CONMEBOL and CAF being grouped together as definite.

And strong favorites will be bigger favorites using this binomial (which is set at 33 because it needs to be divisible by 3 for extra time) than Poisson. Poisson is just the binomial distribution with a set period of time divided by an infinite number of trials.

This simply is going to work better and give results closer to reality.

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 22, 2009

Unsurprisingly, Brazil are the tournament favorites winning roughly a quarter of the time.

A 25% favorite! A like the way this sounds…

Reply
Amir

November 22, 2009

OK, now I understand the binomial assumption.
did you consider using multiple logit regression as in the SPI? It seems like a great idea – it doesn’t assume anything about how football is played.

Reply
Voros

November 22, 2009

Re-reading Nate’s stuff his model is indeed iterative like mine (and as I’ve said before the best models for something like this are almost certainly going to be iterative).

It looks like he’s using the logit regression not so much in the rating of the teams, but in converting those ratings into matchup odds between two teams. However I didn’t see anything in there with goal predictions (and logit regression isn’t all that well suited to a goals prediction anyway, it’s mostly for binary predictions). I probably missed it in the explanation.

In many instances over the years, I’ve abandoned something which are theoretically more rigorous for things that simply worked better. There’s absolutely no reason to count friendlies at all, because by definition they don’t matter to either team. But the ratings that use them have been consistently better than the ratings that don’t, so I use them. That’s just one simple example.

Reply
Amir

November 22, 2009

Nate’s SPI is based on goals prediction, just as your predictions. The multiple logit regression is indeed used for simulating matches.
I guess I didn’t really understand what multiple logit regression is… Nonetheless it does gave me a nice idea – by looking at close matchups in the past (similar goal predictions for the favorites and the underdogs) and summing up the likely outcome we can give good predictions without assuming anything about the sport.
It can be used even independent for each team, and it should still produce better results.

Reply
Amir

November 22, 2009

Maybe you can try testing it by hand in a few cases to see if it works well…

Reply
Daniel Burnier

November 23, 2009

When will the seeding countries/tops be unveiled?

Reply
Mitz

November 23, 2009

FIFA are meeting on December 2nd to decide on the seeding criteria and how the pots will be composed. They have already announced that FIFA rankings will form part of the seeding criteria, and that the rankings from October, not November, will be used. Make of it what you will.

One thing to note: if they employ the same method as four years ago, then using the October or November rankings will make no difference – the seven seeds joining South Africa as hosts will still be Brazil, Spain, Germany, Italy, England, Argentina and France. The fact that they have announced specifically that October will be used suggests to me that there will be different methodology.

Once again, FIFA opens itself up to accusations of a stitch up. If they intended to be fair to all, the rules regarding every aspect of the competition would have been announced and graven in stone long ago. The fact that they only decide things at the very last possible minute makes what everybody deep down knows pretty obvious: FIFA will always create and then manipulate the rules in order to favour the teams that will end up making FIFA and their sponsors the most money.

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 23, 2009

Anytime between 12/2 (the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup Meeting) and 12/4 (the World Cup Draw), Burnier.

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 23, 2009

Mitz,

FIFA decisions footbally speaking almost always make sense.

There are four teams that are seeded for a while. Since 1978, only in 1986, the Big-4 (BRA, ARG, ITA and GER) weren’t all seeded together. Who can deny them this “right”? After all, they share 14 of 18 World Cup titles, 12 of the last 14.

The great question is who is going to join them. FIFA always manage with nice answers, as Romania and the Netherlands in 1998, Spain 2002, or Mexico in 2006, that doesn’t seem about money at all. And, of course, the hosts.

One reason FIFA waits to decide who’s going to seed is what happened to France. Seeding a team who manage to qualify after a handball doesn’t seem fair. So you need some space to maneuver.

Finally, do not forget that the only reason for seeding is to separate this eight teams apart from each other. The draw is still regional, so, in the end, it doesn’t make a big difference.

Reply
Mitz

November 23, 2009

Lots of comment and debate here:

http://www.football-rankings.info/2009/11/2010-world-cup-seeding-update-20.html

I happen to agree with those that suggest FIFA will choose a method which makes Netherlands a seed at the expense of France.

Paulo, I apologise if this sounds agressive and I don’t wish to attack anyone personally, but I find your attitude to FIFA a little naive. You are no doubt correct that nearly all of the time the outcomes in the actual matches that matter justify the means by which the rules are made, the draws conducted and the competitions organised. However, there are a host of examples where FIFA at the very least have fallen down in the PR stakes, and at worst have actually manipulated results to suit the accountants. If they are blame free and make all of their decisions based on sporting criteria, then they should employ better media people to compose their press releases, because far too often what they do and the way they do it reeks of corruption.

Reply
Mitz

November 23, 2009

Re: the France situation. How’s this for a better way of handling things:

FIFA announce all of the rules for the 2010 World Cup, including seeding criteria and every other aspect of the final draw, before the start of the qualifying competitions around the world. After all the games are played, a team has qualified with a huge slice of help from a poor refereeing decision, and because of the seeding criteria are one of the big 8. However, rule 83, clause 14, paragraph 8c decrees that “If a team qualifies for the FIFA World Cup ™ as a seed but video evidence clearly shows in retrospect that they are a bunch of cheats, then they will be stripped of their seeding. The team next in the rankings will be given their seed and they will be placed in the draw pot with all of the other teams from their geographical area.”

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 23, 2009

Mitz,

I am not naïve. I know money counts; and a lot. The point is I don’t see it playing a role -at least, not a great one- on seeding. As I’ve said, the decisions seem footballistic reasonable.

I can see more political reason, as in the case of helping the hosts. But if they conduct the draw unfairly, they do it pretty well. After all, they manage to put a great show every four years.

Actually, to me, the truth lies between the total fairness and the complete corruptness. It’s not in either of the poles. I’m still waiting Brazil (not that much, actually) or Germany to play in the “Group of Death”, but Argentina already did in 2002 and 2006; and Italy, in 1994.

