How many teams can realistically win the world cup?

So you don't think they can realistically win it?

I don't think we will but if the team got together and played at their peak then would stand a realistic chance imo.

Got to be against them at the prices...

They have a...

Goalkeeper who is championship class at best

a right back who can't defend for toffee

a left back who looks like he's won a play for England competition

a centre back who gets repeatedly skinned every time he's confronted with a pacy forward

another centre back who is permanently injured

....need I go on???

I'm sure only 1 can realistically win it. ;-)

I agree they are underpriced but they do have a realistic chance of winning, don't buy your argument about the centre backs, Terry and Ferdinand are as good as any other centre back combination going to the world cup. Ashley cole however much I hate him is a good left back. Admittedly Glen Johnson is weak defensively but going forward he is very useful. Goalkeeper situation is obviously a bit of a worry...

The biggest negative I don't think you've picked up on though is the form of Steven Gerrard this season and it is a bit owrrying that we are making way to accomodate him into our team when he isn't even playing that well.

But to say we realistically CAN'T win it is going to far imo.

spain,netherlands,brazil poss argentina but i doubt it. What i would say is that one of the african nations could have a chance. Especially the Ivory coast if Drogba plays well.

I think it will be a long while until an African team wins it tbh. Ivory Coast are underpriced as well imo.

I just get a feeling that an african nation will do well. Take Korea in 2002 no one expected them to do that.

Yeah exactly with Korea noone expected it and they were massive price. and managed by a world class manager but with the Ivory Coast for some crazy reason people seem to be expecting them to do well when there is no real evidence to back up that they will...

And Korea was the host country.

Chile imo

argentina
brazil
spain (nap)

Opening post forgot Italy and Germany. Why list the teams you would like to win?

agree kincsem...u usually get a run for your money on germany and italy...proven tournament teams

Short memories of the last World Cup debacle by England.

A 1-0 win over Paraguay (3rd minute own goal).
A 2-0 win over Trinidad & Tobago (83, 90+1 mins)
a 2-2 draw with Sweden.

Round of 16:
A 1-0 win over Ecuador (Beckham free 60 mins)

Quarter-finals:
A 0-0 draw with Portugal, then a 1-3 loss on penalties, Lampard; Gerrard; Carragher miss
Rooney gets a red card.

................................................................................

The present team is arguably not as good, and the main men, Lampard and Gerrard will be aged 32 and 30. Many of the squad probables are injured.
The only player who might be better is Rooney, but can he transfer league form to the World Cup, and get the supply he gets at club level? He failed to score against weak teams in the last World Cup.

Terry looks horribly suspect to pace, and a dribbling forward who runs at him.

I think the correct answer to the OP is 32, isn't it?

kincsem 29 Mar 19:01


Opening post forgot Italy and Germany. Why list the teams you would like to win?


Italy and Germany are not the force they once were, good teams but nothing more than good, same with France.
All could do alright but can't realistically see any of them winning it (If any Italy, but not by playing good football)

And johnny to claim any of the 32 teams could realistically win it is stupid (I emphasise the word realistically because you seem to struggle to have got that part)

Would anyone who said that "reallistically" Greece could win the Euro Championships (at 100-1) also have been "stupid" please ?:|

South koreo should never of got as far as they did. Bad refereeing decisions and they were one of the host teams.

Realistically

Brazil
Italy
Germany
Argentina

I will be surprised if any one else wins.These are the 4 most consistent teams with proven winning ability.

Greece winning the European championship is completely different from winning the world cup.The World cup has historically been alot easier to predict. When was the last time an outsider won the World cup?

