World Cup Draw

Remove all ads!

As long as it isn't your team that gets upset

 

I don't know much about the World Cup teams, but I know England is good, and Algeria and Slovenia are not particularly good, which means that the US has at least a fair chance of advancing out of their group.

Regarding the prestige of the WC, how does it compare to say, the European Championship (assuming your home country is a European nation of course). Would most European nations think it is a bigger acheivement to win the European Championship or the WC?

 

WC is definitely considered a greater achievement, IMO, especially since South American countries take part (like Brazil or Argentina). European Championship is also valued and respected, but I'd say WC has more weight.

 

My Picks:

GROUP A (Hard group to me)
Uruguay or Mexico
France

GROUP B
Argentina
Nigeria

GROUP C
England
United States

GROUP D
Germany
Serbia

GROUP E
Netherlands
Denmark

GROUP F
Italy
Paraguay

GROUP G
Brazil
Portugal

GROUP H
Spain
Chile

I agree, the World Cup has more weight, specialy since done only every four years.

 

I'll be rooting for the other teams. I really didn't like the way France got qualified and I hope the French team won't make it.

 

What is this "home continent advantage" I keep hear being talked about? Do African teams receive some kind of bonus in the tie-breaking process?

 

I absolutely agree. They shouldn't have been allowed to qualify, IMO.

Aldeth:
As for the home continent advantage, I'm not sure what that is about. The nation hosting the tournament gets to automatically qualify to the event, and hosting nations, historically speaking have always done rather well in these, also a majority of previous championships was won by teams from the continent where the event was held (but in the past the championship was flip-flopped between Europe and South America mostly, the one in 2002 being an exception, so the statistics are flawed). Most (all?) host nations so far used to make it through the group stage into the knockout.
Maybe they mean fan support though. Not sure tbh.

 

No team from Europe has ever won it when it was held outside, which is very weird considering how succesful they have been when it was held in Europe. Japan/S Korea saw a host of the best teams flop completely. It's down to a few things. The travel involved puts you off, as does the different food and culture and time zones. The climate will be different than what you're used to. Ireland in USA 94 for instance had massive problems adapting to the heat of the Southern States, especailly as our style of play relied heavily on running around a lot to pressure the opposition. Less of your fans can travel and more of the opposition's can.

It's probably being overplayed for the African's though. South Africa is in the same time zone as Europe and the climate in the South African winter will be more like Europe than what the northern African countries will be used to. People are automatically assuming just because it's in Africa it'll be played in sweltering heat.

The host nation gets the biggest advantage again. They're playing to stadiums packed with their fans and take extra pride in playing for their country. Loreseeker is right that all the hosts have made it past the knock out stages. USA/Japan/S Korea would have been far from guaranteed but they still pulled through. I'd be surprised if S Africa don't end this run though, they've a very poor team at the moment and recent results have been bad. The hosts also have a tendency to do very well even for the stronger teams, often providing the winners.

 

For group A I would say that South Africa is going through instead of Mexico and Uruguay. First, it's playing at home and I remember South Korea and Japan kicking ass when they hosted the WC, second I can't remember Mexico playing good, something in my head says 80's, but I might also have repressed some things :^

 

That does seem to be a flawed statistic. Even with my limited knowledge of the sport, I know that the best teams have historically come from Europe and South America. If those nations also tend to host the WC, then it seems more of an issue of the better teams tending to win (which you would expect irrespective of the location of the WC) than of an actual home field advantage.

 

It's just that teams who are playing in their own climate, with more fan support and stadia they probably know, have straight away go an advantage over other teams. It's just the home advantage isn't it, in any sport teams playing at home do better than away teams. For me though, if your players are good enough, you'll be able to win anywhere... it's just a matter of tuning into the climate you're in. EG, England, or Denmark playing in South Korea.. it's hell running around for 90+ minutes, at the same pace they do at home. That's all it's about, really.

 

Well, I've certainly heard of a home field advantage - this is just the first time I've heard of a home continent advantage. I can certainly understand that you are more familiar with your home nation's climate and stadiums. It just seems to me that the British would be most familiar with Britain's climate and stadiums, and that advantage would not necessarily translate over to other European nations, if they were playing in Germany for example.

 

World cup football/soccer is the pinnacle of the game. As an Olympic gold.

 

You see, that's where I think the mindset of Americans is different from the rest of the world. I'll use basketball as an example here, as the US has no chance of winning the WC. I would think that most professional basketball players would prefer to win the league championship than win a gold medal.

I'm not saying that the US players at the Olympics aren't trying to win, but that they consider that the peak talent of the world already plays in the US (and given the number of foreign players that sign with NBA teams, it's hard to argue that). The main reason players turn down the offer to play on the Olympic team is because they don't want to wear themselves down in the summer, just before the basketball season is about to start. The only way that is justifiable is if the NBA championship is more important to you than an Olympic gold medal.

 

Basketball is not a sport that is played troughout the world on a even professional basis.

Let I say for an individual atlete.

---------- Added 0 hours, 13 minutes and 26 seconds later... ----------

1: The heat. Some Europeans have problems with high temp's.
2: It is almost tradition that the home team survives long.(and yes the referee sometimes helps)
3: If your team is staying at a hotel to play an african team the next morning it is likely to get a warm reception and welcoming party trough the night.

Still a champion can deal with that.

 

I think the problem with your mindset is in seriously overestimating how popular basketball is outside the US. It's played alright but nowhere near to the same extent as in the US. So the NBA is the pinnacle of the sport. Most of the best players are American so it's obvious the US is the best team (even if they don't always win). There are similar examples in other sports. At club level the European Cup is more prestigous than the World Club Championship. The best players from other continents will soon end up at European clubs anyway.

International football is different. Football is the #1 undisputed sport in lots of countries. Say maybe the combined interest of American Football and Baseball in the US, at least. So it's competitive. Furthermore, the best countries are better than the best clubs. Spain's best XI is better than any club team's and they've the likes of Fabregas on the bench, who'd walk into any club team. So the World Cup is the most prestigous as that's the competition with the best teams in it.

The clubs are getting closer these days. The money is being concentrated into a handful of big clubs and globalisation means players are much more likely to move countries to play in a new league. I still don't think they're quite as good as the best countries yet though.

 

Hence why at the world basketball championships in the mid 2000s (I think it was 2004), New Zealand finished higher than USA. Go New Zealand!

 

It was 2002 and USA finished 5th IIRC - in their home tournament. New Zealand (The Tall Blacks ) lost in the bronze game to Germany. But basketballs world championship isn't as prestigious as the World Cup in football, although it's also played every four year.

 

Sheesh. I think people are taking my basketball example way too far. The only reason I picked basketball was because Merlanni compared winning the WC as equivalent in prestige to winning a gold medal. I used basketball to point out an example of an Olympic sport that the US is actually good at, where winning a league championship was considered more important than winning a gold medal.

I was talking specifically about the particular mindset of American athletes. I never meant to imply that basketball was just as popular as soccer, or that this mindset was specific to just basketball players. I could have just as easly said that most baseball players would prefer to win their league championship (in the case of MLB that would be the World Series), as compared to the World Baseball Classic (since baseball is no longer an Olympic sport), which is also played every four years like the WC. Most pro hockey players would also prefer to win the Stanley Cup than an Olympic medal.

 

One the last one I beg to differ, or atleast put them on equal footing especially if you view the last few years where all the best players are part of their olympic teams.