2014 FIFA World Cup

[Gucci Piggy]

Never bet on friendlies, never bet on the last 5 rounds of games of a league season, never put an accumulator containing more than 5 options without hedging. There's some other rule I passively follow, but the unpredictability of football means that you have to be careful with going on things that have an added risk.

[thetime]

I've no idea what the answer is, but I've been wondering which league has the most players there, and which club has the most players there.

Edited June 19, 2014 by thetime

[eFestivals]

nobody expects the spanish inquisition exit.

[thetime]

Man utd out of the prem sides have the most I've heard with 15, not checked it out though.

Edited June 19, 2014 by thetime

[eFestivals]

Nearly right man utd and munich have most with 14

http://www.serieaddicted.com/article/manchester-united-madrid-juve_which-club-has-the-most-players-in-the-world-cup.php

Nice one .... just need to find the numbers of players from each league now.

I'm thinking that one might be a surprise, because a lot of the 2nd tier of players might be in leagues that aren't what you first think of.

[thetime]

Nice one .... just need to find the numbers of players from each league now.

I'm thinking that one might be a surprise, because a lot of the 2nd tier of players might be in leagues that aren't what you first think of.

[eFestivals]

Premier league by some way

http://www.goal.com/en/news/1717/editorial/2014/06/05/4861228/which-league-and-clubs-have-the-most-players-at-the-2014

Thanks.

interestingly, that article disagrees with the other one about the club numbers, tho perhaps that's the result of late pull-outs - Ribbery, perhaps, in the "Bayern (15)" which this article says.

Edited June 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

I agree with Barry Glendenning on the football weekly podcast when he said reaction to the England performance against Italy was ott and I agree. I heard a guardian (normally fairly reserved) journalist call it exceptional, which to me takes that word to a whole new level.

I personally think the overreaction was partially based on lower expectations to a ridiculously low level, which is kind of opposite of what normally happens. England are a top 10ish international side and should be competing against teams like italy, just as bosnia competed against argentina, mexico competed against brazil etc.

Interestingly I wonder if expectations are going to go the normal way. Listening to both fans and pundits, I have only heard 1 (warnock) say England wont beat both uruguay and costa rica while the few who have looked further ahead have all predicted England will beat Columbia, confidence seems to be on the up!

[TheGayTent]

I take most of the chat with a pinch of salt. The World Cup comes round every 4 years and every 4 years every Tom, Dick, and Harry has an opinion and becomes an expert. Same will happen next week with Tennis and Wimbledon. Same will happen next month with Golf and the Open.

The FIFA rankings suggest England are a very good side as international teams go but that Uruguay and Italy are slightly better. The ELO rankings suggest similar (in that the teams are very close in quality) but that England are slightly better than Uruguay and Italy. 5 places separate the 3 sides on the ELO rankings and 4 on the FIFA rankings. In other words, fine margins separate the 3 teams.

I don't know, but I'll be watching tonight in hope that 1) we play well, and 2) we win. Other than that it's all bollocks

[pink_triangle]

.

The FIFA rankings suggest England are a very good side as international teams go but that Uruguay and Italy are slightly better. The ELO rankings suggest similar (in that the teams are very close in quality) but that England are slightly better than Uruguay and Italy. 5 places separate the 3 sides on the ELO rankings and 4 on the FIFA rankings. In other words, fine margins separate the 3 teams.

I

[eFestivals]

In other words, fine margins separate the 3 teams.

... maybe my memory is fading, but I seem to remember someone arguing the other day that these rankings were a crock of shit?

If you look at those FIFA rankings - the points, rather than the positions - it suggests that the differences between the teams ranked 4th to (about) 14th are all pretty tiny differences.

(there's about 200 points between 1st and 3rd, and about 200 points between 4th and 14th).

[eFestivals]

I think thats a fair assessment, but the way some have been discussing England coming in to this tournament you would think they are closer to Hungary or Bulgaria!

Not at all.

But England are about the weakest team out of the teams that stand a (half ) realistic chance of winning - whereas that's not normally the case.

[ThomThomDrum]

I don't know, but I'll be watching tonight in hope that 1) we play well, and 2) we win. Other than that it's all bollocks

[eFestivals]

Its a big part of the game, bollocks is............

absolutely. If there was nothing to talk about, the game would fade and die.

Take note, if you're one of those who thinks more replay technology is a good idea....

[pink_triangle]

Not at all.

But England are about the weakest team out of the teams that stand a (half ) realistic chance of winning - whereas that's not normally the case.

[TheGayTent]

... maybe my memory is fading, but I seem to remember someone arguing the other day that these rankings were a crock of shit?

[TheGayTent]

I disagree, they are in the same group where they have always been, which is borderline last 16, last 8. Theres nothing from their competitive record or any ranking system to suggest they dont belong at that level. They should be compettiive with Uruguay and Italy, many worse teams in this world cup have competed against better sides than these two.

Edited June 19, 2014 by TheGayTent

[eFestivals]

1) I didn't say they were correct, i said that's what they say.

If you want to imagine you're saying they should be ignored because they're wrong in the words below, you go ahead.

The FIFA rankings suggest England are a very good side as international teams go but that Uruguay and Italy are slightly better. The ELO rankings suggest similar (in that the teams are very close in quality) but that England are slightly better than Uruguay and Italy. 5 places separate the 3 sides on the ELO rankings and 4 on the FIFA rankings. In other words, fine margins separate the 3 teams.

2) I seem to remember we were discussing the merits of using friendlies as a guide to a team's quality....

No, we were discussing whether there was any merit in including the results of friendlies within the rankings (using whichever model to create those rankings you might think up).

You agreed there was an indication of a team's strength from friendlies a team plays, but you also said that relevant data like that should be fully excluded. and you never were able to explain that contradiction.

But never mind. Done and dusted, and opinions of stupidity have been formed (in all directions, I'm sure).

[dentalplan]

I agree with Barry Glendenning on the football weekly podcast when he said reaction to the England performance against Italy was ott and I agree. I heard a guardian (normally fairly reserved) journalist call it exceptional, which to me takes that word to a whole new level.

I personally think the overreaction was partially based on lower expectations to a ridiculously low level, which is kind of opposite of what normally happens. England are a top 10ish international side and should be competing against teams like italy, just as bosnia competed against argentina, mexico competed against brazil etc.

Interestingly I wonder if expectations are going to go the normal way. Listening to both fans and pundits, I have only heard 1 (warnock) say England wont beat both uruguay and costa rica while the few who have looked further ahead have all predicted England will beat Columbia, confidence seems to be on the up!

[atomised]

Starting to get excited for tonight's game. I think we are more than capable of beating Uruguay

[eFestivals]

You're right about some people being OTT about it (like Neville calling it the best England performance for fifteen years) but I think you might be downplaying it too much.

I watched some of the Russia game the other night, and it didn't half feel very familiar.

And the simple fact is, there was very little difference in what was seen on the pitch between Fabio and Sven.

Personally I think it's not only England that have suddenly woken up to the fact that there's better things to do than try and imitate 1994 Italy with sub-standard players.

Edited June 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[mrtourette]

I had an accumulator through the whole group stage, worth £280, purely on (should be) easily winnable games... Starting with Uruguay vs Costa Rica...

Also would have won £120 on the final set if international friendlies had England beaten Honduras ffs.

Edited June 19, 2014 by mrtourette

[TheGayTent]

If you want to imagine you're saying they should be ignored because they're wrong in the words below, you go ahead.

Edited June 19, 2014 by TheGayTent

[ThomThomDrum]

absolutely. If there was nothing to talk about, the game would fade and die.

Take note, if you're one of those who thinks more replay technology is a good idea....

[eFestivals]

Suffering from brain fade again? Or trolling your own website again?

Nope, just having you explain that you're the troll. Thanks.