Clarky and big bucks. Form is not enough. Time and again Spain have proved they are not good enough. Might do it this time, but they are not a good price.As some one has already said don't forget Argentina in the last world Cup and also Holland in 74.Probably the best team, but didn't win.

chop180 30 Mar 01:33


Would anyone who said that "reallistically" Greece could win the Euro Championships (at 100-1) also have been "stupid" please

1) World Cup easier to predict

2) Freak result - didn't play well just defended well.

one

holland couldnt win it when they had the best players on the planet they aint gonna win it now.

argentina or brazil .

i would make england the most likely after those two.

but they are going to have to break the trend since the world cup

began that no european team has EVER won it outside their own

continent.

ravage 29 Mar 17:20
spain,netherlands,brazil poss argentina but i doubt it. What i would say is that one of the african nations could have a chance. Especially the Ivory coast if Drogba plays well.

If I had a big enough bank to tie money up for a couple of months, I would lay Ivory coast for every penny that is up for grabs at around 30's.

If Ivory coast win the world cup I will swim the Arctic ocean with a penguin on my back

the ivory coast players among others were complaining about the heat

in that last tournament .

i know it is going to be winter in south africa when the world cup

is played but does anyone have any idea what the temperature is likely to be then.

the lay preacher 30 Mar 11:54


the ivory coast players among others were complaining about the heat

in that last tournament .

i know it is going to be winter in south africa when the world cup

is played but does anyone have any idea what the temperature is likely to be then.

I'm going over and have been told to expect similar to a mild summer here.

As I understand it the venues in the north will be hotter than those in the south. About 25 degrees.

Spain couldn't win it in 1982 when they had home advantage so I doubt they will do it now.

The European Championship is completely different from the World Cup. Throws up freak results like Denmark and Greece. Denmark didn't even qualify. They only got in because Yugoslavia didn't play because the Balkans started fighting again.

Only one team has ever won outside it's own continent. That is Brazil.The world cup is probably the easiest sporting event to predict. It has been for the last 50+ years anyway.

Sunset Cristo
Welcome to the forum. Its nice to read posts from someone who takes a balanced view and is realistic, not nationalistic.

Someone above wrote off Germany.
What have those losers done recently? - 3rd in the 2006 World Cup (beaten in the semi-final in the last couple of minutes of extra time) and losing finalists 1-0 to Spain in Euro 2008.

What have third favourites England done? ..... I just saw some tumbleweed rolling through ....

Fortunately many bet with their hearts and have short memory's otherwise others wouldn't make it pay.I will be laying England. If they win it will be the first time that I will be happy with a losing bet.

I dont think the outside their own continent will come into this much as surely no African team will win this one. Argentina also won outside their own continent when they won it in Mexico

spain
brazil
argentina
serbia

I backed Serbia in 2006 ....... Argentina 6-0 Serbia.

only argentina and brazil have ever won the world cup ouside their own continent . europeans have never in the history of the tournament ever done this .

there a wee clue to the eventual winners for you.

Statistics like " European teams can't win the World Cup outside Europe" hold up until they don't hold up.

World Cups outside Europe [8]

In 1930 [Uruguay] only 4 of 13 teams were European. Germany Italy, England didn't take part.

In 1950 [Brazil] 6 of 13 teams were European. There was no World Cup final. There was a final group of four, and Uruguay won from Brazil; Sweden; Spain.
.................................................................................
In 1962 [Chile] 10 European teams from 16. Brazil won the final; Czechosolvakia runner-up. Chile 3rd; Yugoslaviia 4th.

In 1970 [Mexico] 9 Europeans from 16.
Brazil beat Italy 4-1. Forgotten by most was that Italy beat West Germany 4-3 in extra time in a gruelling semi-final, and were feeling that in the final where Brazil lasted better. West Germany 3rd; Uruguay 4th.

In 1978 [Argentina] 10 Europeans from 16.
Argentina beat The Netherlands 3-1 in extra time. Brazil 3rd; italy 4th. The Netherlands clipped the post three minutes from time in the final. Brazil 3rd; Italy 4th.

In 1986 [Mexico] Argentina 3-2 West Germany. Winning goal in the 83rd minute. France 3rd; Belgium 4th. 14 Europeans from 24 teams.

