FIFA World Cup

[number37]

17 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

I'm arguing that it isn't all relative though; I think it's a really simplistic way of looking at it and has little to no relevance. China and India are the most populous nations on the planet but their national football teams are nowhere to be seen. Obviously if it's a really tiny nation, then sure. Like it's no great surprise that Liechstenstein don't have a brilliant team; but once you're into the several millions surely it's no longer about population?

I totally agree with you, it's one of my many pet peeves, not quite xG or some other made-up irrelevant stat levels of hate but it's close because it's just such a pointless thing to mention - pretty much for the reasons you say. 

 

It's perfectly normal for countries to specialise in a sport that goes against their population count. New Zealand are historically the greatest side in rugby and Hungary having water polo are admittedly the only two examples that come to mind right now but as you say, why haven't China, India or even America cleaned up at Every World Cup? Surely a billion people are automatically better than a few million in a single sport? That's how it works, right? Unless they're all managed by Gareth Southgate and every defeat is because they've bottled it. 

 

The Olympics is different, a multi sport event where it makes sense that a larger population will certainly have an advantage as you have more people to enter more sports and be successful, it's no coincidence that the countries who top the medal table tend to be larger and richer. 

[Marko NUFC]

4 minutes ago, number37 said:

I totally agree with you, it's one of my many pet peeves, not quite xG or some other made-up irrelevant stat levels of hate but it's close because it's just such a pointless thing to mention - pretty much for the reasons you say. 

 

It's perfectly normal for countries to specialise in a sport that goes against their population count. New Zealand are historically the greatest side in rugby and Hungary having water polo are admittedly the only two examples that come to mind right now but as you say, why haven't China, India or even America cleaned up at Every World Cup? Surely a billion people are automatically better than a few million in a single sport? That's how it works, right? Unless they're all managed by Gareth Southgate and every defeat is because they've bottled it. 

 

The Olympics is different, a multi sport event where it makes sense that a larger population will certainly have an advantage as you have more people to enter more sports and be successful, it's no coincidence that the countries who top the medal table tend to be larger and richer. 

I disagree. Some countries might be specialised for some sport due to their connection with the sport (more likely Mediterranean countries would be good at waterpolo) but also because that particular sport is not popular in bigger countries. 

 

Best example is futsal. It's the closest thing to football and while England is a powerhouse in football you don't even know what's futsal because it's not popular - it would be interesting to see how many registered players are there in futsal. 

 

Since football is more global sport it's easier to compare it to sizes of countries or better number of registered players. 

[gbandit]

Whatever my feeling is about finding Croatia quite a boring side to watch, their performance in major tournaments is remarkable. They produce really good footballers but they also seem to be incredibly United and play to their limit every game, especially against difficult opposition. Mentally they’re incredibly strong 

[The Prophet]

11 minutes ago, number37 said:

I totally agree with you, it's one of my many pet peeves, not quite xG or some other made-up irrelevant stat levels of hate but it's close because it's just such a pointless thing to mention - pretty much for the reasons you say. 

 

It's perfectly normal for countries to specialise in a sport that goes against their population count. New Zealand are historically the greatest side in rugby and Hungary having water polo are admittedly the only two examples that come to mind right now but as you say, why haven't China, India or even America cleaned up at Every World Cup? Surely a billion people are automatically better than a few million in a single sport? That's how it works, right? Unless they're all managed by Gareth Southgate and every defeat is because they've bottled it. 

 

The Olympics is different, a multi sport event where it makes sense that a larger population will certainly have an advantage as you have more people to enter more sports and be successful, it's no coincidence that the countries who top the medal table tend to be larger and richer. 

 

xG is a useful stat. It is over relied on and should be considered in the context of other factors, but it certainly isn't irrelevant.

[Skeletor]

My favourite was 94 as well. Partly because that was the first one I ever watched. So many stars on display Baggio, Romario, Bebeto, Hagi, Stoichkov, 100 year old Roger Milla etc... The smaller nations generally got quite far too and there were some crazy games in the early stages.

[The Prophet]

1 hour ago, Yorkie said:

One for the Daft Questions thread but why is the population of a country stacked against the success of its national team? I don't really see how it has any relevance. Croatia is a developed country where football is massively popular and is also surrounded by countries where it's massively popular there too. How is it astonishing that out of a pool of 4 million they've found 11 who are really good?

 

Surely stuff like population size, national interest in the sport, resource available (financial or otherwise), etc all factor in, but aren't determinative.

[toon25]

1 hour ago, Yorkie said:

I'm arguing that it isn't all relative though; I think it's a really simplistic way of looking at it and has little to no relevance. China and India are the most populous nations on the planet but their national football teams are nowhere to be seen. Obviously if it's a really tiny nation, then sure. Like it's no great surprise that Liechstenstein don't have a brilliant team; but once you're into the several millions surely it's no longer about population?

I've always thought it would be interesting to measure: success of national teams v. size of population, estimated number of players playing (appreciate this is hard to gauge), and amount of money invested in football infrastructure - esp at grass roots.

[Yorkie]

53 minutes ago, Marko NUFC said:

Because in my opinion it does show what resources the country has to produce 11+ elite footballers. 

 

To give you an example Croatia has 125.000 registrated football players (amateur and pro) while England 1.400.000 which is more than 10x more players you have than us.

 

Now if we take into consideration facilities where we cannot match you and also investments that England puts into football which we can only dream of, we can count ourselves extremely lucky to find 11 elite players that can beat your 11 elite of the elite players. Its not easy to find from our "pool" world class players in comparison to England or other bigger countries.

 

Interesting stats.  So a higher population means a greater number of registered footballers to mould into World Cup finalists; a pretty obvious point I suppose.  I'd still argue that 125k is a canny-sized pool to carve a brilliant team out of. If the resources are paltry in comparison to other nations, then their success is remarkable for that reason, not the fact it 'only' has 4 million people. Unless a country's population directly correlates with its standard of facilities etc. 

 

32 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Surely stuff like population size, national interest in the sport, resource available (financial or otherwise), etc all factor in, but aren't determinative.

 

Think that's probably fair.  It (population) is not a total irrelevance then, but I just think it's a bit of a lazy assessment/cliche whenever it's held to as a reason to be amazed by a team's success. 

[ponsaelius]

Population is obviously important to some degree. The troughs in generations of players are more noticeable in the likes of Netherlands, Belgium etc than they are in France, Germany because despite very similar footballing cultures and facilities they are about a quarter of the size.

[ponsaelius]

Croatia probably has about the same number of people in its diaspora as it does within the bounds of the state itself. Which must be given some weight if you are giving them credit for players like Rakitic, Kovacic, Kovac, Simunic, Petric, Klasnic etc who were the product of other countries' footballing systems.

 

Luka Sucic will probably be the next big star to lead the team after this tournament - and he is another who has been born and developed abroad.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by ponsaelius

[Marko NUFC]

4 hours ago, ponsaelius said:

Croatia probably has about the same number of people in its diaspora as it does within the bounds of the state itself. Which must be given some weight if you are giving them credit for players like Rakitic, Kovacic, Kovac, Simunic, Petric, Klasnic etc who were the product of other countries' footballing systems.

 

Luka Sucic will probably be the next big star to lead the team after this tournament - and he is another who has been born and developed abroad.

 

 

 

You are actually very correct. We got a lot of talent from diaspora especially Germany with all these players coming through their youth club systems.

 

Even recently our left right back, Borna Sosa, had an option to choose to play for Germany or Croatia but luckily chose the former.

[Ketsbaia]

I'm the opposite to most with this tournament - was really looking forward to it but was quickly bored by it. Didn't even bother watching England last night.

[The Butcher]

 

[Pata]

9 hours ago, Yorkie said:

One for the Daft Questions thread but why is the population of a country stacked against the success of its national team? I don't really see how it has any relevance. Croatia is a developed country where football is massively popular and is also surrounded by countries where it's massively popular there too. How is it astonishing that out of a pool of 4 million they've found 11 who are really good?

 

Because they are competing with countries that have 10-20x the population and it's just mathematics, extremely talented player is much more likely to be born in the countries with that much bigger population. Brazil that they knocked out have over 200 million people. Croatia is also really good at many other team sports (basketball, handball, water polo) so it's not a sure thing that the most talented kids choose football. I honestly have no idea how they can be as good as they are in so many sports.

 

It's just really hard for smaller countries that also have to compete with other sports. Teemu Pukki is easily Finland's best footballer after the golden generation of Litmanen, Hyypiä and co. At the same time period we have produced a lot of world class ice hockey players.

[astraguy]

Never understand the hate ronaldo gets its insane i hope he gets a club who can still fight for titles etc because he isn't done he has a different personalty agreed but thats what makes him,Messi never got wrote off when he failed at psg in his first season and isn't even psgs best player.

Yet Ronaldo has been wrote off after being the 2nd top goal scorer in an elite league and saved man u time and time again at the age of 36/37,Yet messi has had what 5 finals with Argentina and spat his dummy out after losing.I Rate messi i'd be a fool to not but what Ronaldo has done for Portugal is unreal he is the goat...Bring of the hate

p.s..I also think Ronaldo gets a lot of hate for playing in England,We have very toxic media here and Ronaldo always sells

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by astraguy

[Pata]

6 minutes ago, astraguy said:

Never understand the hate Rolando gets its insane i hope he gets a club who can still fight for titles etc because he isn't done he has a different personalty agreed but thats what makes him,Messi never got wrote off when he failed at psg in his first season and isn't even psgs best player.

Yet Rolando has been wrote off after being the 2nd top goal scorer in an elite league and saved man u time and time again at the age of 36/37,Yet messi has had what 5 finals with Argentina and spat his dummy out after losing.I Rate messi i'd be a fool to not but what Rolando has done for Portugal is unreal he is the goat...Bring of the hate

p.s..I also think Rolando gets a lot of hate for playing in England,We have very toxic media here and Rolando always sells

 

 

 

 

Rolando is on loan at Motherwell and has played under 60 minutes in the past two seasons, think he's done at the top level.

[Lazarus]

[Mike]

These no matchdays have been absolutely disgusting. I can't remember my life before 5am kickoffs, but I know it wasn't better.

[ponsaelius]

I went to a few games at the CONIFA World Cup in London a few years ago. Basically a tournament for unrecognised national teams. As the teams were paying/being funded to travel so far to play in the tournament they had a playout system for those knocked out to decide every single placing from 1-16 and to keep them involved. I feel like a similar system for the World Cup would be desirable for the likes of Mike and Wullie who suffer severe withdrawal symptoms.

 

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by ponsaelius

[Disco]

3 hours ago, Pata said:

 

Rolando is on loan at Motherwell and has played under 60 minutes in the past two seasons, think he's done at the top level.

[Magpie]

Whaaaaaatttt??

[Doctor Zaius]

13 hours ago, Mike said:

These no matchdays have been absolutely disgusting. I can't remember my life before 5am kickoffs, but I know it wasn't better.

 

This avatar man, please

[Interpolic]

10 minutes ago, Magpie said:

Whaaaaaatttt??

 

He was a fucking joke him like. 

[The Prophet]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I thought Sampaio was fine. He just about got all the major decisions correct (with the assistance of VAR) and while he did miss the odd foul, he wasn't particularly bad at all.

[Magpie]

17 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

I know I'm in the minority here, but I thought Sampaio was fine. He just about got all the major decisions correct (with the assistance of VAR) and while he did miss the odd foul, he wasn't particularly bad at all.

He was absolutely atrocious