Reply
Mitz

November 23, 2009

It’s not any one thing – it’s all the little things added together. You’re right – anything that happens to slightly alter the outcome of the draw on Dec 4th won’t make any massive amount of difference. (Netherlands or France seeded? So what, both will probably get through to the last 16 anyway.) It is the secretive way that FIFA has regarding almost everything that it does that bugs me. IMHO they would do themselves a massive favour if they just published rules at the beginning and stuck to them, rather than having a steady drip feed of nuance throughout the process.

Take the seeding of teams for the UEFA playoffs, for example. I’m willing to bet that it was always the intention to have the playoffs seeded, so why didn’t they say so at the start rather than announcing it suddenly in September and causing the Irish and the other non-seeded teams to accuse FIFA of bias in favour of France, Portugal etc?

Here’s a thought – maybe they actually like causing outrage and uproar because it generates more column inches and more interest, and pretty much always the people who are outraged are little guys that don’t matter in the grand scheme of things?

Mark my words, FIFA will do almost ANYTHING to help South Africa on the field next June. The most blatant method would be to hand them a group consisting of Switzerland, New Zealand and Chile, but that might be a little bit too suss even for FIFA. More likely is instructing referees to be “a little generous”, as per South Korea vs Portugal, Spain and Italy in 2002.

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 23, 2009

PLEASE:

On #15, “… the truth LAYS between…“!

Geez, is Shakespeare dead? If not, I’ve just killed him…

Reply
Mitz

November 23, 2009

Mate, if you’re Brazilian I wish my Portugese was a tenth as good as your English!

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 23, 2009

Mitz,

UEFA playoffs seedings were, first of all, a huge mistake. And FIFA is paying the price for it. They’ve tried to protect Portugal, France and Russia form each other, but it backfired heavily.

There is a reason why UEFA treat their members equally as possible, because there isn’t a big difference between them! The costs for treating them differently don’t match those of protecting the famous. They are much smaller. Someone asked for help, and FIFA has forgotten it.

The great news about the way FIFA has handled it, it’s they could have decided to cheat at the draw -you can always put some balls into the freezer-, keeping the unseeded procedure, but they didn’t. Even though, and I thought this while writing, Ukraine has faced Greece!

Hmmmm…

🙂

Bottom line, what I’m saying is “Enjoy”. FIFA has proven, year after year, that they do more good than harm to the game. It always could be better, and so is valid to point the problem and show some possible solutions, but it also is what it is, and there isn’t much we can really do against it.

P.S.: About Portuguese, if you speak Spanish, you are half way through already.

Reply
Mitz

November 23, 2009

Lástima que no hablan español tampoco!

Reply
Daniel Burnier

November 23, 2009

thank you Paulo and Mitz!

@Mitz: I agrre with you… it is a shame that FIFA lets many of the important decisions to the last moment. And it doesn’t happen only with the “big teams”, also in this last episode between Algeria and Egypt there was no predefined strategy to handle it. It is really a shame. FIFA should alwas clarify everything before any competition starts.

@Paulo: I’m also brazilian btw… where are you from?

regards

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 24, 2009

That’s the problem with Brazilians. Your name is Daniel Burnier, and there is no way someone can say from where you are.

By the way, sou de Porto Alegre e gremista.

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 27, 2009

Vörös,

I’ve used your “0,5 spot rule” as a base to creat a system to point how many spots the Confederations deserved at the World Cup.

The rules were:
a) The hosts have one spot;
b) Every Confederation has 0,5 spot;
c) Any Confederation cannot have more than 13 + 0,5 spots.

Since there were 28 spots vacant (32-1-(6*0,5)), and every ranked team between 1-28 has also 0,5 spot, I’ve taken the first 56 teams from FIFA rankings of Dec.’06, Dec.’07, Dec.’08 and Oct.’09.

That’s the new result:

a) UEFA: 13,5 (13; -0,5)
b) CONCACAF: 3 (3,5; +0,5)
c) CONMEBOL: 4,5 (4,5; 0)
d) OFC: 0,5 (0,5; 0)
e) AFC: 3 (4,5; +1,5)
f) CAF: 6,5 (5; -1,5)

The playoffs should be UEFA-OFC; CONMEBOL-CAF.

It seems, after all, that Africa is the great loser, and Asia the great winner of the Qualifying spots distributions. And I believe, it doesn’t matter the system, the common perception would always be shown as true: there are too many Asians, and too few Africans at the World Cup.

Reply
california viola

November 27, 2009

Why should there be a limit of 13.5 spots for any confederation? That’s punishing a confederation for continuosly being at the top and continuosly striving to improve the quality of its competitions, teams, and games.

I used my system and the current FIFA rankings to determine the number of teams in the next World Cup and this what I came up with:

Rules:
0.75 for a team placed position 1-21
0.5 for a team placed position 22-43
0.25 for a team placed position 44-64

Results:
17.75 spots to Europe
5 spots to South America
4.75 spots to Africa
2.5 spots to CONCACAF
2 spots to Asia
0 spots to Oceania

Taking 0.25 away from Europe and Africa in order to give 0.5 to Oceania, we get:

17 teams from Europe
5 teams from South America
4 teams from Africa
2 teams from CONCACAF
2 team from Asia
1 team from Europe vs Oceania playoff
1 team from Africa vs CONCACAF playoff

Is this going to happen? Of course not. Merit has very little to do with the distribution of spots in the World Cup.

What I think is going to happen instead is that South America’s contingent will remain unchanged with Brazil + 3.5 spots available, while Asia will receive the African spot now reserved for the host (the Arab Asian federations will certainly raise hell and use their wealth at the FIFA meeting on December 2). In fact, since this will create an absurd 5.5 vs 5 spots between Asia and Africa, it is likely that FIFA will take another spot from UEFA to give to the CAF.