In 1994 [USA] Brazil 0-0 Italy .... Brazil win penalty shoot-out.
13 Europeans from 24 teams. Sweden 3rd; Bulgaria 4th.

In 2002 [South Korea; Japan] Brazil 2-0 Germany. Turkey 3rd; S Korea 4th. 14 Europeans from 32 teams.

European teams didn't take the competition seriously in 1930 and 1950.

Six European runners-up in the last six finals outside Europe, and three 3rds; four 4ths.

I think that is a very good record. Italy had an excuse in 1970; The Netherlands neary won in 1978; in 1986 Agentina got a late winner; in 1994 Italy lost a penalty shoot-out.

Statistics like " European teams can't win the World Cup outside Europe" hold up until they don't hold up.

World Cups outside Europe [8]

In 1930 [Uruguay] only 4 of 13 teams were European. Germany Italy, England didn't take part.

In 1950 [Brazil] 6 of 13 teams were European. There was no World Cup final. There was a final group of four, and Uruguay won from Brazil; Sweden; Spain.
.................................................................................
In 1962 [Chile] 10 European teams from 16. Brazil won the final; Czechosolvakia runner-up. Chile 3rd; Yugoslaviia 4th.

In 1970 [Mexico] 9 Europeans from 16.
Brazil beat Italy 4-1. Forgotten by most was that Italy beat West Germany 4-3 in extra time in a gruelling semi-final, and were feeling that in the final where Brazil lasted better. West Germany 3rd; Uruguay 4th.

In 1978 [Argentina] 10 Europeans from 16.
Argentina beat The Netherlands 3-1 in extra time. Brazil 3rd; italy 4th. The Netherlands clipped the post three minutes from time in the final. Brazil 3rd; Italy 4th.

In 1986 [Mexico] Argentina 3-2 West Germany. Winning goal in the 83rd minute. France 3rd; Belgium 4th. 14 Europeans from 24 teams.

In 1994 [USA] Brazil 0-0 Italy .... Brazil win penalty shoot-out.
13 Europeans from 24 teams. Sweden 3rd; Bulgaria 4th.

In 2002 [South Korea; Japan] Brazil 2-0 Germany. Turkey 3rd; S Korea 4th. 14 Europeans from 32 teams.

European teams didn't take the competition seriously in 1930 and 1950.

Six European runners-up in the last six finals outside Europe, and three 3rds; four 4ths.

I think that is a very good record. Italy had an excuse in 1970; The Netherlands neary won in 1978; in 1986 Agentina got a late winner; in 1994 Italy lost a penalty shoot-out.

I think the statistic is there to be broken and you wouldn't say they won't win based on that but it certainly should affect their chances slightly. Certainly is less chance of a European winning in South Africa than if it was played in Europe.

the lay preacher.Argentina have won twice. Once playing at home and once in Mexico. Mexico is part of south America the same continent as Argentina unless I am very much mistaken.Only Brazil have ever won outside their own continent in 80 years.

kincsem how you can say this is a good record beggars belief.Nearly winning isn't the same as winning. There is a slim line between winning and losing and until European teams win outside their own continent any one who backs them is going against the odds.Doesn't mean they can't do it, but it does mean that it's harder for them. Probably because of the temp and acclimatisation.

African team can't win. Brazil couldn't win a raffle. European team NAILED ON

england cant win

Mexico is in North America. Though probably with a pretty similar climate to parts of South America.

For me this nonsense that a European team can't win the world cup in another continent is coincedental and it's not like teams like Brazil and Argentina weren't expected to go well when they won them world cups.

I love my stats usually, but this one I believe is paranoia of the highest order.

The reasons I say it is a daft statistic are -
European teams reached the last six finals outside Europe.
Two of those finals were lost in extra-time.

kincsem 31 Mar 12:33


Sunset Cristo
Welcome to the forum. Its nice to read posts from someone who takes a balanced view and is realistic, not nationalistic.

Someone above wrote off Germany.
What have those losers done recently? - 3rd in the 2006 World Cup (beaten in the semi-final in the last couple of minutes of extra time) and losing finalists 1-0 to Spain in Euro 2008.

What have third favourites England done? ..... I just saw some tumbleweed rolling through ....


I wrote them off, don't get me wrong as a team in the past they are usually better than us and they might even go far in the world cup but potentially we have a better group of players going to the world cup and I would be disappointed if we at least didn't get as far as them.

Having said all that England are underpriced for what they have done as a team.

Big Bucks John 30 Mar 09:11


chop180 30 Mar 01:33


Would anyone who said that "reallistically" Greece could win the Euro Championships (at 100-1) also have been "stupid" please

1) World Cup easier to predict

2) Freak result - didn't play well just defended well.

Another really stupid post. How the hell is it "easier to predict"? Have you any evidence to back it up, or is that just meaningless waffle? The outcome simply proves my point, namely a reasonable well organized side with average ability is capable of winning a knockout cup competition!

Keep backing your 9/2 favourites in cups, it's pretty easy to work out which posters are in the 98% who lose on here ;)

Shame I;m not one of them eh chop ;)

and it's easier to predict because you have more strength in depth therefore less likely to get a suprise winner.

all of the market leaders above chile can realistically win this. dont discount portugal or holland by no means

1.Brazil (nap)
2.Spain
3.England
4.Argentina
5.Italy

BBJ more strength in depth. What are you trying to say.

The results of the World Cup show that it is easier to predict. When was the last time there was a shock result? Has there ever been a shock result.European championship has has 2 in the last 18 years. Denmark and Greece.4 teams have dominated the World Cup in the last 42 years.Only 2 other teams have won it in the last 42 years and they had home advantage.

Yeah that is what I am saying sunset!

Jesus wept. So because there hasn't been a shock result before means there can't be one this time? And S Korea are irrelevant because they got the rub of the green from referees... because of course it is impossible that will happen to any team this time. Whereas world cups that happened over 40 years ago are deeply relevant, even though none of the players playing in this tournament were even alive then. In the same spirit, when pricing up Arsenal v Wolves tomorrow I will be careful to take into account the consecutive league titles won by Wolves in 1958 and 1959.

Quick hint - look at the outrights odds page, find the reciprocal of the number next to each team, this will give you an approximate estimate of the chances of that team winning the world cup. The last time I looked in a stats book I don't remember there being a threshold above which a probability could be considered 'realistic'.

1, AUSTRALIA

Denmark were hardly a shock, they were 14/1 for goodness sake, I know because I backed them!

its a shame the joc ks and pa ddys never ever qualify so we can have a go at them.

TheDoh 03 Apr 01:33


Jesus wept. So because there hasn't been a shock result before means there can't be one this time?





No . No one is saying that. I'm not saying that. Learn to read.Anything can happen in football. All I'm saying is that the World Cup has been very predictable over the last 40-50 years. That's a fact. Make of it what you will.




And S Korea are irrelevant because they got the rub of the green from referees... because of course it is impossible that will happen to any team this time. Whereas world cups that happened over 40 years ago are deeply relevant, even though none of the players playing in this tournament were even alive then. In the same spirit, when pricing up Arsenal v Wolves tomorrow I will be careful to take into account the consecutive league titles won by Wolves in 1958 and 1959.






It's more to do with team spirit and that Europeans not being able to acclimatise and handle the heat.All I know is what I've seen over the last 50 years is that every four years its the usual suspects or a home team that wins. 15 out of the last 15 world cups. Make of it what you will. I know how I interpret it and it has held me in good stead.

chop180 03 Apr 11:43


Denmark were hardly a shock, they were 14/1 for goodness sake, I know because I backed them

Denmark 14/1 to win a competition that they weren't even good enough to officially qualify for. That's a shocking price.Why did you back them? Are you Danish or do you have a crystal ball?

