The Official World Cup 2010 Thread

[Frans]

What a BS, jamcocteau and aveslacker. Can't a person have expectations? Being respectful and expections are two completely different things. You look like a bunch of legendary calimero's...

It's good to be a legend!

Seriously, though, expectations are one thing, but this goes a little further than that. That statement is basically an assumption that Oranje will make it to the quarterfinal. I don't think there is a team out there that should assume that. It comes across as kind of arrogant.

You're an American? Don't you guys do prediction-things before great sport events? Something like what gordonvandekamp just started two posting above?

We in Europe do that quite often and when you do a 'pool' you will have to guess what you think is most likely. And looking at our (the Dutch) line-up, compared to the ones Denmark, Japan, Cameroon and Paraguay/Slovakia can present, no-one can say that we have not got the best players. That is a simple fact. Knowing that, why (really, WHY) can't one say that the quarter-finals will be the end for the Dutch team in South Africa? Why does one have to be shy/humble/unrealistic? Why can't one say what is most likely if you look at the pure quality of the squads?

Let's frase it differently, aveslacker. What should a Dutchman answer (according to you) when he is asked the question 'Where will the upcoming world-cup end for the Dutch team?'. Enlighten me.

Are you sure Italy won't finish second behind New Zealand in group F?

[Tom_]

Are you sure Italy won't finish second behind New Zealand in group F?

Hahahaha nice. I'm really glad NZ made it, by the way, after all the complaining that went on in Australia about the road to qualification through Oceania being too difficult.

[Monkey Tonk]

And I don't agree with this idea that Brazil somehow can't play well because it is winter. Pretty much every Brazilian player plays in Europe anyway. They shouldn't be afraid of a little cold. Their problem is the same problem that Spain, Argentina, Holland, Portugal and England will have: all of their key players will be coming off the tail end of long seasons and could be pretty jaded during the tournament.

Just for kicks.
Weather angle for the World Cup, suggesting that Brazil has benefited disproportionally from summer heat.
Distance from the equator, north or south:

1962 - Santiago - 33S27 (winner: Brazil)
1966 - London - 51N30 (winner: England)
================================
1970 - Mexico City - 19N24 (winner: Brazil) <= HOT!
1974 - Munich - 48N08 (winner: West Germany)
1978 - Buenos Aires - 34S36 (winner: Argentina)
1982 - Madrid - 40N24 (winner: Italy)
1986 - Mexico City - 19N24 (winner: Argentina) <= HOT!
1990 - Rome - 41N54 (winner: West Germany)
1994 - Los Angeles - 34N03 (winner: Brazil) <= HOT!
1998 - Paris - 48N52 (winner: France)
2002 - Yokohama - 35N27 (winner: Brazil) <= HOT!
2006 - Berlin - 52N30 (winner: Italy)

I drew a line at 1970, to indicate the start of the modern soccer era; a judgment call, but one that stands apart from this particular statistic. Since then there have been four World Cups with extreme summer heat (for which I draw the line at around 35 degrees north from the equator, for tournaments in summer in the northern hemisphere; roughly the level of Los Angeles (34N)). Three of them where won by Brazil. Based on this, I could definitely make a case that their glorious history is overrated.

Has that situation changed, because, as you mentioned, today many Brazilians play in Europe? Maybe. But my main point is not that Brazil is less comfortable in winter, but that they will lack the heat edge. A heat so formidable that other teams can no longer function, while Brazilians imagine themselves in ideal surroundings, playing soccer on the beach. They remain fully functional in the heat, whereas a northern European team like Holland suffered from heat exhaustion in 1994. Huge edge! Brazil won't have it this time, so the playing field is even. (And I don't think 'Brazil' is as good as people think; if only because soccer fans typically see only their World Cups without considering the extreme summer heat edge).

[aveslacker]

Let's look at this data from another angle*.

Average temperature, Mexico City, July: 23 C.
Average temperature, Madrid, July: 31 C.
Average temperature, Guadalajara, where Brazil was based for their group matches in 1986: 26 C.
Average temperature, Yokohama, July: 29 C.
Average temperature, Paris, July: 24 C.
Average temperature, Los Angeles, July: 32 C.
Average temperature, Berlin, July: 24 C.
Average temperature, Rome, July: 30 C.

*I went with the average high when I had a choice.

So looking at this list, the ones that stand out for being particularly hot are Madrid and Los Angeles (to be honest, Los Angeles was probably one of the cooler venues at that WC. Dallas, for example, was probably closer to 40 C) with Yokohama in third place. Brazil won in Yokohama and LA, but not Madrid. But Brazil also won twice in Mexico City which is the coolest location on this list (reason: Mexico City is at 2200 meters, Guadalajara at 1500) and played in the final in Paris, the second-coolest city on the list. So the idea that Brazil somehow loses an advantage when it isn't hot is probably a lot of... hot air. Besides, 32 C isn't particularly hot at all.

[Monkey Tonk]

I used the sites of the finals, but obviously the WC tournament is played across an entire country. So just because Mexico City has high elevation, that doesn't mean the tournament itself wasn't extremely hot. (elevation is a separate issue that could be studied on its own merit)

The same goes for the 1994 WC in the US. Florida, Dallas, etc; there were major complaints by dehydrated players about matches during the hottest hours of the day (so Europe could watch them in prime time). That tournament was a fiasco in terms of heat. Few remember it afterwards, and even fewer, other than the players themselves, think of it as conditions that can easily decide a match and/or tournament.

As to Spain. Matches were played during the cooler hours of the day/night.

The latitudes are a general indicator. I'm glad you challenged the underlying theory, but I'm sticking with the general idea (that Brazil has benefited from extreme heat). Although it is certainly necessary to consider the kickoff times of the games as well.

[Orange14]

The game against Brazil in 1994 was played in Dallas Texas which is much hotter than Los Angeles. Also because of the time difference and the need to meet Euro TV requirements, the WC final that year began at 12 noon in the Rose Bowl (Los Angeles) and as I recall it wasn't a bad day at all for football. Other venues such as Orlando (as noted) were downright inhospitable.

[aveslacker]

I used the sites of the finals, but obviously the WC tournament is played across an entire country. So just because Mexico City has high elevation, that doesn't mean the tournament itself wasn't extremely hot. (elevation is a separate issue that could be studied on its own merit)

The same goes for the 1994 WC in the US. Florida, Dallas, etc; there were major complaints by dehydrated players about matches during the hottest hours of the day (so Europe could watch them in prime time). That tournament was a fiasco in terms of heat. Few remember it afterwards, and even fewer, other than the players themselves, think of it as conditions that can easily decide a match and/or tournament.

As to Spain. Matches were played during the cooler hours of the day/night.

The latitudes are a general indicator. I'm glad you challenged the underlying theory, but I'm sticking with the general idea (that Brazil has benefited from extreme heat). Although it is certainly necessary to consider the kickoff times of the games as well.

Those are all things I took into account. Note that Brazil was based in Guadalajara in 1986. And again, I conceded that Los Angeles was one of the cooler venues at WC 94. But there has to be more to it than that, because otherwise other teams that are used to hot weather (Mexico, Australia, the U.S., Greece, etc) would be winning a lot more than they do.

At the end of the day, Brazil does better in World Cups because they have better players. The presence or absence of heat doesn't have too much to do with it, in my opinion.

[Monkey Tonk]

I used the sites of the finals, but obviously the WC tournament is played across an entire country. So just because Mexico City has high elevation, that doesn't mean the tournament itself wasn't extremely hot. (elevation is a separate issue that could be studied on its own merit)

The same goes for the 1994 WC in the US. Florida, Dallas, etc; there were major complaints by dehydrated players about matches during the hottest hours of the day (so Europe could watch them in prime time). That tournament was a fiasco in terms of heat. Few remember it afterwards, and even fewer, other than the players themselves, think of it as conditions that can easily decide a match and/or tournament.

As to Spain. Matches were played during the cooler hours of the day/night.

The latitudes are a general indicator. I'm glad you challenged the underlying theory, but I'm sticking with the general idea (that Brazil has benefited from extreme heat). Although it is certainly necessary to consider the kickoff times of the games as well.