My prediction for the 2014 World Cup:
12 spots to Europe
6 spots to Africa
5.5 spots to Asia
4.5 spots to South America
3.5 spots to CONCACAF
0.5 spots to Oceania

Ridiculous.

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 27, 2009

Viola,

No chance. I can’t see a great change in short future. On 2014, my bets are that they won’t change anything:

UEFA – 13 spots;
CONMEBOL – 4,5+1 (hosts);
CAF – 5;
AFC – 4,5;
CONCACAF – 3,5;
OFC – 0,5.

In 2014, if South America loses something, it would be half spot, just like 2002, and have 4+1. Maybe Asia gets it, and secure 5 spots; with a playoff being played between CONCACAF and OFC. But, for 2018 onwards, anything can happen.

Just do not expect revolutionary changes from FIFA.

P.S.: About my previous comment, originally, before the 13+0,5 rule, UEFA had 15,5 spots. Those 2 spots Europe lost went to N. America (0,5), Asia (0,5) and Africa (1).

Reply
california viola

November 27, 2009

If South America gets 4.5+1 then they get 5.5 teams which is an increase of more than 20% and brings more than 50% of CONMEBOL teams to the 2014 World Cup. That’s a huge change.

The spot for the hosts is another political weapon for FIFA. They did it for Africa in this world cup (5+1) but they certainly didn’t do it for Europe in 2006. In the 2002 World Cup Europe had 15 spots (UEFA actually gave up half spot to Asia as they were crying they didn’t have enough spots in their own world cup). Using the extra spot for the hosts Europe should have had 15+1=16 spots in 2006. Instead UEFA lost two spots going down to 13+1=14.

Frankly I think UEFA needs to consider holding the European Championship every two years and leave the World Cup to everyone else. I wonder which of these two tournaments most people would watch, most sponsors would follow, most network would broadcast:

World Cup without UEFA (4 teams per confederation with Oceania taking Asia’s last spot):
A: Brazil, Nigeria, Honduras, New Zealand
B: Argentina, Australia, Algeria, Costa Rica
C: Cameroon, Mexico, Chile, South Korea
D: United States, Cote d’Ivoire, Uruguay, Japan

UEFA
A: Spain, Croatia, Greece, Denmark
B: Netherlands, England, Russia, Israel
C: Italy, France, Switzerland, Ukraine
D: Portugal, Germany, Serbia, Czech Republic

Reply
Sanchotene

November 27, 2009

Come on, Viola, please!

That’s a “solution” where nobody actually wins. This is not just about money, or TV, but Football.

South America not only has the OLDEST continental tournament, but also holds half world cup titles (and the last two Olympic Gold medals when it mattered), hosting the tournament only 4 times (against 10 in Europe).

Any European team has ever conquered the World Cup outside Europe; UEFA is just 0/8 whenever away from home. The question in South Africa is: can an European team accomplish what Brazil (4 times) and Argentina (once) have already done (also, one could always remember Uruguay’s two gold medals playing in Europe)?

Your proposition would be not only silly, if it comes true, but the most grotesque sign of cowardice ever shown in the world of football.

This Euro, along all other international tournaments, would be done in a blink. Only club football would exist.

—

On spots stolen, Asia pleads “not guilty”…

Let me prove it!

They went from 3,5 spots in 1998 to 2,5 (+2) in 2002. But there were two hosts, so actually nothing have changed, since 3,5+1 (with one host) is equal to 2,5+2 (with two)!

The host spot (the holders, too, when existed) is like a joker card; fits everywhere. It’s an extra. It doesn’t count.

FIFA trick here was giving Asia one extra spot, but from the older “title holder”. They went from 3,5 in 1998 (when the holder’s spot existed) to 4,5 in 2006.

Europe lost one spot, true, but to America: South (in 2002) and North (in 2006) get 0,5 each.

In 1998, Europe had 14+1 spots. In 2002, they had 13,5+1. So, they have lost 0,5.

South America had 4+1, in 1998, but 4,5 in 2002. So, they have gained 0,5. This extra half was taken from nowhere but Europe.

Europe should have 13,5+1, again in 2006, but it had 13+1. So where did go this lost spot? To North America, that went from 3 spots in the previous Cup to 3,5.

Don’t we love numbers?!

Best regards,
Sanchotene

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 28, 2009

Another fancy numbers:

Total World Cup: 18
– In Europe: 10
– In South America: 4
– In North America: 3
– In Asia: 1

European WC titles: 9
– In Europe: 9

South-American WC titles: 9
– In Europe: 1
– In South America: 4
– In North America: 3
– In Asia: 1

Finals with one or two UEFA representatives: 16
– In Europe: 10 (100%)
– In South America: 2 (50%)
– In North America: 3 (100%)
– In Asia: 1 (100%)

Finals with one or two CONMEBOL representatives: 11
– In Europe: 3 (30%)
– In South America: 4 (100%)
– In North America: 3 (100%)
– In Asia: 1 (100%)

All European finals: 7
– In Europe: 7

All South-American finals: 2
– In South America: 2

UEFA v. CONMEBOL finals: 9 (CONMEBOL 7-2)
– In Europe: 3 (UEFA 2-1)
– In South America: 2 (CONMEBOL 2-0)
– In North America: 3 (CONMEBOL 3-0)
– In Asia: 1 (CONMEBOL 1-0)

Reply
Daniel Burnier

November 28, 2009

Viola,

if any confederation deserves more spots it is CONMEBOL and NOT UEFA. Historically European countries only win World Cups played in Europe, as Paulo illustrated.

In my opinion the rate between south american and european countries should be 1/2. That means 5/10 or 6/12…

5 spots for Africa and 5 for South America is a very bad joke!

regards

Reply
ilias

November 29, 2009

For all time World Cup inter-federational stats see this http://rsssf.com/tablesw/wc-confed-hth.html

Reply
california viola

November 29, 2009

“if any confederation deserves more spots it is CONMEBOL and NOT UEFA”

Yes, sure, CONMEBOL deserves more spots because there are nice beaches in South America, the food is good, and the weather is usually very nice.

