I see Portugal throwing in the towel to allow Ghana to win by 2. US has to tie or win.
I see Portugal throwing in the towel to allow Ghana to win by 2. US has to tie or win.
Malmofc wrote:
I see Portugal throwing in the towel to allow Ghana to win by 2. US has to tie or win.
Agreed.
I just read that 1 of 3 World Cups have been won by the host country.
I think that is amazing - the mind is such a powerful thing.
agip wrote:
I just read that 1 of 3 World Cups have been won by the host country.
I think that is amazing - the mind is such a powerful thing.
Only 1 of the last 8 World Cups have been won by the host country, going back to 1982. Of the 11 World Cups before that, only 3 were not won by the host or a neighboring country (all 3 won by Brazil). So your stat basically tells you that back in the day traveling used to be more difficult and have an impact on performance. Nowadays, though, footballers are used to that.
Wørd wrote:
agip wrote:I just read that 1 of 3 World Cups have been won by the host country.
I think that is amazing - the mind is such a powerful thing.
Only 1 of the last 8 World Cups have been won by the host country, going back to 1982. Of the 11 World Cups before that, only 3 were not won by the host or a neighboring country (all 3 won by Brazil). So your stat basically tells you that back in the day traveling used to be more difficult and have an impact on performance. Nowadays, though, footballers are used to that.
well ok and there is a small sample size. which can go the other way. if brazil wins this one, it goes to 2 of 9, or nearly 1 of 4 world cups won by the host team.
but I accept your argument.
Well, you could look at only World Cups held in countries with realistic chances and the stat would look different still (i.e. disregard the tournaments in South Africa, Japan/Korea, USA, Mexico, Switzerland, Chile and Sweden). Of course home-field advantage matters but it matters much less than it used to.
Welp, see ya Italy.
Uruguay will have to do without Suarez.
3rd time he has bitten someone in hos recent career.
Last time he was suspended for 7 games.
He HAS to be banned for the rest of the tournament.
Wørd wrote:
Well, you could look at only World Cups held in countries with realistic chances and the stat would look different still (i.e. disregard the tournaments in South Africa, Japan/Korea, USA, Mexico, Switzerland, Chile and Sweden). Of course home-field advantage matters but it matters much less than it used to.
Sweden made the final in '58 in their home tournament. I think Sweden is probably the most surprising finalist ever so it really points even more to home field advantage. South Korea made the semis. England and France have long and good histories but have only won on home soil. It's just not a tournament that underdogs win, which is so surprising to me given the format and the variability in results in individual matches.
Year Winners Location
1930 Uruguay Montevideo, Uruguay
1934 Italy Rome, Italy
1938 Italy Paris, France
1950 Uruguay Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
1954 West Germany Bern, Switzerland
1958 Brazil Solna, Sweden
1962 Brazil Santiago, Chile
1966 England London, England
1970 Brazil Mexico City, Mexico
[b1974 West Germany Munich, West Germany
1978 Argentina Buenos Aires, Argentina
1982 Italy Madrid, Spain
1986 Argentina Mexico City, Mexico
1990 West Germany Rome, Italy
1994 Brazil Pasadena, California, United States
1998 France Saint-Denis, France
2002 Brazil Yokohama, Japan
2006 Italy Berlin, Germany
2010 Spain Johannesburg, South Africa
2014 TBD Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Wørd wrote:Well, you could look at only World Cups held in countries with realistic chances and the stat would look different still (i.e. disregard the tournaments in South Africa, Japan/Korea, USA, Mexico, Switzerland, Chile and Sweden). Of course home-field advantage matters but it matters much less than it used to.
Sweden made the final in '58 in their home tournament. I think Sweden is probably the most surprising finalist ever so it really points even more to home field advantage. South Korea made the semis. England and France have long and good histories but have only won on home soil. It's just not a tournament that underdogs win, which is so surprising to me given the format and the variability in results in individual matches.
South Korea made the semis because somebody bribed the refs. It was so obvious, that is wasn't even funny.
vivalarepublica wrote:
South Korea made the semis because somebody bribed the refs. It was so obvious, that is wasn't even funny.
Favorable refereeing decisions are pretty much the most important part of home field advantage. I believe there is a chapter in Soccernomics that covers this.
Randy Oldman wrote:
Uruguay will have to do without Suarez.
3rd time he has bitten someone in hos recent career.
Last time he was suspended for 7 games.
He HAS to be banned for the rest of the tournament.
He should be banned for life. Third time he has bitten someone. He racially abused Evra. He shouldn't be allowed play soccer. He is a scumbag.
He may be banned. This is serious and even though I do not like Chiellini, he didn't deserve that. Something is really wrong with Suarez. Kick him out.
Wow, Suarez better be out of there.
As someone who doesn't watch a lot of international football, I am consistently amazed at how the stars of the game will get themselves into huge trouble like this, in some of the biggest games of their careers. I mean if your team really wants to make a statement, why not at least sacrifice one of your weaker players to get penalized. Yet the most indispensable players get themselves can't even go a few games keeping their composure and not getting suspended.
Randy Oldman wrote:
Uruguay will have to do without Suarez.
3rd time he has bitten someone in hos recent career.
Last time he was suspended for 7 games.
He HAS to be banned for the rest of the tournament.
He was banned 10 matches for biting Ivanovic. The 7 (or was it 8?) match ban was for addressing Patrice Evra as "negrito".
As for FIFA banning him, I'll believe it when I see it. They have the power to ban him from all football for up to 2 years. If they don't, or if they only suspend him from international matches, I'd be interested to see what Liverpool FC does. He is already a disgrace to the club, this only adds to it.
Wørd wrote:
Randy Oldman wrote:Uruguay will have to do without Suarez.
3rd time he has bitten someone in hos recent career.
Last time he was suspended for 7 games.
He HAS to be banned for the rest of the tournament.
He was banned 10 matches for biting Ivanovic. The 7 (or was it 8?) match ban was for addressing Patrice Evra as "negrito".
As for FIFA banning him, I'll believe it when I see it. They have the power to ban him from all football for up to 2 years. If they don't, or if they only suspend him from international matches, I'd be interested to see what Liverpool FC does. He is already a disgrace to the club, this only adds to it.
Liverpool would back him as usual. Without him, it would put them in danger of missing out on the top four and Champions League football and all the money that comes from it. Teams don't care about the honour of the badge anymore. It's all about money.
If he did any of his antics off the field, he would be in prison. How many chances does he have to be given, he will never learn.
1958 was a weird World Cup with Wales (pop 3 million) qualifying for the second round in their only World Cup along with Northern Ireland (pop 1.8 million).
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Wørd wrote:Well, you could look at only World Cups held in countries with realistic chances and the stat would look different still (i.e. disregard the tournaments in South Africa, Japan/Korea, USA, Mexico, Switzerland, Chile and Sweden). Of course home-field advantage matters but it matters much less than it used to.
Sweden made the final in '58 in their home tournament. I think Sweden is probably the most surprising finalist ever so it really points even more to home field advantage. South Korea made the semis. England and France have long and good histories but have only won on home soil. It's just not a tournament that underdogs win, which is so surprising to me given the format and the variability in results in individual matches.
France were huge underdogs in 98 and no one expected them to win it. I think the reason so many home countries won it early in it's history is that the soccer superpowers were chosen to hold the tournament. Since the early 90's. The tournament has been used to promote the sport in populous markets.
assist referee wrote:
France were huge underdogs in 98 and no one expected them to win it. I think the reason so many home countries won it early in it's history is that the soccer superpowers were chosen to hold the tournament. Since the early 90's. The tournament has been used to promote the sport in populous markets.
I would not contend they were a favorite to win but France was 3rd in '58, 4th in '82 and 3rd in '86. They also won Euros in '84 and made the semi's in '96, so they were a team with a history of good runs.