Here they come…
We’ve got four South American countries in the quarter finals of the World Cup, at the expense of the traditional European teams, and here come the theories to explain this dramatic storyline: The decline of European domination! The rest of the world is catching up! Europe needs to reevaluate everything! Too many foreign players playing in the Premiership and the Serie A and so on.
So what conclusions can we draw? What does this mean? For the most part, nothing. True, the gap between the traditional soccer powers and the rest of the world is not as big as it once was. It’s no longer a stroll through the park for the big guns.
But as far as themes, in Germany 2006, the four semi-finalists were all from Europe. Has it all gone down the toilet for them in just four years? Of course not. You throw Italy, England or France back into the mix and we’re back to “normal”. And each of those countries had their own unique and, statistically speaking, random circumstances that caused their collective premature exits. Nothing more. There really isn't a big story here in 2010.
But in general, they like to run with any stats and facts in the World Cup…
“No South American team has ever been beaten by an Asian team on a Tuesday” or "Brazil wins 75% of their games when leading by a goal after half time when the scorer's name begins with the letter R" or “No team has ever won the World Cup when they’ve lost an opening round game.” OK, so those aren’t all actual quotes, but they’re close. Just wait should Brazil or Argentina win this year in Africa, we'll be hearing all about how no European team can win outside of Europe once again and hear all kinds of reasons (the secret with this: Brazil and Argentina were the best teams).
Perhaps I'll buy into the historical significance of the stats a little later in the century when we have more history to draw from and when the results are truly more predictable and the stats more meaningful (or until some statistician writes a book proving otherwise). For now, congrats to South America for doing well so far.
I’ll leave you with one last stat…
Do you know how many times Brazil and Germany had played each other in a World Cup before they met in the 2002 final? And keep in mind, these two teams had been in 13 of the previous 18 FINAL matches. The answer: Zero. That was their first meeting.
So should they meet again this time, Germany’s in big trouble: Brazil has beaten them 100% of the time in World Cup play (on Sundays).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for the insight. Go Germany!
ReplyDeleteBob
Good points, although I disagree slightly. I do think there were a number of European teams that for whatever reason did not travel well, and showed a lack motivation (Denmark, Italy, France, England, Portugal). I don't think these teams have any less talent than in prior World Cups, nor do I think they are any more tired than the South American stars that play in the same European leagues. Thus, I think there is something to European teams not being at their best outside of Europe. We saw something similar in 2002 in Korea/Japan if I recall correctly.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that a number of European teams didn't have a bad tournament here in '10...the opposite: they stank it up; as did a bunch in '02.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that I'm just not sure how much geography plays a part when you break it down. I can imagine travel effects all teams to varying degrees, but I can't see why the European teams would have a harder time than other continents. One goal here or there and it's all reshuffled.
(It's worth noting that 2002, in most respects, defied a lot more of the norms when you look at who did well and who did not. You had S. Korea, Senegal, US and Turkey all go far. Whereas Argentina, Portugal, France and others did not even get out of the group stage.)
When you go back to the last non-Europe cups, it was US '94 where 7 of 8 quarter-finalists were from Europe, with Brazil being the lone S. Americans who happened to win it all. In Mexico '86, we had 6 of 8 quarter-finalists from Europe, where again, Argentina wins (Mexico the hosts were the other non-Euro).
Baggio makes his PK in '94, a Brazilian misses, Italy wins the cup and we're not having this conversation about why can't Europeans win outside of Europe.
Having said of that, let's see how this weekend goes. If we end up with an all South American group at the semis, I may just delete this post!
The biggest news story of 1990 was the release of Nelson Mandela, unless your are a fan of the World Cup, and in particular the victorious German national team, making the release a nice story, but a distant runner-up to the beautiful penalty kick from Andreas Brehme that beat Argentina 1-0. Like this World Cup, the 1990 version was as much about the controversy as the games themselves, which featured teams failing to score with such frequency that even hardcore soccer fans will admit that without the overserving of beer in their favourite pubs, three out of four games played were as exciting to follow as the neighbour kids playing hopscotch for money. Indeed, the lack of scoring, the absence of any coherant offensive strategy employed by most teams, prompted FIFA to adopt the back-pass rule. Of course FIFA could have widened the goals to double-size and sent in the ghost of Eva Peron
ReplyDeleteto speak with the Argentines at halftime, no shots were getting past Bodo Illgner that day. Sometimes history repeating itself is a cause for consternation, but then again, oh baby!!, sometimes it is a cause for celebration. Twenty years later and here we are, all eyes again on South Africa, Germany set to dismiss the hopes of Argentina as absurdities, a bummer, frankly, for those whose rooting interests include watching madman Maradona running naked through the streets, but a coup for German fans looking for a reason to believe. I'm not really into the statistical history of soccer, but good things happen when South Africa and German soccer mix. Just saying.