The problem is CONMEBOL is Brazil, Argentina, and a bunch of nobodies. Do you need some numbers?

In the last seven world cups (since the enlargent of the tournament in 1982), the rest of South America has played 55 games in the World Cup:

11 wins (20%)
17 draws (31%)
27 losses (49%)
50 goals for (0.9 per game)
80 goals against (1.45 per game)

Number of teams from the rest of CONMEBOL that have made it at least to the quarterfinals:

0, zero, zilch, rien, nada, niet, nulla, cero

Just to give something to compare this brilliant nothing with, the rest of UEFA (so not counting Germany and Italy) has reached 29 (twenty-nine) quarterfinal spots (plus 12 semifinals, 2 finals, and 1 world cup win).

Since now the rest of UEFA has approximately 6.4 times the number of teams the rest of CONMEBOL has, let me multiply the number for the rest of CONMEBOL by 6.4 to have a better comparaison:

Number of WC quartefinals reached since 1982:

rest of UEFA 29 x 1 = 29
rest of CONMBEBOL 0 x 6.4 = 0

I assure you that 29 is a lot more than 0. An infinite times more.

And … “if any confederation deserves more spots it is CONMEBOL and NOT UEFA” ???

If you’re proposing that CONMEBOL sends to the World Cup Brazil A, Argentina A, Brazil B, Argentina B, Brazil C, and Argentina C, we can discuss it. But if you’re proposing that CONMEBOL adds more nobodies to the ones is already sending to the World Cup, then I’d rather see more Jamaicas, Angolas, U.A.E.s, or Fijis. At least they add some novelty to the World Cup.

Reply
Daniel Burnier

November 29, 2009

Viola,

Nobodies? Just as an example, Chile won the two last matches against Slovakia and Denmark, playing in EUROPE, as Paraguay played 0x0 against the Netherlands also playing in EUROPE.

The only reason Europe has more world cups than South America is because most of the world cups were played there.

Any no seeded european countries (those in pot 2 during the draw) can be leveled by almost (if not all) 10 countries of the south american zone.

And if you talk about which teams reached the quarter finals… why not make a world cup only with Germany, Italy, Brazil and Argentina? They are the only ones who can win it anyway…

Reply
california viola

November 29, 2009

Daniel, if you want to prove your point, please provide some numbers or facts.

What do the three friendlies you picked prove? I gave you data from the last seven world cups. Number of quarterfinal spots won by the rest of CONMEBOL: zero, nada, niet, zilch.

Unfortunately, there is nothing behind Argentina and Brazil in South America. You say that the non-seeded European teams “can be leveled by almost (if not all) 10 countries of the [S]outh [A]merican zone.” This is just an opinion and there is nothing to back it up. Below are the UEFA and CONMEBOL teams (beside the ones that will be seeded in South Africa 2010) that have reached at least the quarterfinals since FIFA enlarged the World Cup:

Europe: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia/Soviet Union, Serbia/Yugoslavia, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine

South America: —

Do you see the difference now? If all or almost all CONMEBOL teams are better than second or third tier UEFA teams, how come we don’t see the Chiles, the Paraguays, the Colombias reaching the WC quarterfinals?

See, talk is cheap, but you can’t go far in the World Cup just by saying you’re better than the other teams. I still remember when Pele’ said Colombia was going to win the World Cup. How did that go?

The problem of where the World Cup is played is a false one. Unfortunately South America has a great soccer tradition, but not the capability to host too many great events. After Argentina 78, FIFA had tried to give another world cup to South America but Colombia had to withdraw for economic reasons in 1986. Had FIFA not decided to assign the 2014 WC directly to CONMEBOL, we’d probably have to wait a long time before a South American country be strong enough to get the WC in a regular bidding process. This is not Europe’s fault. I hope you realize that before Rio de Janeiro 2016 there have been twenty-seven (27) Summer Olympics. South America held not a single one. There has to be a reason, don’t you think?

A World Cup with just Germany, Italy, Brazil, and Argentina? Oh, I’d love that! Did you know that the only one of the Big Four to win the World Cup beating the other three was Italy in 82? Yes, 2-1 to Argentina, 3-2 to Brazil, and 3-1 to Germany.

What I’m certain of is the fact you would not like a special World Cup held only for teams that have managed to reach the WC quarterfinals since the enlargement of the World Cup by FIFA. Want to know why? Seven (7) non-UEFA teams (only two of them from CONMEBOL) and twenty-two (22) UEFA teams.

Reply
Sanchotene

November 30, 2009

Just to point that I desagree with Daniel. CONMEBOL has all the spots it deserves. Of course, in 2014, I would like to see South America with 4,5+1 spots, because the WC is finally in CONMEBOL’s territory, but that would be exception. Although, I agree that the spot given to Asia would fit better in Africa.

I agree with Viola that the 0,5 spot given to North America is unjust to Europe. But, I strongly desagree to his European blind love. I could bet that next year we would probably have a quarterfinal picture like 2002 (the only 32-teams-non-European WC), with 4 Europeans and 4 non-European teams.

That UEFA is the strongest continent in international football (as well in club football, but that’s another subject) this is undeniable, but CONMEBOL is close second (its short size and institutional inefficency sometimes make difficult this perception -being close-, but I could show other numbers proving it).

Finally, the other Confederations are closing the gap on an extremely fast pace, specially CAF.

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 30, 2009

Imagine, for instance, an unified UEFA/CONMEBOL World Cup Qualifying. There would be 17,5 spots at stake. Let’s take the European formula:

a) 12 groups – 10 of 5, and 3 of 6;
b) the 12 winners get one spot;
c) the best 11 runners-up go to the playoffs (one plays against CONCACAF’S 4th.

but,
d) there cannot be two teams from South America at the same group.

Using FIFA’s October rankings, this would be the pots:

Pot 1: Brazil, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Argentina, England, Croatia, France, Portugal, Russia and Switzerland.

Pot 2: Czech, Greece, Chile, Serbia, Paraguay, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Uruguay, Israel, Dinamarca, Colombia and Northern Ireland.

Pote 3: Slovakia, Eire, Romania, Norway, Turkey, Sweden, Bosnia, Ecuador, Scotland, Latvia, Slovenia and Hungary.

Pot 4: Venezuela, Poland, Finland, Austria, Lithuania, Bolivia, Cyprus, Macedonia, Belgium, Belarus, Peru and Montenegro.

Pot 5: Wales, Iceland, Moldova, Albania, Armenia, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Faroe, Azerbaijan, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein.

Pote 6: Malta, Andorra and San Marino.

Among the top-24, there are SIX South Americans…

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

November 30, 2009

Ilias,

The numbers I have differ a little, but mostly because I consider a tie every draw after 90′ of play, while RSSSF research does it just after 120′. But here they are:

Overall: 195 games
South America – 79 wins;
Europe – 66;
Draws – 50.

Playoff matches*: 53
South America qualified 31 times;
Europe: 22.

Group stages matches**: 141
South America – 55 wins;
Europe – 49;
Draws – 37.

World Cups in Europe: 97 games
Europe – 40 wins;
South America – 29;
Draws – 28.

Playoff matches in Europe: 29
Europe qualified 17 times;
South America: 11.

Group stages matches in Europe: 68
Europe – 27 wins;
South America – 22;
Draws – 19.

World Cups outside Europe: 98 games
South America – 50 wins;
Europe – 26;
Draws – 22.

Playoff matches outside Europe: 25
South America qualified 20 times;
Europe: 5.

Group stages matches outside Europe: 73
South America – 33 wins;
Europe – 22;
Draws – 18.

From 1982 onwards: 86 matches overall
South America – 31 wins;
Europe – 30
Draws – 25

Playoff matches*: 27
South America qualified 15 times;
Europe: 12.

Group stages matches**: 59
Europe – 22 wins;
South America- 20;
Draws – 17.

World Cups ’82/2006 in Europe: 46 matches
Europe – 19 wins;
South America- 12;
Draws – 15.

Playoff matches ’82/2006 in Europe: 12
Europe qualified 8 times;
South America: 4.

Group stages matches ’82/2006 in Europe: 34
Europe – 14 wins;
South America – 11;
Draws – 9.

World Cups ’86/2002 outside Europe: 40 games
South America – 19 wins;
Europe – 11;
Draws – 10.

Playoff matches outside Europe: 15
South America qualified 11 times;
Europe: 4.

Group stages matches outside Europe: 25
South America – 9 wins;
Europe – 8;
Draws – 8.

The central question here is whether the perception that UEFA is the strongest continent does not come exclusively from the fact that 55,56% of the World Cup were held in European soil. After all, the inferiority against South Americans outside Europe seems undeniable, both historically and recently.

* A playoff match is a single confrotation between two teams, where the winner advances and the loser is eliminated;

** It were also considered group stage the 1982 quarterfinals (played in 4 groups of 3), the 1978 semifinals (played in 2 groups of 4) and the 1950 finals (there were 4 finalists).

Reply
Daniel Burnier

November 30, 2009

“After all, the inferiority (of Europe) against South Americans outside Europe seems undeniable, both historically and recently”.

Indeed!

And the 3 friendly matches I pointed out show that teams like Chile are in a very good moment. So we should ask ourselves the question: What should we take into account, current performance or historical performance?

You you choose historical performance, then you should consider ALL world cups and not only those you like…

And by doing that, Uruguay won 2 times and Chile already played a final match, so they are not “nobodies” as you call them.

Reply
california viola

November 30, 2009

The World Cups played before 1982 cannot be fully considered for statistical purposes because it was only starting with that World Cup that FIFA began offering more spots to “minor” confederations thus allowing for a comperaison between confederations. In fact half of the world cups played in South America were poorly attended (only 13 teams) and in one case teams were invited and did not have to qualify for it.

Current performance does not mean evaluating teams through meaningless friendlies. In two of the last four friendlies Italy played, all reserve players were used. Friendlies mean very, very little.

Here is the current performance for Chile and Uruguay:

Chile has not advanced beyond the second round since 1962 (that’s 47 years ago) in their home World Cup, a world cup remember mostly because a semifinal was watched by less than 6000 spectators.

Uruguay has won the only two world cups played by only 13 teams. It has not advanced past the second round since the 1970 WC (that’s 39 years ago).

Some numbers for the last three world cups played in Europe, Asia, and the Americas:

2006 WC (Germany)
6 quarterfinalists – Europe
2 quarterfinalists – S. America

2002 WC (Japan/S. Korea)
4 quarterfinalists – Europe
1 quarterfinalist each – Africa, Asia, CONCACAF, S. America

1994 WC (United States)
7 quarterfinalists – Europe
1 quarterfinalist – S. America

Totals:
17 quarterfinalists – Europe (12 different teams)
4 quarterfinalists – S. America (only 2 teams)
1 quarterfinalist – Africa, Asia, CONCACAF

The cycle will be completed in 2010 (South Africa) and 2014 (Brazil). For South America to match Europe’s achievement, UEFA will have to get zero quarterfinal spots in both World Cups and South America will have to get 13 quarterfinal spots out of a possible 16. Good luck!

Reply
dq

November 30, 2009

hi everyone,

really interesting discussion you are having here. what you neglect to consider though is that europe has a much larger pool of teams. chile beating denmark isn’t such a great surprise if you consider chile being the third best team in concacaf and denmark the thirteenth or fourteenth best team in uefa.

if i think back to england vs paraguay in germany 06, it was a rubbish match but only really one winner.

Reply
california viola

November 30, 2009

By the way, quite an interesting comment by Blatter today.

“[I]n light of events in Paris, and incendiary clashes between Egypt and Algeria and Uruguay and Costa Rica, Blatter suggested that sudden-death play-offs be scrapped for the next World Cup qualifying campaigns.” quoted from goal.com

I’m very interested in knowing what this means.

Reply
Sanchotene

November 30, 2009

Viola,

On Blatter, it doesn’t mean nothing yet. He’s someone that just talks too much, so you cannot take it seriously at the very beginning. Wait a bit to see if the idea developes.

On your numbers, it looks like that UEFA has an outstanding ability to make quarterfinalists (very impressive indeed), just to see them choking in the end whenever outside from the continent…

Reply
Daniel Burnier

November 30, 2009

Current performance does not mean evaluating teams through meaningless friendlies. In two of the last four friendlies Italy played, all reserve players were used. Friendlies mean very, very little.
——————————

How can you compare the current performance of South American and European teams (besides the world cup) if not by means of friendly matches? They are the only opportunities for these countries to play each other during the 4 years gaps between world cups.

Reply
california viola

November 30, 2009

I’m obviously wasting my time here as you keep changing the issue.

In the last three world cups played OUTSIDE Europe, UEFA teams “choked” by reaching the top eight in the World 16 times. On the other hand, non-UEFA teams “triumphed” by bringing only 8 teams to the same level.

Probably Daniel is right. We shouldn’t even have a World Cup but just have friendlies all year around. Then Chile and Paraguay can dominate the soccer world and Venezuela and Bolivia play for third place.

Incidentally – in the last three world cups played OUTSIDE Europe – 10 out of 13 South American teams (77%) were eliminated by … European teams. Great dominance, indeed.

Reply
Sanchotene

December 1, 2009

The real special numbers, that you have difficult to explain Viola, are those:

World Cups ‘86/2002 outside Europe: 40 games
South America – 19 wins;
Europe – 11;
Draws – 10.

Playoff matches outside Europe: 15
South America qualified 11 times;
Europe: 4.

Group stages matches outside Europe: 25
South America – 9 wins;
Europe – 8;
Draws – 8.

They are from 1982 onwards, and show that European teams struggle against South Americans, even in group stage matches.

Only if we take out any game involving the world champions, there is in fact an European advantage outside Europe: 10 games, 5 wins, 3 losses and 2 ties. Colombia (1-1-0) and Paraguay have a .500 record, Ecuador have 1.000 record (one game, one win). The losing record belongs to Uruguay (0-2-1, .111) and Bolivia (one game, one loss).

So there it is: the fantastic European advantage!

I can’t discuss this 10/13 elimination ratio, because I cannot understand it. For instance, in 2002, Uruguay was eliminated by both Denmark and Senegal, exactly as France was. But the last Uruguayan game, the game that decided its fate, was against Senegal (3-3), so Denmark wasn’t quite an issue there. Did you count it as an European elimination, even with an African side directly envolved?

Reply
Sanchotene

December 1, 2009

And of course, I’m not changing the subject since tha Cup went to Argentina (1986) and Brazil (1994 and 2002); all against Europeans teams.

As I’ve said, I think UEFA is the strongest Confederation, but if you took out its top-6, perhaps top-8, and it becomes hard to keep the advantage over South America (even a non-Brazil-non-Argentina one).

Reply
Daniel Burnier

December 1, 2009

@ Paulo Sanchotene: Sou do RJ e torcedor do Flamengo… domingo vamos nos encontrar 🙂
abracos

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

December 1, 2009

Congratulations for the Championship, Daniel!

LOALAP!
Laughing Out As Loud As Possible!

—

Viola,

Let me organize my point, it seems I’ve lost in the randomness of the arguments presented.

I. We agree that UEFA is the strongest confederation in International football.

II. The desagreement starts when we point the difference between European football and, mainly, South American.

III. You, if I’ve understood it correctly, believe that Europe is the best without comparison. I say that South America is a close second.

IV. It’s because you think Europe is that great, that you believe it deserves almost every spot in a World Cup. So, I won’t debate how many spots Europe should have, but why you think it’s so great.

V. You have said, if I am not mistaken, that Brazil and Argentina are the only nations that match European top standards. Again, I must agree.

VI. However, we strongly desagree in what “European top standards” really means.

VII. There are in Europe always some 8 to 12 teams that are really world class.

VIII. No other continent has 8 to 12 (Conmebol does not actulally have 12 teams at all) world class teams. And that’s what makes Europe the strongest continent in football.

IX. If I’m right, you think Europe has more then 8 to 12 world class teams. I desagree on this, and that’s the core of the argument.

X. It happens that European football has a very large middle class, that always has teams getting stronger, weaker and stronger again year after year.

XI. So, if it’s true that Europe has 8 to 12 world class teams, it’s also true the fact that those teams also change year after year. Sometimes Portugal comes in, others Sweden, others Denmark, etc. And sometimes Netherlands comes out, others Spain, others Russia, Turkey, etc.

XII. So you just can’t say automatically: this European team is “world class”, because it depends on the moment; exceptions to GER and ITA; perhaps FRA and ENG.

XIII. Whenever you take Europe top-20, it’s really hard to say who’s better, but there will always be bad teams on it; teams undesearving to be called “world class”. Teams that go to Euro or World Cups for nothing. And that’s probably half of them.

… to be continued …

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

December 1, 2009

XIV. It’s clearer that those European middle class teams go especially to World Cup for nothing, whenever the World Cup happens outside of Europe.

XV. Whenever world-middle-classe teams face each other, playing at or close to home helps. A lot! In an European World Cup, the Europeans have an advantage over their opponents, and the results prove it.

XVI. In Europe, there are more world-top among the European middle-class mainly because they have HFA. Even Brazil and Argentina suffer with that, imagine the rest of the world. That’s why commonlly an European World Cup becomes an internal affair.

