Big Stories to Take from the 2010 World Cup

1) Ratings Success. This is the most important American story from the 2010 World Cup. With the time difference in South Africa the same as 2006 in Germany, it allowed us to have an equal comparison between the ratings. The results: ESPN - up 31%, and Univision - up 15%. Those are huge increases, and they only should get higher in 2014, when the games are on later in the day. 2) Mainstream breakthrough. Part of the reason for ESPN's ratings increase had to be due to their relentless promotion. It was very hard to not know that it was going on, sports fan or not. Commercials were running non-stop, far more than any previous tournament. John Skipper, ESPN's Vice President for Content, has to get a ton of credit. He wanted to move the needle, and they did it. Skipper may currently be the most important person in American soccer. But it wasn't just ESPN, how about Coca Cola putting the World Cup on their cans? That was a huge sign of mainstream acceptance. How about the vuvuzela? For better or worse, everybody is now familiar with it. The 2010 World Cup was a mainstream event. 3) Meeting expectations. It's wrong to call the US heroes for beating Algeria and advancing to the round of 16. However, it's also unfair to call them a disappointment. With the draw we had, anything less than advancement would've rightfully been called a failure. But despite the easier than normal path to the semifinals, a country with the soccer history that we have simply can't expect a better result than the round of 16. There are only 8 places in the quarterfinals, and we aren't one of the top 8 teams in the world. We met expectations, nothing more and nothing less. It's perhaps a lost opportunity with Ghana not being a world beater, but I'm not too upset.