As for Spain winning the European championship and that helping their confidence. Only 1 out of the last 12 European Champions have gone on to win the World Cup and that was west Germany in 1974 after winning the European championship in 1972. And of course Germany are one of the usual suspects any way.

It's more to do with team spirit and that Europeans not being able to acclimatise and handle the heat.

In South Africa it will be winter so European teams will have more of a chance. I expect Italy and Germany to plod along to the knock-out stages.

Below is a complete list of teams that can win the World Cup:

Spain

Far From Trouble 03 Apr 19:20


Below is a complete list of teams that can win the World Cup:

Spain

LOL.

"Denmark 14/1 to win a competition that they weren't even good enough to officially qualify for. That's a shocking price.Why did you back them? Are you Danish or do you have a crystal ball?"

I simply did an analysis of all 16 teams in the competition, rated them out of 5 in all categories, and found that (with the exception of Scotland) all teams involved were of very simmilar ability / chances.

So I went for the team with the highest price, in 1992 I had just started betting and wasn't aware of different bookies etc, just went into the local one and 14/1 was the odds. Wouldn't have thought they'd be higher than 16s in any other one though, there normally isn't that much of a difference for major tourneys like that.

4

Spain
Brazil
Argentina
England

Chile (nap)

Ha, brilliant reply

It's more to do with team spirit and that Europeans not being able to acclimatise and handle the heat.All I know is what I've seen over the last 50 years is that every four years its the usual suspects or a home team that wins. 15 out of the last 15 world cups. Make of it what you will. I know how I interpret it and it has held me in good stead.

Good to know that your betting strategy has been turning profits for 50 years. You must be very old. Or maybe there is a difference between a pattern retrospectively identified, and one that is profitable in future predictions.

Question - if the final is brazil v spain, how would you price it up? And what would be the price if the match was on a neutral venue tomorrow, say at wembley, where the 'acclimatise' isn't a factor?

As a jock in England looking forward to all those pish things they put on your cars and handily in the gutter when you go out.
Argentina, Spain, Brazil and possibly Holland

Sunset Cristo:

you say the teams that can realistically win are:

Brazil
Italy
Germany
Argentina

If I offer 1.5 on the winner coming from this group would you take it? Will be very happy to arrange a bet. Massive value available, can lay 1.5 on an outcome that can't realistically happen.

1hearts 29 Mar 17:17

I'm sure only 1 can realistically win it


Winner. End of thread!

ffs

so simple that anyone with even a modicum of football knowledge should be able to narrow realistic winners down to 4...and the bookies virtually always have it about right, so, id say brazil and spain are FAR FAR ahead of the rest, after that its open between holland, england possibly argentina....it doesnt matter what u say about spain, they are clearly one of the best teams in the world at this present time, their results prove it, to compare them to the 82 side is ridiculous.

TheDoh 04 Apr 03:15


Ha, brilliant reply

It's more to do with team spirit and that Europeans not being able to acclimatise and handle the heat.All I know is what I've seen over the last 50 years is that every four years its the usual suspects or a home team that wins. 15 out of the last 15 world cups. Make of it what you will. I know how I interpret it and it has held me in good stead.

Good to know that your betting strategy has been turning profits for 50 years. You must be very old. Or maybe there is a difference between a pattern retrospectively identified, and one that is profitable in future predictions.





I'm not that old. I've followed this system since 1982 when I first heard about it.It had worked for many years before that and I've seen it work over many years since in real time. Most system are back fitted. This one isn't.




Question - if the final is brazil v spain, how would you price it up?



Brazil 1/4
Spain 4/1


And what would be the price if the match was on a neutral venue tomorrow, say at wembley, where the 'acclimatise' isn't a factor




Brazil1/2
Spain 2/1

Tony Broke 04 Apr 14:25


so simple that anyone with even a modicum of football knowledge should be able to narrow realistic winners down to 4...and the bookies virtually always have it about right, so, id say brazil and spain are FAR FAR ahead of the rest, after that its open between holland, england possibly argentina....it doesnt matter what u say about spain, they are clearly one of the best teams in the world at this present time, their results prove it, to compare them to the 82 side is ridiculous.



I don't doubt they are one of the best teams in the world. So were Argentina in the last World Cup. Very impressive in their first two games.In 74 Holland best team in the world didn't win. 82 Brazil best team in the world didn't win. Probably the best team never to win the world cup. Need I go on.The 82 side had home advantage. I think you underestimate how important this is.6 out of 18 World cups have been won by the host nation.And if you leave out the one's that realistically had no chance of winning it's 6 out of 11.An average Spain side Would give a 3% chance. This side I give a 9% chance. That means I think they are 3 times better than an averege Spanish team.

Spain 4/1 in the final against Brazil, that is juicy, how much can I have on?

The real odds btw would be more like Spain 4/5 Brazil 11/10

Big Bucks John 04 Apr 18:41


Spain 4/1 in the final against Brazil, that is juicy, how much can I have on?

The real odds btw would be more like Spain 4/5 Brazil 11/10

So you say. Prove it?

Well for a start Spain are shorter than Brazil in the current outright market...

we can't win it, you need 3/4 world class players to win it, England have just 1, Wayne Rooney

Question - if the final is brazil v spain, how would you price it up?

Brazil 1/4
Spain 4/1


Hahahahahahhahah

ahahahha

ahaha

*tries to breathe*

hahaha

Hands up, I fell for it. Quality fishing

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/page/worldcup101-03192010/ce/...

4

Spain
Brazil
Germany
England

The dutch........... always seem to have 1 off day,and thats when they say bye-bye
Argies ...............,no chance under that fat **ing fcuk wit
ltalians ...............all their best players past their sell by date
French...............The coach is a clown,and their players not very good,except Ribery+ Henry who is past his best

Sunset Cristo:



Brazil
Italy
Germany
Argentina

"15 out of 15 times these teams or the host won"



totally agree with that!
Why should I put my money on underperformers like spain, england, nederlands and france???
some things never change...

John how can you rule out Italy ahead of the Italians? Its simple really, achievers verse under achievers. They are and always will be a tournament team. Spain only beat them on pens and you would be a full to write them of no matter how abd they are currently. When the tournament kicks of they will have a chance

*fool lol

kingofrome, I can see Italy doing alright but surely not got enough class to win the world cup? Especially up front.

I don't but into this under achievers and over achievers business too much, past world cups don't affect my opinions too much and this Spanish team being the current European champions who have the record for number of games unbeaten and consecutive victories are the team to beat

Sucess breeds sucess and if England were to meet Italy in the semi final I now who my money would be on and England would be favourites in this match up.

The problems with Italy is that although Lippi is a very smart and wise man he is also old fasioned and while not pick the possible stars and risky players that would give Italy flair. Cassano, pazzini, micoli etc.
They have many exciting players but he may suprise everyone and pic some of these players. If he does watch out for Italy

Denmark WERE 100/1 I was going to back them cos they were a good side. Seeing the odds tho and being young at the time, I thought I must be mistaken in my assumption, cos they wouldn't be 100s. I regret it to this day ;-)

should be 18/1 ;)

Remember the World Cup is basically a cup competition.

And the worst team in the Premiership have just reached the final of a cup competition.

So anything can and most likely will happen.

they players and fans will probably be murdered in that hell whole

1hearts, I can assure you Denmark were not 100-1. Only sixteen teams in for goodness sake, and one of those was Scotland!

just reading through my comment there, its meant to say rule out Italy ahead of the English. Lol, makes no sense what so ever

Denmark winning the Euro

As far as I can remember they were about 20/1, lost their first game, were then 80/1.

Argentina cant win under maradona FACT.

Chop - there were 8 teams in Euro 92, not 16.