XVII. In neutral ground, however, that does not happen.

XVIII. Yes, the top Europeans come hard. Yes, some middle-class European come hard (much less then in Europe). But Brazil and/or Argentina just impose themselves, as the results show it.

XIX. South American middle-class are all teams besides Brazil and Argentina. They suffer from the same disease as their Europeans counterparts. Some are always stronger than the others, but we can’t say who’s going to be.

XX. South American middle-class can make some noise of their own. Paraguay survived the Group of Death (eliminating Spain and Bulgaria) and lost to hosts France in a close match. Paraguay has beaten Slovenia, went to the eighthfinals in 2006 and lost to Germany in a very close match. Ecuador eliminated Poland in 2006, and it was eliminated by a strong England side in a very close match. They have lost to FRANCE, GERMANY and ENGLAND, but they all have beaten their middle-class counterparts.

XXI. The problem is they are (justly) only 2 or 3 in every World Cup, so it’s a small sample. There are a great chance for them to be paired in strong groups as Paraguay did in 1998 (and survived just to lose to the home side and future champions) and Uruguay and Ecuador did in 2002 (both were eliminated).

XXII. In such case, a strong side ot two will be eliminated as Poland and Paraguay were in 2006. In other groups, as Ukraine group in 2006, it’s just easier to go through. Europe, since have more teams, it doesn’t matter who, but some teams will certainly be in easier groups, and will qualify to the next stage.

XXIII. So, the greatest differences between Europe and South America are: (a) the Europeans top-flight hardly manage to have the consistency of ARG and, mainly, Brazil (adv. SAm); and (b) the European middle-class outnumbers the South American, increasing the probabilities of having more stronger teams (adv. Eur).

XXIV. There are also more games in Europe, than in neutral ground, than in South America. That’s helps the European teams as well.

XXV. That said, I would like to see more European teams playing in Santiago, Asunción, Montevideo, Quito, Barranquilla…

Best regards,
Paulo Roberto

Reply
Mitz

December 1, 2009

To be continued…? Wow!

So far, I personally have no problem with the arguments presented, except for suggesting that France and England can be compared to Italy and Germany in terms of consistent excellence at the World Cup. They (we) can’t.

Do go on…

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

December 1, 2009

It’s already there, Mitz.

I’ve used “perhaps” when comparing FRA/ENG with ITA/GER because besides that FRA/ENG aren’t consistent as GER/ITA they aren’t inconsistent as the rest of the pack.

Reply
Edgar

December 2, 2009

Gotta love those Latin numbers 🙂

I don’t think there’s an easy solution. I like the idea of a CONMEBOL-CONCACAF merger – that’s not going to happen in my life time.

Reply
Daniel Burnier

December 2, 2009

The tops for the final draw are defined:
The Netherlands are seeded and France is NOT

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

December 2, 2009

Great news for Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay!

Reply
california viola

December 2, 2009

I see that the issue keeps shifting so this will be my last post on the topic.

The issue was: should South America be given an extra spot at the next World Cup?

My answer was: no because in South America there are two great teams and a bunch of nobodies.

Let’s see if that is true based on the evidence presented by the nobodies since 1982 when 2 or 3 “other” South American teams began playing in the World Cup.

1982:

Peru 0-2-1 eliminated in the first round by two European teams

Chile 0-0-3 eliminated in the first round by two European teams

1986:

Paraguay 1-2-1 eliminated in the second round by a European team

Uruguay 0-2-2 third in the group behind two European teams; eliminated in the second round

1990:

Colombia 1-1-2 third in the group behind two European teams; eliminated in the second round

Uruguay 1-1-2 third in the group behind two European teams; eliminated in the second round by a European team

1994:

Colombia 1-0-2 eliminated in the first round by two European teams

Bolivia 0-1-2 eliminated in the first round by two European teams

1998:

Chile: 0-3-1 second to a European team in the group; eliminated in the second round

Paraguay: 1-2-1 eliminated by a European team in the second round

Colombia 1-0-2 eliminated by two European teams

2002:

Uruguay 0-2-1 eliminated in the first round (group won by a European team)

Paraguay 1-1-2 second to a European team in the group; eliminated in the second round by a European team

Ecuador 1-0-2 eliminated in the first round and preceeded by both European teams

2006

Ecuador 2-0-2 second in the group after a European team; eliminated in the second round by a European team

Paraguay 1-0-2 eliminated in the first round by two European teams

Summary of the rest of South American teams in the last seven World Cups (no ifs, no buts, no disclaimers, no anedoctal evidence, just cold statistics):

16 participations
8 eliminations in the first round
8 eliminations in the second round
0 quarterfinals/semifinals/finals appearances

Solution:

1. Allow Argentina and Brazil to bring two teams each to the World Cup
2. Buy a bunch of big screen televisions for the rest of the South American continent
3. Give that undeserved half spot to a confederation that deserves it

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

December 2, 2009

The issue was: should South America be given an extra spot at the next World Cup?

So the issue is not shifting. That’s exactly the point:

IV. It’s because you think Europe is that great, that you believe it deserves almost every spot in a World Cup… (#47)

You think South America don’t deserve it, but Europe does. As I’ve said before (#25), FIFA could easily take of 0,5 spot, and give CONMEBOL 4+1. But why do that? And if they do, who would get this 0,5? Europe (13,5?), Asia (5?), North America (4?)? Why it would be more deserving to them then to South America?

The point was to defend this tiny right of keeping 0,5 spot to South America in a South American World Cup. In order to do that, I needed to confront your perception of European superiority. Nothing more.

Reply
Mitz

December 2, 2009

That is some pretty stern evidence, and it’s pretty incontrovertible I would say. It’s surprising really – you would have thought that maybe Paraguay or Uruguay would have managed at least one qf between them in the last 20 years, but hey ho.

I presume solutions 1 and 2 were jokes (it’s sometimes hard to tell) – so given that you’re serious about 3, and that obviously it can’t go to Europe, who gets the half spot?