Those are all things I took into account. Note that Brazil was based in Guadalajara in 1986. And again, I conceded that Los Angeles was one of the cooler venues at WC 94. But there has to be more to it than that, because otherwise other teams that are used to hot weather (Mexico, Australia, the U.S., Greece, etc) would be winning a lot more than they do.

At the end of the day, Brazil does better in World Cups because they have better players. The presence or absence of heat doesn't have too much to do with it, in my opinion.

Among contenders.

I never said it was the only ingredient. Of course there is more to it than only heat. But it is an ingredient that is typically overlooked. Brazil has a deep talent pool, but if the tournament was held in December, in the northern hemisphere, they would, in my opinion, have been far less successful.

The more a team gravitates towards a worker's type of soccer, the more their game is going to be affected by summer heat. Teams can learn to deal with the heat, but it's an extra opponent; something that makes things more difficult. It's not an extra opponent for Brazil.

During the last Olympic final they had to stop the game a few times during play to give players time to drink. Why would they have done that if heat wasn't an overruling factor?

When things get real close, as they tend to at the top in the later stages of the tournament, a lack of ability to deal with heat can easily decide a game. It won't factor in during this World Cup. So let's see how strong Brazil is this time. ;)

[Venezuelan Ajacied]

Heat or no heat Brazil is not going to win this cup...but its a very safe bet they will win in 2014

[Orange14]

Sulejmani is cut from the Serbia WC roster; Pantelic is in.

[Blind3]

Good for Marko. Lesson for Micky about working hard and good domestic form . If he chooses to learn it.

[Tom_]

I usually ask for an Excel wallchart, but this time I googled it myself... so, here's the link.

[Purple Cow's Ghost]

Having an English Dad, an American Mom and having been born and raised in Amsterdam, my kids have no less than three teams to support in this World Cup. However I can't see any of those three teams making it past the last 16, though with luck and a following wind, Oranje might just make the quarter finals.

England and Holland have a very similar set of problems, both are shockingly inept defensively but with reasonable midfield and strike-forces.

The Netherlands just doesn't have any world class defenders any more, England have just one in Ashley Cole and he's been crocked most of the season. Right back is a perennial problem position for England, and their central-defensive pairing of Ferdinand and Terry always was over-hyped. The aging cripple Ferdinand only started 13 games last season, and the molasses-slow John Terry had already lost his positioning sense long before his sexual activities took precedent over his football. Holland though, do have the benefit of an improved and solidly reliable goalkeeper, England have 'Calamity James'.

England's midfield looks decent, though I'm still not convinced that Gerrard and Lam-Paard can play in the same team. In Rooney, England have their second world-class player, and I prefer to see him alongside DeFoe. Though coach seems to prefer the 'Big guy - Little guy' combination, so I suspect he will start with Rooney and Crouch.

So England to just scrape second in their group table, and loose to Germany in the round of last 16.

Holland have a midfield that stands up against any in the world, and with strike options like van Persie, Robben and Huntelaar, they will give any opposition something to worry about, but they have to keep possession of the ball, because their defense will surely let them down eventually. And I'm not convinced about the rather dour coach, or his son-in-law.

America, have some highly technical players, a tactically astute coach and will be as fit or fitter than any other team in the competition. So they might just pip England to the second-place group spot, in which case it will be their job to lose to Germany in the last sixteen.

As for who will win the whole thing, the logical choice would be Spain, and that's what I would have said a couple of months ago, their record this last few years is quite extraordinary. However they are going into this tournament with injury doubts over 5 or 6 key players. Now it's one thing to go into a tournament with a couple of injury worries - but 5 or 6???

No doubt about it, Argentina have the best football players in the world, but let's face it, their coach is a complete basket case. If he lived anywhere else in the world but Argentina, he would be in a padded cell somewhere, wearing a strait-jacket and a diaper, and Mogadon'd up to the eye-balls.

So that leaves us with the usual suspects of Brazil or Germany.

My head says Germany, my heart says Brazil.

Dark Horses - Uruguay.

[Tom_]

…

As for who will win the whole thing, the logical choice would be Spain, and that's what I would have said a couple of months ago, their record this last few years is quite extraordinary. However they are going into this tournament with injury doubts over 5 or 6 key players. Now it's one thing to go into a tournament with a couple of injury worries - but 5 or 6???

No doubt about it, Argentina have the best football players in the world, but let's face it, their coach is a complete basket case. If he lived anywhere else in the world but Argentina, he would be in a padded cell somewhere, wearing a strait-jacket and a diaper, and Mogadon'd up to the eye-balls.

So that leaves us with the usual suspects of Brazil or Germany.

My head says Germany, my heart says Brazil.

Dark Horses - Uruguay.

Good post mate. I've been thinking about this myself in light of my workplace's tipping competition.

Firstly I'm wondering whether anyone has ever held the World Cup and the European Championship at the same time? That would be quite a feat, and I can't really see Spain pulling it off.

As for Argentina -- what does their qualification campaign tell us? Great players + coke fiend at the helm = total shambles. Agreed, surely we can write them off.

Having said that I'm struggling to come up with a reasonable argument for who will win it. Maybe it's a good chance for a lesser team.

The fact that Dunga has been willing to leave Ronaldinho (and Ronaldo) at home suggests that he's in it for the results, and may be willing to ditch the Brazilian 'flair' and go for a more logical path to victory. They did top their qualification group.

Germany I don't really know much about. Is nobody talking about Italy?

[Dubbel]

Here is the LA Times' analisys of the chances for the Dutch team:

Any team containing the likes of Wesley Sneijder, Arjen Robben, Mark van Bommel, Rafael van der Vaart, Robin van Persie and Dirk Kuyt, to mention only six players, is bound to be a contender and the Dutch, ranked third in the world, are definitely that. Their problem, historically, has been the strange ability to self-destruct, with the cause generally being internal feuding. The independent-minded Dutch players simply don't jell well and that could spell another premature exit

Kinda like the way I used to view the Yugoslavia team, lot of good players but they don't stick together when the going gets tough.

[Philippe]

Firstly I'm wondering whether anyone has ever held the World Cup and the European Championship at the same time?

at least France : 1998 + 2000

My hope is that Holland wins, beating Germany 2-1 in the final.

[Jinne]

The Germans did the same too: 1972 and 1974. They were even close to win 3 tournaments in a row. Until Panenka came across in 76.

[Tom_]

Holland consider playing the fab four together

[gordonvandekamp]

Oranje looked really good today, even seemingly not playing at full tempo. Shame about Robben's injury, trying a fancy flick at the end of a meaningless game, hopefully it's not too bad. Defending was questionable although Hungry had few chances after about 10 minutes in.

I think Uruguay will surprise people, I like Argentina apart from their coach and Oranje barring a game past the group stages that isn't a complete defensive meltdown.

[Venezuelan Ajacied]

Oranje looked really good today, even seemingly not playing at full tempo. Shame about Robben's injury, trying a fancy flick at the end of a meaningless game, hopefully it's not too bad. Defending was questionable although Hungry had few chances after about 10 minutes in.

I think Uruguay will surprise people, I like Argentina apart from their coach and Oranje barring a game past the group stages that isn't a complete defensive meltdown.

I dont think so, i have seen them play in person....awsome strikers but terrible defense they will score a lot but they will receive a lot of goals too. I will be the bold one and say that mexico and south africa are the ones going through.

[Amol]

John O'Brien has started a World Cup Blog on NY Times. Here's the link for his first(?) entry -

http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/0 ... world-cup/

[Ayman]

Hey does anybody from USA know which channel show the world cup games? is it ESPN?

[Amol]

Yeah it's on ESPN. How did that first Mexican goal get disallowed. That was a complete fake call.

[aveslacker]

Shame that last shot hit the post. It would have been nice to read about all the Mexicans crying after losing the first match. Oh well.

Good game. Nice way to open the Cup.

[SPL]

I will watch Suarez later ,not sure if Lodeiro will be asub . I suppose I do not want Suarez to have a good WC as we may be able to keep him another year.