208 to 1: World Cup 2010 Eliminations Timeline

UPDATE: Completed! Yes, we know now who qualified for the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. In the future, it will be easy to look at the qualifying standings to see how things turned out. However, one thing that can't easily be determined from a simple glance at the standings is exactly when each team fell out of contention. It's fairly obvious if you look at the schedule for a minute or two, but that takes some effort. So what I set out to do is to make a list of exactly when each team was officially eliminated, and here it is. You'll see the overall order of each team to the left of their name, counting down from 208 (the number of FIFA members, hence this post's title). The number to the right of the team is their order of elimination within their region. Order of Elimination March 30, 2007 206 (tie). Brunei Darussalam (AFC-44th, tie) 206 (tie). Laos (AFC-44th, tie) 206 (tie). Philippines (AFC-44th, tie) The only three FIFA members not to enter qualifying. May 25, 2007 204. Papau New Guinea (OFC-11th) Were listed as participating in qualifying but apparently "failed to meet the official accreditation" (Wikipedia) before qualifying started. August 7, 2007 205. Guam (AFC-43rd) Withdrew immediately after the AFC preliminary draw. August 29, 2007 203. American Samoa (OFC-10th) First team out during South Pacific Games. August 31, 2007 201 (tie). Central African Republic (CAF-52nd, tie) 201 (tie). São Tomé and Príncipe (CAF-52nd, tie) These two CAF members withdrew before the preliminary round. September 1, 2007 199 (tie). Cook Islands (OFC-8th, tie) 199 (tie). Tahiti (OFC-8th, tie) September 3, 2007 198. Samoa (OFC-7th) 197. Tonga (OFC-6th) September 7, 2007 196. Solomon Islands (OFC-5th) Only four teams remained after the first round of OFC qualifying (aka the South Pacific Games). The first tiebreaker during qualifying is goal differential, and I have Samoa being eliminated before Tonga because of it. Allow me to explain: With one match in the round robin remaining and the second spot to advance still undecided, Vanuatu has 6 points, Samoa 6, and Tonga 3. Samoa has completed all their games with a +1 goal differential; Vanuatu (+17) and Tonga (-1) face each other in the final match. A Tonga win would mean a three way tie, but it is impossible for Samoa's goal differential to be tops in that scenario. September 13, 2007 195. Bhutan (AFC-42nd) Also withdrew from qualifying. October 15, 2007 194. Macau (AFC-41st) October 26, 2007 193. Afghanistan (AFC-40th) October 28, 2007 191 (tie). Mongolia (AFC-38th, tie) 191 (tie). Timor-Leste (AFC-38th, tie) 190. Myanmar (AFC-37th) 189. Nepal (AFC-36th) 187 (tie). Bangladesh (AFC-34th, tie) 187 (tie). Palestine (AFC-34th, tie) 186. Chinese Taipei (AFC-33rd) 184 (tie). Maldives (AFC-31st, tie) 184 (tie). Pakistan (AFC-31st, tie) 183. Malaysia (AFC-30th) 182. Cambodia (AFC-29th) 181. Vietnam (AFC-28th) 180. Sri Lanka (AFC-27th) 179. Kyrgyzstan (AFC-26th) October 30, 2007 178. India (AFC-25th) First round of Asian qualifying. I'm basing the order on the starting times of the matches as well as the time zones of the host countries. Extra time is taken into account too. There are not really any ties here, but I have no way of knowing which games ended first. I would also be unaware if any games were delayed or anything like that, so keep that in mind. November 16, 2007 177. Somalia (CAF-51st) November 17, 2007 176. Comoros (CAF-50th) 175. Guinea-Bissau (CAF-49th) These three lost in the preliminary round of African qualifying. November 18th, 2007 174. Tajikistan (AFC-24th) 173. Yemen (AFC-23rd) 172. Indonesia (AFC-22nd) 171. Hong Kong (AFC-21st) Four teams gone in the small second round of Asian qualifying. March 25, 2008 170. Eritrea (CAF-48th) Withdrew after the group stage was drawn. March 26, 2008 168 (tie). Turks and Caicos Islands (CONCACAF-34th, tie) 168 (tie). U.S. Virgin Islands (CONCACAF-34th, tie) 167. Dominica (CONCACAF-33rd) 166. Aruba (CONCACAF-32nd) 165. Montserrat (CONCACAF-31st) 164. Saint Kitts and Nevis (CONCACAF-30th) 162 (tie). Anguilla (CONCACAF-28th, tie) 162 (tie). Nicaragua (CONCACAF-28th, tie) 161. Dominican Republic (CONCACAF-27th) March 30, 2008 160. British Virgin Islands (CONCACAF-26th) 159. Cayman Islands (CONCACAF-25th) First round of North American qualifying done. June 7, 2008 158. Turkmenistan (AFC-20th) 157. Lebanon (AFC-19th) June 14, 2008 156. Jordan (AFC-18th) 155. Thailand (AFC-17th) 154. Singapore (AFC-16th) 153. China (AFC-15th) 152. Oman (AFC-14th) 151. Kuwait (AFC-13th) 150. Puerto Rico (CONCACAF-24th) June 18, 2008 149. Bahamas (CONCACAF-23rd) June 20, 2008 148. St. Vincent and the Grenandines (CONCACAF-22nd) June 21, 2008 146 (tie). Fiji (OFC-3rd, tie) 146 (tie). Vanuatu (OFC-3rd, tie) 145. Seychelles (CAF-47th) 142 (tie). Belize (CONCACAF-19th, tie) 142 (tie). Grenada (CONCACAF-19th, tie) 142 (tie). St. Lucia (CONCACAF-19th, tie) June 22, 2008 140 (tie). Iraq (AFC-11th, tie) 140 (tie). Syria (AFC-11th, tie) 139. Mauritania (CAF-46th) 138. Djibouti (CAF-45th) 137. Niger (CAF-44th) 135 (tie). Mauritius (CAF-42nd, tie) 135 (tie). Tanzania (CAF-42nd, tie) 134. Barbados (CONCACAF-18th) 133. Guyana (CONCACAF-17th) 132. Antigua and Barbuda (CONCACAF-16th) 131. Bermuda (CONCACAF-15th) 130. Netherlands Antillles (CONCACAF-14th) 129. Panama (CONCACAF-13th) AFC and CONCACAF are now getting into the heart of their qualification methods. Iraq is the first of the reigning confederation champions to be eliminated. I wonder how many such teams have failed to qualify throughout the history of WCQ? Can't be too many. June 28, 2008 128. Lesotho (CAF-41st) September 6, 2008 127. New Caledonia (OFC-2nd) 126. Namibia (CAF-40th) 124 (tie). Equatorial Guinea (CAF-38th, tie) 124 (tie). Liberia (CAF-38th, tie) 123. Burundi (CAF-37th) September 7, 2008 122. Botswana (CAF-36th) New Zealand became the champion of Oceania and also advanced to the Confederations Cup. They'll now wait a year to play their next qualifiers. Also, South Africa was eliminated from the qualifying competition on this date. Of course, they're still guaranteed a spot in the World Cup. September 12, 2008 121. Ethiopia (CAF-35th) Kicked out of the competition by FIFA, in one of the rare instances where they actually followed through on their threats. October 11, 2008 120. Congo DR (CAF-34th) 119. Zimbabwe (CAF-33rd) 115 (tie). Angola (CAF-29th, tie) 115 (tie). Cape Verde (CAF-29th, tie) 115 (tie). Libya (CAF-29th, tie) 115 (tie). Madagascar (CAF-29th, tie) 114. Sierra Leone (CAF-28th) 113. Swaziland (CAF-27th) 112. Senegal (CAF-26th) 110 (tie). Chad (CAF-24th, tie) 110 (tie). Congo (CAF-24th, tie) 109. Canada (CONCACAF-12th) Angola and Cape Verde were hard to figure out because of the second placed teams advancing. I believe they were officially eliminated at the same time, when groups 5 & 7 were settled. Angola becomes the first team from the 2006 World Cup to be eliminated. Meanwhile, Canada surprisingly is the first CONCACAF team out in the semifinal round. Who would've thought that a year after their great 2007 Gold Cup? October 12, 2008 108. Uganda (CAF-23rd) 107. Gambia (CAF-22nd) We're now done with the second round of African qualifying. First of all, I'm really glad that both Angola and South Africa failed to advance. It makes things a whole lot simpler (due to these qualifiers also counting for the 2010 Nations Cup). Of the final 20 teams, in the previous round 10 were #1 seeds. The only two to miss out were Angola and Senegal. 