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

December 2, 2009

Mitz and Viola,

You are both missing the point. Any continent would deserve it. Anyone who qualifies from this half spot would be a “nobody”.

You read Viola statements and inevitably start wonder if he really thinks Switzerland, Slovenia, Greece, Serbia and Slovakia are title contenders. And those are teams that actually qualified! By the way, I would fear CIV, GHA and CAM more then those Europeans.

South America does deserve the spot in 2014 JUST because the Cup is in South America.

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

December 2, 2009

You can tell the History of World Cup of Europeans epic fails too!

1982 (4 1st stage eliminations):
a) Hungary eliminated in 1st stage with 1 win over El Salvador;
b) Czechoslovakia eliminated in 1st stage with no wins (1 tie against Kuwait);
c) Yugoslavia eliminated in 1st stage with 1 win over Honduras;
d) Scotland eliminated in 1st stage with 1 win over New Zealand.

1986 (6 1st stage eliminations):
a) Bulgaria eliminated in 1st stage with no wins (1 tie against South Korea);
b) Hungary eliminated in 1st stage with 1 win over Canada;
c) Northern Ireland eliminated in 1st stage with no wins (1 tie against Algeria);
d) Scotland eliminated in 1st stage with no wins (1 tie against Uruguay);
e) Morocco won group F, playing against England (who qualified), Portugal (eliminated) and Poland (eliminated).

1990 (4 1st stage eliminations):
a) USSR was the only eliminated in 1st stage Group A (Argentina, Cameroon and Romania passed through);
b) Scotland and Sweden were eliminated in 1st stage by Brazil and COSTA RICA;
c) Austria eliminated in 1st stage with 1 win over the USA.

etc.

Reply
california viola

December 2, 2009

Mitz, you summarized the whole discussion perfectly and in just a few words,

“you would have thought that maybe Paraguay or Uruguay would have managed at least one qf between them in the last 20 years, but hey ho.”

Exactly the point.

By the way, to answer your question, I think CONMEBOL will retain its 4.5 spots for 2014. Giving South America more spots would be ridiculuos, Brazil wants as many S. American countries involved as possible, but CONMEBOL doesn’t count very much when FIFA decisions are made since they only have 10 votes (as compared to the more than 100 Africa and Asia combined have).

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

December 2, 2009

cont. 58

1994 (last Cup with 24 teams): Greece were embaressed: 0-3-0, GF 0, GC 10. Russia and Norway were eliminated in 1st stage too.

1998 (first with 32): Scotland, Austria, Spain, Bulgaria and Belgium had 1 victory combined (Spain over Bulgaria!), and all were eliminated in 1st stage.

2002: France, Slovenia, Croatia and Russia were all eliminated in first round. Poland and Portugal, too, but they were at the same group; they were beaten by South Korea and the USA.

2006: Poland, Serbia, Czech and Croatia were eliminated in the first round.

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

December 2, 2009

That said, if you want the créme de la créme of world football, take 2 South Americans and no more than 5 or 6 Europeans…

Reply
california viola

December 2, 2009

See, Paulo, I gave you the whole picture of how poorly the rest of South America has been doing in the World Cup and what do you do? You pick and choose just what you find convenient. And you do it poorly too.

Just to show how intentionally deceptive your posts are:

1982: “Czechoslovakia eliminated in 1st stage with no wins”

Czechoslovakia was eliminated by two other European teams (England and France).

1986: “Hungary eliminated in 1st stage with 1 win over Canada”

Who did Hungary lose to? Two European teams (USSR and France).

1986: “Scotland eliminated in 1st stage with no wins (1 tie against Uruguay)”

Again, the top two teams in the group were European (Denmark and West Germany).

1990: “Austria eliminated in 1st stage with 1 win over the USA”

Once again, the top two teams in the group were European (Italy and Czechoslovakia).

[By the way, you really picked bad World Cups to show how Europe failed. In those three cups, Europe had 18 out of 24 quarterfinalists, 10 out of 12 semifinalists (83.3%!), 4 out of 6 finalists, and 2 out of 3 champions.]

Since I want to be completely honest, below is a list of World Cups where UEFA did fail and did not place a single team in the semifinals:

—

End of post and really end of the discussion as far I’m concerned. I’m just afraid next post will deal on how poorly European teams have been doing in Copa America and the Asian Championship.

Reply
ilias

December 2, 2009

By the way Poland in 1986 wasn’t eliminated in 1st round but by Brazil in 2st.

Reply
Daniel Burnier

December 3, 2009

Of course most of the european teams are eliminated by other european teams… the fact is that there are simply too many of them.

With so many european teams is almost impossible that we have semi finals without any europeans.

Reply
Paulo Sanchotene

December 3, 2009

In other more important news (let’s be in peace!)…

Yesterday, Charlize Theron, at the World Cup Draw rehearsal, pulled France’s ball and yelled:

– IRELAND!

FIFA’s secretary that was conducting the cerimony almost felt down…

😀

Reply
Daniel Burnier

December 3, 2009

– IRELAND!

FIFA’s secretary that was conducting the cerimony almost felt down…
——————————————-

that was great.

I think Paulo is right, we should stop arguing about who is better and try to talk about who is going to be better next year in South Africa 🙂

I am really looking forward to the final draw on Friday. I would like to have Brazil and Portugal in the same group 🙂

Reply
Daniel Dominguez

December 3, 2009

I’m another one from Brazil, another Daniel as you can see. 🙂

I’m really hoping Brazil and France to be in the same group. Brazil usually gets easy groups, unlike Argentina. Portugal too, they we’re not seeded in the last 2 World Cups and were lucky to be in the groups seeded by S.Korea in 2002 (although they didn’t qualify for the KO) and Mexico in 2006.

What if France is placed in the group A, joining South Africa? Would it be suspicious?

Reply

vorosmccracken.com

Quick Sim Update

67 responses to “Quick Sim Update”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply