World Cup 2006 - Groups

What are the group tiebreakers? In a 2-way is it head-to-head, then goals scored, or goal differential? What about a 3-way tie?
 
I agree with Lambert. Reading all that was written since the draw, the predictions appear to be highly dismissive of teams non-european, excpet the obvious: Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and little else.

However, the draw seems to have been tough for Africa, in the sense that what are probably their 2 best teams, Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire, got the hardest groups and will find it very difficult to advance. However, I think Ghana in particular can surprise a few people and I wouldn't be shocked if they went through. I think they have real quality at the moment and the easiness in qualifying and outplaying, for example, South Africa, was putting them as my number 1 black horse of the tournament before the draw. Now, alongside Italy, Czech Rep and USA it will be much harder, but if other teams enter their Ghana games in a complacent manner, they will be surprised.

In Group A, like Fred said, I can't see Equador shining much away from home, so I expect more of Costa Rica actually. Their problem is that some of their best players for the past years are getting a bit old. But then again, Poland isn't exactly the best thing Europe can offer either...

For Group B, I see many people mentioning England and Sweden, which seems fair, but forgeting Paraguay. Paraguay has been for the past decade consistently the 3rd best south american team and are a very organised team, with quality players in defence (Gamarra), midfield (Paredes) and attack (Santa Cruz). I think England will qualify, but I don't see such an overwhelming favouritism of Sweden over the Guaranis.

In Group C, the toughest one, I agree with most opinions of Netherlands and Argentina going through. Despite the quality opposition, I think that (at least on paper) they're still quite better than Serbia and The Elephants.

For Group D, Mexico and Portugal are favourites of course. I can't see Angola doing much. I sympathise with the team, have many angolan friends and will cheer them. But I also know the team, probably better than anyone here at CFC. I know many of the players and I've seen the team playing, and quite frankly, it would be an outstanding surprise if they could threaten to progress to the round of 16. Iran, otoh, is another story: atm I think that they're the best asian team, or at least on the same level of the much more heralded Japan and Korea. They very gifted technically and seem to have a good chemistry. They also have very good players like Bayern's Karimi, the Persian Maradona...

For Group E I already said a few things. I believe that the gap between Italy and Czech Republic and the other 2 teams is not as big as in Group D, so I actually think this is the hardest group to predict. It all depends on Italy: if they come up playing on their potential, they'll win it. If not, they can meet the fate of some recent years. But I also believe both the USA and Ghana have what it takes to upset the favourites and advance.

In Group F there is no way Brazil is loosing the group. The battle is for 2nd spot, and the race seems wide open: Croatia, Australia and Japan are all more less on the same level imo.

Group G is the group of France, but this France brings many questions. I think much will depend on Zidane's form in June. If it is his current form, France has no chance to win the Cup They'll be a good side, but also struggling like in the qualifiers. This is probably too much for Togo, but they eliminated Senegal... So I guess it will be France, Switzerland and Korea battling for 2 spots, with France slightly favourites.

Finally, there's Group H. Unlike what I said in an earlier post, I know think this is actually the weakest group instead of D. Spain has the players, but will she have the team? If yes, 1st place in the group is theirs, if not, it will be more tricky. Ukraine have been successful playing in a very compact style with strong defensive emphasis, with deadly counter attacks exploring the genious of Shevshenko, but as we also seen in the qualifiers, this type of game wasn't so successful with smaller teams that don't like to take control of the game against teams theoreticaly superior, so that means that Saudi Arabia, and especially Tunisia, have a good chance of upsetting one of the european teams.
 
MCdread said:
Paraguay has been for the past decade consistently the 3rd best south american team and are a very organised team, with quality players in defence (Gamarra), midfield (Paredes) and attack (Santa Cruz).
Don't forget El Tigre, Ramírez :D
(Flamenguistas here will agree with me, though I think he is a reserve in Paraguay).

I mostly agree with your analysis.
 
Hmm... César Ramírez? Is he that Ramírez?
 
Stapel said:
Every single nation from pot 2 or pot 4 is so horribly poor, that all other teams should be in the next round.
There will, as always, be some exceptions, though.
Also, S&M are not that bad.

This simply means the groupe with S&M (Serbia & Montenegro) is the only group with three stronger teams.

But it should absolutely be easy.
S&M are not that good.

Despite some people claiming Cd'I being an outsider, their team is crap. I only know Drogba and Bonaventura Kalou (Auxerre......). Their defense is probably worse than 3rd divison average.

And we have the home advantage. The stadiums will be filled with Orange!
 
Dell, col, Willem,

Ghana, Cd'I and Tunesia are all total crap and have nothing to seek on a WC.

Have you ever seen these teams playing? It's not impressive!

Otoh, in football wordlcups, there will always be surprises :) .
 
MCdread said:
For Group B, I see many people mentioning England and Sweden, which seems fair, but forgeting Paraguay. Paraguay has been for the past decade consistently the 3rd best south american team and are a very organised team, with quality players in defence (Gamarra), midfield (Paredes) and attack (Santa Cruz). I think England will qualify, but I don't see such an overwhelming favouritism of Sweden over the Guaranis.

I must admit I overlooked Paraguay. Thsi is inmho, the most interesting group.

MCdread, do you really think Croatia and Japan are on the same level :eek: ?
 
Well, Stapel, I must admit I haven't. I'm judging from commentary and from what I know of previous african performances, such as Cameroon, Senegal and, above all, Nigeria, which showed some impressive stuff, and all were left behind.

Can this mean that these have fallen behind, instead of the assumption whiuch is being held that it's actually the new teams which improved? Yes, it can. However, it's not what we have been hearing from the press here.

Regards :).
 
luiz said:
Is there any dutchman in the dutch team?

Of all possible payers (not regarding Kalou here), only Edgar Davids is born outside The current Netherlands. He was born in 1973 in Suriname, which was forced into independency in 1975. 60% of all Surinamers, including mama Davids and baby Edgar, decided to keep their Dutch nationality and moved to the Netherlands.

Clarence Seedorf was also born in Suriname, after the independence. But it's unlikely he will make it to the selection. Apart from that, it would be an idiocy to not consider him Dutch.
 
FredLC said:
Can this mean that these have fallen behind, instead of the assumption whiuch is being held that it's actually the new teams which improved? Yes, it can. However, it's not what we have been hearing from the press here.

Well, The press usually employs journalists, not people that understand football ;) .

You hit the nail on its head! Nigeria and Cameroon have fallen behind. And even in their better days, said countries had huge problems, when confronted with well-organised teams.

I've seen a few African qualifying mathces. Tunesia-Morocco....., not even close to football. Cameroon-Egypt was also of a very questionable level.

But, in general, I am used to people getting enthousiatic over total crap football. It happens again, again, and over again.
 
I thought Santa Cruz was a doubt for Paraguay for the World Cup? I have a feeling that we will probably draw with them in the first game but expect Sweden to win a close game and then both European teams to go through after drawing the last game or possibly England winning.
 
Stapel said:
Dell, col, Willem,

Ghana, Cd'I and Tunesia are all total crap and have nothing to seek on a WC.

Well.. I surely hope you're right about Côte d'Ivoire.. Tunesia I don't fear, nor Ghana.. and Côte d'Ivoire a bit more. I think it's like Cruyff said, "They can't win against you, but you can lose to them." The strength of the Elephants is in the attack, so we might get a goal against. If we don't score, we will make it hard for ourselves... that's my thought.
 
Stapel said:
But it should absolutely be easy.
S&M are not that good.
hmm...still if I'm on your place (holland), I guess I would preferd Swis, Croatia or..even Spain better.

Stapel said:
And we have the home advantage. The stadiums will be filled with Orange!

Thats apsolutly not apply for match with Serbia.

Tho will not have significant importance anyway, aspecialy in that match.

I'll say again on this subject. I would prefer better any of the Eu pot1 teams than Holland (England, Germany, Italy, Spain) and maybe better even Brasil (than Argentina). But it's not about what I prefer ...

It'll depened also about current form, health of crucial players, yellow, red, cards, referees, luck and so on. It is still too far away now.

I agree that Arg and Hol are favorite in this group (but hope also, when some mentioned a surprices - that Serbia&M will be the one maybe) .

Other surprizes bymy opinion: Iran, Australia and Paraguay.
 
Dell19 said:
I thought Santa Cruz was a doubt for Paraguay for the World Cup? I have a feeling that we will probably draw with them in the first game but expect Sweden to win a close game and then both European teams to go through after drawing the last game or possibly England winning.
I would think the old formula "Win one, tie two" might still work here.

Swe-T&T 1-0
Eng-T&T 1-0
Par-T&T 1-0
Swe-Par 1-1
Eng-Par 1-0
Swe-Eng 1-1

Assuming England wins against Paraguay and Trinidad&Tobago, Sweden needs to win against T&T and tie the two other games. Not given they will, but hardly impossible. What are the odds for Paraguay actually defeating Sweden as opposed to getting a tied result?

Sweden can be a frustratingly hard team to decisively defeat, which usually works fine for qualifiers and the first set of matches, but has often meant that Sweden struggles in the knock-out phase of tournaments.

That's what happened in 2002, winning one and tieing two meant Sweden won "The Group of Death" just by being hard to defeat (but was then immediately knocked out by Senegal). What you absolutely cannot afford is to lose a match, like Argentina did back then.

As for Sweden-England, I actually think Sweden tieing that game is likelier than Sweden winning over Paraguay.

But then again, just in general about the Swedish eleven, it's been remarked locally that the only player on it that has actually improved over the last year is Zlatan Ibrahimovic. The rest have at best remained at the same level. And the last matches of the qualifier were hardly impressive.

OTOH Swedish teams never do well when burdened with being favourites. The more feelings of (over-)confidence the Guaranis, English and Tobbogans (sp?;)) can work up over facing them, the better.:goodjob:
 
speaking of the Guarani's.. for some it must be really nice to come out of that hellhole for once in a while.. although I guess most of them don't live in Paraguay or the cities..
 
Stapel said:
MCdread, do you really think Croatia and Japan are on the same level :eek: ?

Maybe yes, maybe not. For the purpose of a football World Cup, all of Australia, Croatia and Japan are perfectly capable of beating each other, which makes all of them as having a comparable chance of qualifying to the 2nd round. What's so great about Croatia anyway?

As for the african teams, the games in Africa are always crappy. I watched CdI vs. Cameroon, at the time being advertised as the best couple of african teams, and the technical and especially tactical level of it was very low. CdI's defence in particular was pathetic. But curiously, in the last few years, there's always at least one of those crappy african teams that does very well at the WC. In my mind Ghana is perfectly capable of beating teams from eny continent, including a handful of european or south american ones.
 
Top Bottom