5 were #2 seeds (Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, and Zambia), 4 were #3 seeds (Gabon, Malawi, Rwanda, and Sudan), and 1 was a #4 seed (Kenya). I have to say I'm disappointed to see The Gambia out. They were my surprise pick for a first time qualifier, due to their youth successes recently. Then, seeing some of their players move to MLS only made me more interested in their fate. They played really well, finishing second ahead of Senegal, so they have nothing to be ashamed of. If they're disappointed, they certainly aren't showing it; the president of the country has declared today a public holiday due to the away draw against Senegal. October 15, 2008 106. Cuba (CONCACAF-11th) 104 (tie). Haiti (CONCACAF-9th, tie) 104 (tie). Suriname (CONCACAF-9th, tie) October 19, 2008 103. Jamaica (CONCACAF-8th) 102. Guatemala (CONCACAF-7th) Semifinal round of North American qualifying ends. The hex is set. April 1, 2009 101. United Arab Emirates (AFC-10th) 100. Malta (UEFA-53rd) 99. San Marino (UEFA-52nd) After a near-six month break (by far the longest in the process) we finally can eliminate a couple more teams. The first European casualties are here, and now the number of teams remaining is reduced to double digits. June 6, 2009 98. Georgia (UEFA - 51st) 97. Andorra (UEFA - 50th) 96. Albania (UEFA - 49th) June 10, 2009 95. Qatar (AFC - 9th) 94. Iceland (UEFA - 48th) 93. Kazakhstan (UEFA - 47th) 92. Liechtenstein (UEFA - 46th) 91. Peru (CONMEBOL - 10th) June 17, 2009 90. Uzbekistan (AFC - 8th) 89. Iran (AFC - 7th) Four teams have qualified from Asia, along with the Europe's first, the Netherlands. Iran becomes the second 2006 World Cup team to be eliminated. That's certainly a more shocking elimination than Angola. August 12, 2009 88. Azerbaijan (UEFA - 45th) September 5, 2009 87. Rwanda (CAF - 21st) 86. Armenia (UEFA - 44th) 85. Moldova (UEFA - 43rd) 83 (tie). Guinea (CAF - 19th, tie) 83 (tie). Malawi (CAF - 19th, tie) 82. Estonia (UEFA - 42nd) 79 (tie). Cyprus (UEFA - 39th, tie) 79 (tie). Faroe Islands (UEFA - 39th, tie) 79 (tie). Montenegro (UEFA - 39th, tie) September 6, 2009 76 (tie). Mali (CAF - 16th, tie) 76 (tie). Benin (CAF - 16th, tie) 76 (tie). Sudan (CAF - 16th, tie) African teams in the final round are beginning to drop, as Ghana and Brazil both punched their ticket to the finals. We've gotten to the point now where you can pretty much say, it's either this time or that team for that spot. I'd say of the remaining teams, a good 20 or so have virtually no shot at qualifying. September 9, 2009 75. Belgium (UEFA - 38th) 74. Belarus (UEFA - 37th) 73. Luxembourg (UEFA - 36th) 71 (tie). Macedonia (UEFA - 34th, tie) 71 (tie). Scotland (UEFA - 34th, tie) 69 (tie). Finland (UEFA - 32nd, tie) 69 (tie). Wales (UEFA - 32nd, tie) 68. Saudi Arabia (AFC - 6th) 67. Bolivia (CONMEBOL - 9th) 66. Trinidad & Tobago (CONCACAF - 6th) The Saudis became the third 2006 qualifier to be eliminated this cycle, in heartbreaking fashion by Bahrain. It was funny, because I watched them score around the 90th minute to take the lead. Then, one of their players decided to not to take the ball to the corner a minute later, instead trying to score again. I was thinking it was nice to actually see a player try to go at goal for once in that situation, and of course it costs them. AFC qualifying is now completed. Later on in the day, Trinidad became the 4th 2006 team to fail this time around. Of the other eliminations, Scotland is the only notable one. The others have had no chance for a while now. October 10, 2009 65. Zambia (CAF - 15th) 64. Burkina Faso (CAF - 14th) 62 (tie). Morocco (CAF - 12th, tie) 62 (tie). Togo (CAF - 12th, tie) 61. Turkey (UEFA - 31st) 60. Bulgaria (UEFA - 30th) 57 (tie). Lithuania (UEFA - 27th, tie) 57 (tie). Poland (UEFA - 27th, tie) 57 (tie). Romania (UEFA - 27th, tie) 56. Austria (UEFA - 26th) 54 (tie). Colombia (CONMEBOL - 8th) 54 (tie). El Salvador (CONCACAF - 5th) October 11, 2009 52 (tie). Kenya (CAF - 10th, tie) 52 (tie). Mozambique (CAF - 10th, tie) It was a weekend of many eliminations, but only Colombia looked to have any real hope of making it (and even that was a longshot). At this point, 19 teams have qualified. The dates of qualification can be found on Wikipedia (link). Many of the 32 teams left alive fighting for a berth have only a microscopic chance. We should see another 10 eliminations on Wednesday, and only one (one of Argentina/Ecuador/Uruguay) should give us any drama. Some teams are only alive based on crazy scenarios; what are the odds of Andorra, Luxembourg, Malta, or San Marino getting a result? October 14, 2009 51. Croatia (UEFA - 25th) 49 (tie). Israel (UEFA - 23rd, tie) 49 (tie). Latvia (UEFA - 23rd, tie) 47 (tie). Czech Republic (UEFA - 21st, tie) 47 (tie). Northern Ireland (UEFA - 21st, tie) 44 (tie). Hungary (UEFA - 18th, tie) 44 (tie). Norway (UEFA - 18th, tie) 44 (tie). Sweden (UEFA - 18th, tie) 42 (tie). Ecuador (CONMEBOL - 6th, tie) 42 (tie). Venezuela (CONMEBOL - 6th, tie) None of the crazy scenarios came to pass, so these eliminations were expected. Ecuador will be disappointed at losing to an already qualified Chile. Looks like all the big names will once again make it after Argentina scraped through. All that's left now is African qualifying and the playoffs. For the remaining 9 spots, it's going to be one of two teams: Algeria/Egypt, Cameroon/Gabon, Nigeria/Tunisia, Bahrain/New Zealand, Costa Rica/Uruguay, and the four UEFA playoffs. November 14, 2009 41. Bahrain (AFC - 5th) 40. Tunisia (CAF - 9th) 39. Gabon (CAF - 8th) November 18, 2009 38. Egypt (CAF - 7th) 37. Ukraine (UEFA - 17th) 35 (tie). Bosnia & Herzegovina (UEFA - 15th, tie) 35 (tie). Russia (UEFA - 15th, tie) 34. Ireland (UEFA - 14th) 33. Costa Rica (CONCACAF - 4th) After two years, qualification has finished. It started in Samoa with the 2007 South Pacific Games, and ended with Uruguay defeating Costa Rica on aggregate. June 19, 2010 32. Cameroon (CAF - 6th) June 21, 2010 31. North Korea (AFC-4th) These were the first two teams eliminated at the World Cup finals, and the only two eliminated before the final round of the group stage. That seemed like a low number, no? In 2006, it appears that no fewer than seven teams were already done (Poland, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Serbia & Montenegro, Cote d'Ivoire, Iran, Togo). June 22, 2010 29 (tie). France (UEFA-13th) 29 (tie). South Africa (CAF-5th) 28. Greece (UEFA- 12th) 27. Nigeria (CAF-4th) June 23, 2010 25 (tie). Algeria (CAF-3rd) 25 (tie). Slovenia (UEFA- 11th) 24. Serbia (UEFA- 10th) 23. Australia (AFC-3rd) June 24, 2010 22. New Zealand (OFC - 1st) 21. Italy (UEFA- 9th) 20. Denmark (UEFA-8th) June 25, 2010 19. Cote d'Ivoire (CAF-2nd) 18. Honduras (CONCACAF - 3rd) 17. Switzerland (UEFA- 7th) Group stage complete. Eliminations are based on which games finished first. For example, Mexico-Uruguay finished before France-South Africa. After the first game finished, Mexico had 4 points and France/South Africa had 1. It was still possible for both of those teams to pass Mexico, so they were both still alive until the final whistle. Another example was New Zealand's game. They finished their game with 3 points before Italy-Slovakia. They finished 0-0, and an equal result in the other game would've kept them alive, but we already knew that was impossible in the other game. From here on out, it's all pretty simple to follow. June 26, 2010 16. South Korea (AFC - 2nd) 15. United States (CONCACAF - 2nd) June 27, 2010 14. England (UEFA - 6th) 13. Mexico (CONCACAF - 1st) June 28, 2010 12. Slovakia (UEFA - 5th) 11. Chile (CONMEBOL - 5th) June 29, 2010 10. Japan (AFC - 1st) 9. Portugal (UEFA - 4th) July 2, 2010 8. Brazil (CONMEBOL - 4th) 7. Ghana (CAF - 1st) July 3, 2010 6. Argentina (CONMEBOL - 3rd) 5. Paraguay (CONMEBOL - 2nd) July 6, 2010 4. Uruguay (CONMEBOL - 1st) July 7, 2010 3. Germany (UEFA - 3rd) July 11, 2010 2. Netherlands (UEFA - 2nd) 1. Spain (UEFA - 1st)

World Cup 1998-2010: Fewest Minutes Leading in the Group Stage & Still Advanced

EDIT: The USA's next opponent, Ghana, joins the list after only leading for 5 minutes. For the group stages in the 1998-2010 World Cups (with the current format, where only two teams advanced from each group rather than three). Stoppage time is counted as one minute, so each team has 270 minutes to work with. 1 2006 Australia 1 1 2006 Sweden 1 1 2010 United States 1 4 2010 Ghana 5 5 1998 Mexico 16 6 1998 Norway 21 7 2006 Mexico 22 8 2010 Mexico 26 9 1998 Paraguay 41 10 2002 Sweden 56 Due to not knowing the exact times in the matches, and also the ease of counting each match as 90 minutes, I've listed the US as tied for first. However, the goals in the other matches (Australia-Japan and Sweden-Paraguay) were both in the 89th minute. Landon Donovan's goal against Algeria was in stoppage time. Depending on the amount in each of the games, they could actually be first. On the flip side, Algeria only trailed for 12 minutes in their three matches (1 vs USA, 11 vs Slovenia) and still didn't advance. The only country that can better that is 1998 Belgium, which drew three straight times and never trailed. So close to being the USA's fate this time around... Algeria also spent 258 minutes tied, which is the most from this time period. Also, how about Mexico listed three times? They certainly get the job done every four years.

USMNT: Number of Caps for World Cup Openers (1990-2010)

Looking at the opening games of the World Cup for the USA in each of the past six tournaments, here's how many caps the entire team had at that moment: Caps Avg Median 1990 297 27.00 29 1994 549 49.91 46 1998 548 49.82 49 2002 539 49.00 41 2006 730 66.36 71 2010 562 51.09 52 2006 stands out, while it's interesting to see how similar 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2010 are. I wouldn't have expected the 2010 lineup to be the second most experienced. Here's the individual lineups with cap totals (as of those matches): 1990 vs Czechoslovakia Mike Windischmann 43 Bruce Murray 39 Paul Caligiuri 34 John Harkes 30 Steve Trittschuh 30 John Stollmeyer 29 Tab Ramos 24 Peter Vermes 21 Tony Meola 18 Desmond Armstrong 15 Eric Wynalda 14 1994 vs Switzerland Marcelo Balboa 88 Tony Meola 84 Paul Caligiuri 80 Eric Wynalda 53 Tab Ramos 47 John Harkes 46 Alexi Lalas 45 Thomas Dooley 40 Mike Sorber 37 Earnie Stewart 17 Cle Kooiman 12 1998 vs Germany Cobi Jones 108 Eric Wynalda 100 Thomas Dooley 78 Mike Burns 74 Claudio Reyna 60 Earnie Stewart 49 Kasey Keller 33 Eddie Pope 24 Chad Deering 11 Brian Maisonneuve 8 David Regis 3 2002 vs Portugal Jeff Agoos 131 Earnie Stewart 81 Brad Friedel 77 Brian McBride 61 Eddie Pope 51 Frankie Hejduk 41 Tony Sanneh 33 Landon Donovan 24 John O'Brien 16 DaMarcus Beasley 13 Pablo Mastroeni 11 2006 vs Czech Republic Claudio Reyna 110 Kasey Keller 94 Brian McBride 93 Landon Donovan 82 Eddie Pope 81 Eddie Lewis 71 DaMarcus Beasley 59 Pablo Mastroeni 49 Bobby Convey 40 Steve Cherundolo 36 Oguchi Onyewu 15 2010 vs England Landon Donovan 124 Carlos Bocanegra 80 Clint Dempsey 63 Steve Cherundolo 61 Oguchi Onyewu 55 Tim Howard 52 Michael Bradley 44 Ricardo Clark 30 Jozy Altidore 26 Jay DeMerit 20 Robbie Findley 7 The ten most capped players: 1 2002 Jeff Agoos 131 2 2010 Landon Donovan 124 3 2006 Claudio Reyna 110 4 1998 Cobi Jones 108 5 1998 Eric Wynalda 100 6 2006 Kasey Keller 94 7 2006 Brian McBride 93 8 1994 Marcelo Balboa 88 9 1994 Tony Meola 84 10 2006 Landon Donovan 82 The ten least capped players: 1 1998 David Regis 3 2 2010 Robbie Findley 7 3 1998 Brian Maisonneuve 8 4 1998 Chad Deering 11 4 2002 Pablo Mastroeni 11 6 1994 Cle Kooiman 12 7 2002 DaMarcus Beasley 13 8 1990 Eric Wynalda 14 9 1990 Desmond Armstrong 15 9 2006 Oguchi Onyewu 15

World Cup 2010: Group A & B

Why I picked France & South Africa to advance: For all the talk that France is in rough shape (including from former and current internationals), they still have the most talented players in the group (despite being weaker than 2006). I don't believe that qualifying form has much to do with World Cup performance, at least when it comes to the title contenders. It seems like every four years, people don't expect a lot from the top teams that struggle in qualifying. In 2002, it was Brazil and Germany, in 2006 it was France, and this year it's Argentina and France once again. Normally, people expect teams like that to still do reasonably well, just not win the entire thing. So it's a bit unusual for so many people to think that France won't even make it past the group. They're still favorites to me. For a big team of their caliber, we should expect them to reach the quarterfinals. For second place: Everyone knows that every World Cup host has advanced. That includes the weakest in recent memory, USA 1994 and South Korea 2002. Even though I'd like to see that streak broken just so I don't have to hear about it every four years (along with complaints over the new ball), I don't expect it to happen in 2010. South Africa have been in great form in recent friendlies, while they were highly competitive with the world's top two teams in the Confederations Cup on home soil last year. In addition to the host advancement streak, no host has ever lost their opener. That's bad luck for Mexico to open with them, and just a bad draw in general. Because if they can't beat South Africa, then they'll have problems with France as well. Uruguay seem like a weaker team than Mexico, though I certainly remember how everyone wrote off Ecuador four years ago. Why I picked Argentina & Nigeria to advance: Argentina in first place is an obvious choice, despite their erratic coach, the USA-hating Diego Maradona. I'd like to see the man fail, but the talent is too great for there to be an early exit. It's a wide open three way race for second. Like most people, I expect African teams to do well with the tournament held on the continent. Now, that doesn't mean that getting to the semifinals, or having all six teams do well. In 2002, China and Saudi Arabia didn't exactly light it up in Asia. I mean actually having two African teams advance to the round of 16, which has never happened before. They've had one team advance in each of the past six World Cups, so if there's any time to do better, this is it. So if I'm going to pick another African team, why Nigeria? Besides the hosts, I feel like they're in the best position of the African teams to advance due to their competition. Even though it took Tunisia messing up on the final day of qualifying in Mozambique to get them here, they have an easier UEFA matchup than Denmark (Cameroon) or Serbia (Ghana) and that may be the difference. They may not have a global superstar the likes of Drogba or Etoo, but they are always solid. I'm pretty high on Denmark and Serbia's chances, as well as the USA and Portugal, and Greece/South Korea aren't as good as any of those four.

2010 World Cup Predictions

Four years ago, I predicted 12/16 teams right to advance to the round of 16. I missed Ecuador/Ghana/Switzerland/Ukraine, picking Poland/USA/South Korea/Tunisia instead. I did get France going to the final, though I predicted Brazil to defeat them to win the title. Eight years ago, I also got one of the final two correct (picked England over Germany). Let's see if I can keep that streak going. I'll be posting more thoughts on the groups over the next week, but for now I'll just post the picks. In the meantime, this is always the best time to read American soccer articles, even if they're not about the World Cup. Seems like the journalists are in World Cup form as well. I recommend checking these out if you haven't already: How A Soccer Star is Made - New York Times (long article on the Ajax youth academy) The Bad Old Days - ESPN Soccernet (Jeff Carlisle writes on the USMNT's dark days from 1950-1990) The Gospel of Soccer - Globe & Mail (interesting info on ESPN's approach to the 2010 cup) We'll See About Sacha - This Is American Soccer (bio of Sacha Kljestan) Single-Striker Formations Will be Predominant in South Africa - SI.com (I highly recommend this and any other articles by Jonathan Wilson, also of the Guardian. Nice to see SI pick him up) World Cup final squads statistics - Football-rankings.info (updated info on ages, clubs, heights, etc from Edgar) Group Stage Group A 1. France 2. South Africa 3. Mexico 4. Uruguay Group B 1. Argentina 2. Nigeria 3. South Korea 4. Greece Group C 1. England 2. United States 3. Slovenia 4. Algeria Group D 1. Germany 2. Serbia 3. Ghana 4. Australia Group E 1. Denmark 2. Netherlands 3. Japan 4. Cameroon Group F 1. Italy 2. Paraguay 3. Slovakia 4. New Zealand Group G 1. Brazil 2. Portugal 3. Cote d'Ivoire 4. North Korea Group H 1. Spain 2. Chile 3. Honduras 4. Switzerland Knockout Stage Eighthfinals France over Nigeria England over Serbia Denmark over Paraguay Brazil over Chile Argentina over South Africa Germany over United States Netherlands over Italy Spain over Portugal Quarterfinals England over France Brazil over Denmark Argentina over Germany Spain over Netherlands Semifinals Brazil over England Argentina over Spain Third Place Spain over England Final Brazil over Argentina

2010 World Cup: Who Do the Rating Systems Predict to Advance?

Four years ago, I looked at a number of factors in an attempt to see which would best predict the 16 teams to advance out of the group stage: form, GDP, odds, qualifying record, population, etc. In the end, the best predictors were the ELO rankings and the betting odds, which both got 13/16 right. Both missed Australia/Ecuador/Ghana. Actually, ELO had Iran and Mexico with the exact same ranking, and I'm giving them credit for Mexico. So count it as 12.5 if you like. The much-maligned FIFA rankings only got 10/16, missing the same three as well as Italy/Switzerland/Ukraine (remember the Czechs and USA both being ranked in the top 5?). So it's no wonder that they changed the formula immediately afterward. Since the FIFA rankings began in 1993, here's how both systems have done predicting the advancing teams: ELO FIFA 2006 13 10 2002 10 12 1998 14 11 1994 13 12 Total 50 45 PCT 78.1% 70.3% Who's favored to advance in South Africa? Let's take a look. I'm also including betting odds, SPI, Voros' simulations, and the Castrol Index. 2010 FIFA World Cup: Predicted to Advance ELO FIFA Odds SPI Voros Castrol Group A MEX, FRA FRA, URU FRA, MEX URU, FRA FRA, MEX FRA, URU Group B ARG, SK ARG, GRE ARG, NIG ARG, NIG ARG, GRE ARG, NIG Group C ENG, USA ENG, USA ENG, USA ENG, USA ENG, USA ENG, USA Group D GER, SER GER, SER GER, SER GER, SER GER, SER GER, SER Group E NET, DEN NET, CAM NET, DEN NET, DEN NET, DEN NET, DEN Group F ITA, PAR ITA, PAR ITA, PAR ITA, PAR ITA, PAR ITA, PAR Group G BRA, POR BRA, POR BRA, POR BRA, POR BRA, POR BRA, CIV Group H SPA, CHI SPA, CHI SPA, CHI SPA, CHI SPA, CHI SPA, CHI EDIT: SPI's final pre-World Cup sims showed Denmark advancing instead of Cameroon. Some notes on how I determined this. For FIFA, I just took the highest rated teams to advance. For ELO, I'm using the current rankings as of today (which may change a bit before the tournament). So it's fair to say that FIFA may be at a disadvantage since they only update once per month, and don't take into account the pre-tourney friendlies. For the betting odds, I looked at several top sites and they were all the same. Some sites had Cameroon equal to Denmark for the runner up in group E, but I didn't see any that had them ahead. For Castrol, I looked at their group predictions, which somehow are different than their listed advancement chances for each team (otherwise Australia and Portugal would be listed). All five have the exact same picks for groups C-D-F-H. Apparently Serbia is a bigger favorite than I'd thought. In fact, all five pick 12 of the same teams to advance (including the USA), which means that there are only differences of opinion on 4 spots. Here's the differences: ELO MEX-SK-DEN-POR FIFA URU-GRE-CAM-POR Odds MEX-NIG-DEN-POR SPI URU-NIG-CAM-POR Voros MEX-GRE-DEN-POR Castrol URU-NIG-DEN-CIV No love for South Africa, even at home. Despite virtually everyone being down on their chances, all six have France advancing from group A. Given Mexico's recent success at the World Cup group stage, it's surprising to see Uruguay with strong support. However, Mexico is ranked first in the group by ELO. On the other hand, Nate Silver's SPI ranks Uruguay as the group's top team. Quote: "Uruguay was a constant source of debate during the creation of the SPI." As probably the biggest difference between the systems, SPI may be judged solely by that pick. Also, I'll note that A is the only group with more than one team picked to finish first. Group B is the only one with all four teams picked to advance by someone. If all three non-Argentina teams are evenly matched, will home continent advantage for Nigeria be the difference? South Korea has the WC experience, while Greece boast the greatest achievement (Euro 2004). Denmark vs Cameroon is considered a toss up in terms of advancement by most of the betting sites, and may be the most up in the air spot of all. Nobody is giving Japan any chance, and that seems fair. Their coach said earlier this year that they could reach the semifinals, but reportedly offered to resign after losing to South Korea. With Drogba's injury, Portugal is even more favored to move on. Even Castrol, the only one to pick Cote d'Ivoire, lists Portugal with a slightly better chance of advancing (51.7% vs 51.1%). Once again, I can't explain why it's listed that way.

World Cup Rosters, Igor Kostrov, Jamar Beasley

1) Edgar at football-rankings.info has posted stats for the 2010 World Cup preliminary rosters. He's posted a list of the most represented clubs/countries, as well as top ten lists of the youngest/oldest players (Marcus Hahnemann - 3rd oldest) and more. Great stuff, and I'm glad he did the work so I don't have to! I previously had broken down the 2002 squads. You can see that here. I thought I had done it for 2006 as well, but I can't find it so maybe I didn't. 2) Kansas City waived Igor Kostrov in preparation for the signing of Jamar Beasley. This is a very interesting move for a couple of reasons. First of all, Kostrov was waived without playing a game, which greatly disappoints me because now I won't get to cross Moldova off the list of MLS player nationalities (I'm only those who actually play in a competitive game). They could've at least let him get a couple minutes in the Open Cup qualifier. 3) J.Beasley's (assumed) signing is also interesting, because now he can fill his car with all the latest porn dvds he's very close to the record for longest time between MLS stints. He last played at the end of 2001 with Chicago, so that's a 9 year gap. Unfortunately, he's unlikely to have the all time mark, because there's another player with an equal 9 year gap: Eddie Lewis. It's necessary to go back and look at the actual dates to separate them: Eddie Lewis 8.901 1999-10-06 2008-08-30 Jamar Beasley ??? 2001-10-17 ??? Lewis went 8.901 years between MLS games, and I don't believe anyone has gone longer. If Beasley signs and plays this weekend, he'll only be at 8.597. So unless he doesn't get into a match until the middle of September, he'll have to settle for second best.

World Cup Rating Systems Compared

First, let me be the millionth person to say what an amazing draw for the USA. It's about as good as we could've hoped, and for the first time actually we're a favorite to advance. What exactly are the odds of us advancing after this lucky draw? Well, it depends on who you ask. It seems like everybody has a national team rating system these days, so let's take a look at how each of them rate our chances. Indeed, Voros McCracken, Soccer Power Index (Nate Silver), and the Castrol FIFA World Cup Predictor all have the USA as the second best team in the group. However, the odds for advancement differ (64%, 48%, 73% respectively). In addition, we're also favored to advance if you use the FIFA rankings or the ELO ratings. Here are the odds for every team using each of the three projections: Odds for Advancement Voros SPI Castrol France 69.1% 60.0% 59.0% Uruguay 54.8% 62.0% 61.5% Mexico 56.6% 40.0% 49.5% South Africa 19.5% 38.0% 30.0% Argentina 79.4% 77.0% 79.1% Nigeria 40.6% 58.0% 47.3% Greece 46.0% 36.0% 46.1% South Korea 34.1% 29.0% 27.6% England 89.7% 82.0% 90.2% USA 64.4% 48.0% 73.0% Slovenia 30.2% 35.0% 21.0% Algeria 15.7% 35.0% 15.9% Germany 76.3% 65.0% 74.4% Serbia 51.2% 49.0% 47.9% Australia 45.9% 41.0% 48.2% Ghana 26.6% 45.0% 29.5% Netherlands 79.3% 72.0% 79.8% Denmark 49.9% 40.0% 49.5% Cameroon 33.6% 63.0% 32.3% Japan 37.3% 25.0% 38.5% Italy 83.6% 83.0% 84.3% Paraguay 67.8% 78.0% 73.3% Slovakia 43.9% 32.0% 38.8% New Zealand 4.8% 8.0% 3.6% Brazil 90.8% 84.0% 91.7% Portugal 58.7% 55.0% 52.4% Côte d'Ivoire 45.3% 57.0% 50.5% North Korea 5.2% 4.0% 5.4% Spain 88.0% 84.0% 88.1% Chile 44.2% 57.0% 40.2% Switzerland 38.2% 29.0% 36.9% Honduras 29.7% 30.0% 34.7% The teams each one have advancing that the others don't: Voros Greece, Mexico SPI Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire Castrol Australia I noticed one of the things SPI does is factor in a World Cup continent home field advantage, so that's why it has African teams higher. Here's a chart of who each thinks will advance without percentages, including FIFA and ELO as well (using the higher ranked teams): Advancement Chart Voros SPI Castrol FIFA ELO France yes yes yes yes yes Uruguay yes yes Mexico yes yes yes South Africa Argentina yes yes yes yes yes Nigeria yes yes Greece yes yes yes South Korea England yes yes yes yes yes USA yes yes yes yes yes Slovenia Algeria Germany yes yes yes yes yes Serbia yes yes yes yes Australia yes Ghana Netherlands yes yes yes yes yes Denmark yes yes yes (tie) Cameroon yes yes Japan yes (tie) Italy yes yes yes yes yes Paraguay yes yes yes yes yes Slovakia New Zealand Brazil yes yes yes yes yes Portugal yes yes yes yes Côte d'Ivoire yes North Korea Spain yes yes yes yes yes Chile yes yes yes yes yes Switzerland Honduras Voros and Castrol also have odds for winning the entire tournament. I didn't see that for SPI (yet). Odds for Winning Voros Castrol Algeria 0.0% 0.0% Argentina 6.6% 7.5% Australia 1.0% 1.3% Brazil 23.9% 23.6% Cameroon 0.6% 0.4% Chile 0.7% 0.5% Côte d'Ivoire 1.1% 1.5% Denmark 1.6% 1.5% England 9.9% 10.4% France 5.0% 2.6% Germany 5.7% 5.8% Ghana 0.1% 0.2% Greece 0.7% 0.8% Honduras 0.3% 0.3% Italy 3.9% 3.6% Japan 0.7% 0.7% Mexico 2.0% 1.3% Netherlands 10.7% 10.1% New Zealand 0.0% 0.0% Nigeria 0.6% 1.1% North Korea 0.0% 0.0% Paraguay 1.5% 1.5% Portugal 3.5% 1.8% Serbia 1.3% 1.1% Slovakia 0.1% 0.1% Slovenia 0.1% 0.0% South Africa 0.1% 0.3% South Korea 0.3% 0.2% Spain 14.4% 16.1% Switzerland 0.5% 0.4% Uruguay 1.9% 2.7% USA 1.2% 2.4% Only four teams differ by more than one percentage point. Voros has France and Portugal higher, while Castrol has Spain and the USA higher.

