This is what I think will happen in SA2010
in [World Football]
|
Prev: Bundesliga 24
Next: MAN U, Argentina or Brasil
From: Clément on 7 Mar 2010 16:06 On Mar 5, 3:29 pm, Alkamista wrote: > On Mar 5, 5:04 am, Clément wrote: > > > On Mar 5, 2:11 am, Alkamista wrote: > > > > It's a cup, not a league. And it's not even two-legged in the > > > knockouts. Any one of 6-7 teams can win it. We've heard the same > > > invincible argument many times in the past, and not least in '06. The > > > only other times post-WWII that the 100% clear pre-tourney favorite > > > won it was in '70 and 74' (to be clear, I dont mean a bookie favorite, > > > I mean an overwhelming favorite). > > > Was Brazil seen as such an overwhelming favorite in '70? At least > > domestically, there were a lot of doubts hanging over the team (which > > is ridiculous in hindsight, but true). > > Really? Many many moons ago I saw this great documentary called > "Giants of Brazil". It was a history of football in your country > starting from the early roots and culminating with a particular > emphasis on the build-up to and victory of 1970. From what I remember, > Brazil were in scintillating form just prior, with Pele at his peak > and Tostao averaging almost a goal every game. Then there were the > other nuts like Rivelino, Gerson, Carlos Alberto, and Jairzinho, etc. > Now this may just have been the film-making hype or my hazy memory, > but all indications in that documentary were that Brazil had the > football world shaking in their boots at the start of the tournament, > and for good reason, as history proved. This might be true, I'm not sure. > So is your recollection different? Can you shed some light? I wasn't born back then, so it's not really my recollection, but mostly things I've read or watched over time. Back in the years leading to the 1970, there was the vivid memory of the 1966 failure, and the urgency to do things differently, starting with renewing the roster. There was a lot of internal disagreement, though, and the results weren't exactly inspiring confidence. That led to the appointment of the controversial journalist João Saldanha as coach. He was a very serious, straight on your face kind of guy (a type of profile I personally like to see at the Brazilian NT, by the way). Saldanha led the team to a perfect WCQ campaign, and his team earned popular approval. Then, a little before the WC, he was fired for reasons I don't believe were fully clarified. The most common theory blames his dismissal on a famous statement by Saldanha, directed torwards the country's president (we were under a military dictatorship back then). The president suggested that a certain player should be called-up, and Saldanha replied that the president named his ministers and he named his players (paraphrase). It was basically Saldanha's team that went on to win the World Cup, but I don't think his dismissal did much to boost domestic confidence. I've heard some people here compare the 2002 win to the 1970 one, regarding specifically the discredit angle. I have no idea how that team was regarded abroad leading to the WC. They were probably considered favorites to an extent (as is always the case with Brazil), but were they such clear cut favorites? I'd imagine England were at least as favored as Brazil were. Abraço, Luiz Mello
From: Alkamista on 7 Mar 2010 16:52 On Mar 7, 3:06 pm, Clément <lcmello.lis...(a)terra.com.br> wrote: > On Mar 5, 3:29 pm, Alkamista wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 5:04 am, Clément wrote: > > > > On Mar 5, 2:11 am, Alkamista wrote: > > > > > It's a cup, not a league. And it's not even two-legged in the > > > > knockouts. Any one of 6-7 teams can win it. We've heard the same > > > > invincible argument many times in the past, and not least in '06. The > > > > only other times post-WWII that the 100% clear pre-tourney favorite > > > > won it was in '70 and 74' (to be clear, I dont mean a bookie favorite, > > > > I mean an overwhelming favorite). > > > > Was Brazil seen as such an overwhelming favorite in '70? At least > > > domestically, there were a lot of doubts hanging over the team (which > > > is ridiculous in hindsight, but true). > > > Really? Many many moons ago I saw this great documentary called > > "Giants of Brazil". It was a history of football in your country > > starting from the early roots and culminating with a particular > > emphasis on the build-up to and victory of 1970. From what I remember, > > Brazil were in scintillating form just prior, with Pele at his peak > > and Tostao averaging almost a goal every game. Then there were the > > other nuts like Rivelino, Gerson, Carlos Alberto, and Jairzinho, etc. > > Now this may just have been the film-making hype or my hazy memory, > > but all indications in that documentary were that Brazil had the > > football world shaking in their boots at the start of the tournament, > > and for good reason, as history proved. > > This might be true, I'm not sure. > > > So is your recollection different? Can you shed some light? > > I wasn't born back then, so it's not really my recollection, but > mostly things I've read or watched over time. > > Back in the years leading to the 1970, there was the vivid memory of > the 1966 failure, and the urgency to do things differently, starting > with renewing the roster. > > There was a lot of internal disagreement, though, and the results > weren't exactly inspiring confidence. That led to the appointment of > the controversial journalist João Saldanha as coach. He was a very > serious, straight on your face kind of guy (a type of profile I > personally like to see at the Brazilian NT, by the way). Saldanha led > the team to a perfect WCQ campaign, and his team earned popular > approval. > > Then, a little before the WC, he was fired for reasons I don't believe > were fully clarified. The most common theory blames his dismissal on a > famous statement by Saldanha, directed torwards the country's > president (we were under a military dictatorship back then). The > president suggested that a certain player should be called-up, and > Saldanha replied that the president named his ministers and he named > his players (paraphrase). > > It was basically Saldanha's team that went on to win the World Cup, > but I don't think his dismissal did much to boost domestic confidence. > > I've heard some people here compare the 2002 win to the 1970 one, > regarding specifically the discredit angle. I have no idea how that > team was regarded abroad leading to the WC. They were probably > considered favorites to an extent (as is always the case with Brazil), > but were they such clear cut favorites? I'd imagine England were at > least as favored as Brazil were. > > Abraço, > > Luiz Mello- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - This Saldanha fellow sounded intriguing from what you said so I looked him up. Apparently there was more than one reason he may have been sacked. According to Wikipedia, his cute comments directed towards the dictator at the time are believed the most likely reason, but some other colorful facts were: 1. He was a member of the Brazilian Communist Party 2. His assistant coach resigned just before the WC, saying he was "impossible to work with" 3. When criticised by the coach of Flamengo, he "responded by confronting him while brandishing a revolver" Makes Mourinho look like a choir boy!
From: milivella on 7 Mar 2010 19:50 Futbolmetrix: > "milivella" <milive...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:548ede7d-f146-4e5f-902a-7695e5b89191(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > > > milivella: > > >> 2. This team never wins! OK, I know that the favorite can't always > >> win, but how many chances there are that it wins 0 out of 12 > >> tournaments? > > > Actually 10, sorry. > > Well, it depends on how strong of a favorite they were. My simulations based > on the ELO ratings gave France roughly a 27% chance of winning in 2002, but > Brazil only a 12% chance of winning in 2006. Wow, very low. And then were there 8 teams tied with 11% chance? ;) > Let's say that those are the > upper and lower bounds for the strength of the favorite. Fair. > Then, the > probability that the favorite will not win even once out of 10 tournaments > can be anywhere between 3% and 34%. OK, I understand that, to have a meaningful answer, we need more data... Could it be useful to consider ELO points just before the WC? They should correlate to chances to win the WC... France 2002 had 2067 points, while Brazil 2006 had 2010. Anyway, at least 2 times out of 3, in a streak of 10 tournaments one or more wins by the favorite team are expected. -- Cheers milivella
From: milivella on 7 Mar 2010 20:05 FF: > Looks like the ELO ratings aren't a good favorite indicator. Or that the favorite usually does *not* win... ;) I mean: - Methods like Elo aims to have predictive power, so you can't expect to predict substantially better using stats. - You could think that then the "human" (vs. algorithmic) factor is needed, but it doesn't seem that popular opinion and bookies' odds differ that much from Elo: e.g. look at the interesting MH's recollection of past favorites, or consider the fact that today almost everybody puts Brazil and Spain in pole position (they are #1 and #2 in Elo ranking, with a wide gap before #3). - After all, this shouldn't be a surprise: as it has been reminded, World Cup is a cup, not a league, etc. And, in any case, you always have 5-6 teams that can win without this being an upset; so the favorite team can't have more than say 25% chance of winning the cup, i.e. it's far more probable that it will *not* win (this said, 10 times in a row is another story!). > A related but more interesting fact IMO is that last 11 times (i.e. > starting 1966) the current champions didn't defend their title. > Statistically this has a similar low probability. Yep. BTW, it's interesting that, despite not being Elo leader before the WC, the champions - if they are not Italy! - take the leadership and keep it for relatively long time. Of course this depends on WC matches having more weight in the computation, but I think there's more. Anyway, the final line is: football is easier to know in hindsight than in foresight, both if you are a human being or a mathematical method! > Possible reasons: > alternative WCup conditions (Europe / non-Europe); aging / renewal of > the champion teams; diminished motivation. Totally agree. -- Cheers milivella
From: Bruce D. Scott on 8 Mar 2010 09:00
Benny (Benny(a)soccer-europe.com) wrote: : > Subject : This is what I think will happen in SA2010 : > From : MH <nospam(a)ucalgary.ca> : > 1990 - Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Netherlands - I am not sure if there : > was a clear pretournament favourite. : Italy and the Dutch. Italy bottled it. The Italy squad was off the : charts. The Dutch imploded. They lost their most important player with The Spit. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ |