Nate Silver & data on the unlikeliness Brazil doesn't slam dunk this WorldCup thingy
There's something called "home field advantage". Brazil national soccer (football) gives that phrase new meaning:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-brazils-world-cup-to-lose/
But this World Cup is being played in Brazil. No country has beaten Brazil on its home turf in almost 12 years. Brazil’s last loss at home came in a friendly on Aug. 21, 2002. That game against Paraguay, incidentally, is one the Brazilians may not have been particularly interested in winning. Brazil had won the World Cup in Japan earlier that summer; the Paraguay match was the team’s homecoming. Although Brazil started most of its regulars, by midway through the game it substituted out almost all of its stars.
To a find a loss at home in a match that mattered to Brazil — in a World Cup qualifier, or as part of some other tournament — you have to go back to 1975, when Brazil lost the first leg of the Copa América semifinal to Peru. None of the players on Brazil’s current World Cup roster was alive at the time.
And....
Interesting to look at their interactive chance of each team advancing. They give Germany a 90% chance of advancing out of group G which isn't surprising, but Portugal is only at 45% chance to advance, with the US at 35% and Ghana at 30%. Much greater chance than many are giving the US and Portugal is ranked as a top 5 team in the world.
Gotta be careful going off of FIFA's rankings. Their formula leaves a bit to be desired.
Not till America showed up they didn't
FUCK YEAH
If you're interested in the predictive model that Silver uses as it pertains to the groupings, that link is here - LINK
Down in Group G as we are, it predicts a 38% win probability against Ghana, but a more favorable matchup (as in, a closer game) against Portugal if we beat Ghana. Interesting stuff really. All the groups are there.
I don't see how they get beat, home turf is huge and they are pretty stacked at every position.
That's really high for France given Ribery is out, probably a bit low for the Swiss and Italy.
I love Argentina's attackers, just sick, but their back line leaves a lot to be desired. They're due, so... I'm going with Argentina as my non-Brazil pick to win. I don't see a European team winning in SA in that climate.
France may be able to overcome Ribery's absence. They experimented putting Karim Benzema in Ribery's spot in the last friendly and it worked very well (albeit against a crappy Jamaican team).
France were my 'darkhorse' before Ribery went out. I probably should have stuck with them, good call on Benzema...he has really done well in Ribery's absense.
Though she picked Argentina to win it all over Brazil on ESPN, as she is covering it down there.
As for me, I agree that it's difficult to see anyone but Brazil winning it all. But I also agree with my friend that my greatest joy in life during those two weeks will be if Brazil loses a game. Not the biggest fan of Brazil lately with all the scandals, corruption, incompetence and kickbacks that have gone on getting ready for this.
That sounds amazing, but Brazil probably hasn't played a lot of great teams at home over the years.
Argentina and Uruguay come to mind.... oh yeah there was Spain who they easily beat last year.
Psh, Spain. Yeah they're OK, but what have they won in the last 4 years?
Returning to glory since 1588...
That isn't true.
They have to play every South American team in two qualifying matches (one at home) every World Cup cycle. So since 1975, that's nine games against Argentina (just one example) without a loss.
If they have a 45% chance of winning, there is a greater than even chance they do not win (55%). Silver just says Brazil is the favorite, probably by a larger margin than the betting pools indicate--so, if you had to bet, you should put your money on Brazil and take the odds.
where they'll give you your money back if Brazil wins.
Injured ankle. Won't play in World Cup 2014.
Doesn't help Germany's chances.
http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/nationalspieler-marco-reus-faellt-…
This group of death is looking less deadly by the day.
I don't think Nate Silver has calculated the enormous pressure that will be on this Brazilian team. I don't think any other team has faced this level of responsibility; their success will in part justify the exorbitant costs of this tournament. Shortly put, they can't fail or else this World Cup will be a failure for the Brazilian government and soccer federation. Combining the spector of what happened at the Maracana against Uruguay and the youth/lack of World Cup experience in their squad makes me believe that they will crash out either in the quarter finals or semi-finals. I'd take Italy, Argentina, and Spain before Brazil. Also, if Cristiano Ronaldo doesn't recover in time, Portugal could have a difficult time making it out of the group.
Italy?? Really?? I see the argument for Spain, but Italy. Also lots of pressure on Argentina. They increased by there stupid stunt with the banner.
I know it wasn't similar, but I remember the Germany World Cup to be unusually hot and humid. Watching Italy subdue more attacking/pressing teams such as the Czechs and Germans, and eventually the French to win, convinced me to never write them off as potential winners. The Italians are usually tactically astute, have one of the better defenses, one of the best goalkeepers, and the second best playmaker/regista in the world. Their positioning and tactics allows them to hold teams at bay without exhausting themselves with the pressing that other teams employ. They also transition to counter-attack very well, especially with Cassano and Balotelli. De Rossi and Motta provide excellent ball winning; add Pirlo and you have excellent ball retention. I'd only take Spain and Argentina over them.
Things might get dangerous in Brazil if they go out early. There's a lot of unrest in that country and a loss could provide the spark.
I would say that is a fair comparison, maybe not quite the same levels, but fair. The current unrest in Brazil over the World Cup makes it a bit more intense of a situation. The Russians seemed more unified in supporting their Olympic spending. I don't know how the Brazilians will react should they lose before or in the final.
The data actually gives more credence to my question the last few weeks I've been asking soccer-inclined folks -- are you taking Brazil or the field? (Like back when Tiger could actually play golf well, the old "Tiger or field' question at a major.)
I got some screwy looks like, of course the field -- but the data (45% v 55%) makes a pretty good case that it's a legit question.
May I'm overrating what I saw in last year's Confed Cup final, but I'd take Brazil vs. the field.
The one nagging question: Is Brazil's ultimate weakness that its goalies suck, including a guy who plays in MLS. (!!! Just think about that for a second.) I would think Brazil would, if they had the opportunity, trade one of their starting 10 field players for Tim Howard, or even our backup Guzan.
With Howard and Guzan (both World Class keepers), would you trade Howard for one of Brazil's field players? Howard for Dani Alves? For Hulk? For Ramires?
Hm. On the one hand, I think CONCACAF is slightly underrated overall. On the other, this just doesn't seem right. Uruguay, England, Italy, and you've got Costa Rica with a 30% chance to advance? 10% chance to win the group? I think you'd have to play that group more than ten times to get a time when Costa Rica wins it. Although England does strike me as overrated... just not by that much.
The effect that referee error plays into matches. During the confederations cup the head referee looks liked he was worried about being lynched on his way to the airport. The crowd looked angry at times and towards the 60th minute I felt he was gifting calls to Brazil. I don't gamble on sports but if I were to place a wager, I would take Brazil against the field.
is better at picking politics than sports