World Cup 2010 Draw Preview

The seeding formula and pots have been released by FIFA. They've decided to use only the October 2009 FIFA ranking and nothing else to determine the seven seeded teams. I'm a bit disappointed, if only because the work of people like Edgar and myself has been for nothing this cycle. The big news is that the change means that the Netherlands will be seeded instead of France. You have to wonder exactly when this decision was made. It's convenient from a PR standpoint that France is left out after the Thierry Henry handball. I'm sure if they had any doubts about changing it, that made the decision clearer. Looking back, it's obvious that FIFA was a lot higher on using FIFA rankings since the formula for them was changed after the 2006 World Cup. They've been used heavily for seeding in World Cup qualifying. However, even if they were going to only use one month's ranking, it wasn't announced that they would the October rankings instead of November until November 20th, when the November ranking came out. That's also two days after World Cup qualifying (and France vs Ireland) ended. If they had used the November ranking instead of the October one, then France would have been seeded with England missing out. The reason given for using October over November was that "...using the November 2009 edition would create an uneven situation, specifically for the European Zone, where the play-offs involving the eight best runners-up led to an imbalance in the number of qualification matches played between the teams." Fair enough, but four years ago (as part of the more complex formula) they used the November rankings which did take into account the playoffs. Just like the seeding of the UEFA playoffs, it looks shady. Why not decide these things before the competition starts? Even if there's no conspiracy, FIFA's behavior gives people reason to believe that there might be. Because unlike the small changes to the formula in 2002 and 2006, this time the makeup of the seeded teams is affected by them. EDIT: Apparently the seeds were chosen by "feeling." What a joke. In other words, they decided which teams they wanted to seed and then picked a format based on that. The other big announcement is that just like four years ago, Africa and South America will be grouped together in one pot, with Asia and North America in the other (plus New Zealand). It would've been much better for the USA's chances to have been grouped with Africa rather than Asia. In that scenario, there was a 33% chance of drawing South Africa and a good chance of an easy Asia/Oceania team from the fourth pot. Now, we're guaranteed to draw an African or South American team, and the chance of drawing the hosts is only 1/8. As an American fan, here's what I would most and least like to see happen in Friday's draw. Oh, and if you decide to watch it live (noon Eastern, ESPN), remember that they have a ton of ceremonial stuff before they actually get down to business. Pot 1 - Seeded Teams Argentina Brazil England Germany Italy Netherlands South Africa Spain We want South Africa, it's as simple as that. They're the weakest team by far, even with the advantage of hosting. Besides, we already beat them in South Africa in a friendly this cycle, and we also got a point against South Korea in 2002. As for the others, I don't think it matters too much. We have gotten results against Spain and Italy in competitive games in the past four years, but I'm not sure I have a preference here other than avoiding Brazil. On paper, the Netherlands are probably the second worst team. So the chance of a good draw from this pot is 12.5%, while the other 87.5% is an average draw. Pot 3 - African/South American Teams Algeria Cameroon Chile Cote d’Ivoire Ghana Nigeria Paraguay Uruguay Algeria has to be the best choice, with Cote d'Ivoire and the South American teams the ones to avoid. Though I didn't look at it before writing that, Voros' national team rankings agree, placing Algeria way below the others. I'm not sure though, the African teams may be stronger due to the home continent advantage. So maybe the CONMEBOL trio are more desirable. Unfortunately, as mentioned above we can't draw an Asian team. Due to that grouping, this pot is pretty even in strength. The team we get here should matter the least when it comes to the odds of advancing. Pot 4 - European Teams Denmark France Greece Portugal Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Switzerland This is what it all comes down to. The USMNT's chances of advancing are greatly determined by what happens here. This matters more than anything else that's happened since the 2006 World Cup ended. A draw of France or Portugal would certainly make things very, very difficult and would be a nightmare. There's a 25% chance of that happening. The main goal is to avoid those two teams (75% chance). However, if at all possible it'd be nice to draw Slovakia or Slovenia (25%) chance. We should be favored over either of them regardless of what happens in friendlies. Of the other four teams, I would prefer Greece or Switzerland over Denmark or Serbia. However, they don't stand out like the others as good or bad draws. Goals & Possible Outcomes Our goals should be in this order: 1. Draw South Africa. 2. Avoid France/Portugal. 3. Draw Slovakia/Slovenia. You could also hope to draw Algeria and not say, Chile or Ivory Coast. But that's not as important. Possible Outcomes: 3.1% - Dream draw - South Africa, ???, Slovakia/Slovenia 6.2% - Very good - South Africa, ???, Denmark/Greece/Serbia/Switzerland 21.9% - Good - Other seeded team, ???, Slovakia/Slovenia 3.1% - Decent - South Africa, ???, France/Portugal 43.8% - Average - Other seeded team, ???, Denmark/Greece/Serbia/Switzerland 21.9% - Nightmare - Other seeded team, ???, France/Portugal An average draw is the most likely by far. As you can see, the odds of a really great draw are slim. I'm not expecting that, I just want to avoid the worst.