2018 World Cup Draw

[meyers7]

World Cup Draw is tomorrow, Friday 12/1/17 on FS1.
9:00 a.m. ET - Preview Show
10:00 a.m. ET - Draw

Pot 1 - Russia, Germany, Brazil, Portugal, Argentina, Belgium, Poland, France
Pot 2 - Spain, Peru, Switzerland, England, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, Croatia
Pot 3 - Denmark, Iceland, Costa Rica, Sweden, Tunisia, Egypt, Senegal, Iran
Pot 4 - Serbia, Nigeria, Australia, Japan, Morocco, Panama, South Korea, Saudi Arabia

 

[LIuconn]

THANKS, BRUCE!

 

[meyers7]

THANKS, BRUCE!

?????

 

[UConnTrumbull]

I always hate the 30+ minutes of musical performances and all the procedural stuff. Just get the balls rolling.

 

[Purple Stein]

Here's the draw:

Group A: Russia, Uruguay, Egypt, Saudi Arabia

Group B: Portugal, Spain, Iran, Morocco

Group C: France, Peru, Denmark, Australia

Group D: Argentina, Croatia, Iceland, Nigeria

Group E: Brazil, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Serbia

Group F: Germany, Mexico, Sweden, South Korea

Group G: Belgium, England, Tunisia, Panama

Group H: Poland, Colombia, Senegal, Japan

 

[UConNick]

Looks like the new system did a good job of preventing a group of death. Still, D and F look awfully tough. C may not have the pretty names (besides France) but rankings-wise that is also a great group. Draw had to be fixed for Russia right? That is pathetic. A is so weak it makes me sick.

 

[Waquoit]

Draw had to be fixed for Russia right? That is pathetic. A is so weak it makes me sick.

Yup, Russia and England are in the not-groups-of death.

 

[Purple Stein]

Looks like the new system did a good job of preventing a group of death. Still, D and F look awfully tough. C may not have the pretty names (besides France) but rankings-wise that is also a great group. Draw had to be fixed for Russia right? That is pathetic. A is so weak it makes me sick.

I think the host nation goes into the "A" pot, so they are treated as a top ranked nation and avoid other top ranked nations in the draw. They are among the lowest ranked teams in the tournament but they do have a conceivable path to the knock-out stage (and a date with Spain or Portugal).

 

[LIuconn]

?????

I blame him for the whiff

 

[Purple Stein]

And, for the degenerates, your current odds:

Odds to win 2018 World Cup
Germany 9/2
Brazil 5/1
France 6/1
Spain 7/1
Argentina 8/1
Belgium 12/1
England 16/1
Portugal 25/1
Colombia 25/1
Uruguay 25/1
Russia 33/1
Croatia 33/1
Poland 40/1
Mexico 80/1
Switzerland 80/1
Sweden 80/1
Denmark 80/1
Serbia 125/1
Senegal 125/1
Nigeria 150/1
Egypt 150/1
Peru 150/1
Japan 200/1
Iceland 200/1
Australia 200/1
Morocco 250/1
Costa Rica 250/1
Iran 250/1
Tunisia 500/1
South Korea 500/1
Saudi Arabia 750/1
Panama 750/1

 

[UCFBfan]

I’ll watch the World Cup still but man, not having the US has really drained all of my interest in it. Will be interesting to see how the ratings do. Can’t wait to see how Fox tries to generate more interest in this.

I didn’t even realize they were having the draw until it popped up on my twitter feed after it had happened.

 

[meyers7]

I’ll watch the World Cup still but man, not having the US has really drained all of my interest in it. Will be interesting to see how the ratings do. Can’t wait to see how Fox tries to generate more interest in this.

I didn’t even realize they were having the draw until it popped up on my twitter feed after it had happened.

Well being a soccer fan, not just a USMNT fan, I've had the draw set in my calendar for about a month. Set the DVR to record it. Luckily was able to stream the draw at work. I'll probably watch about 50% of the matches next summer. I always plan on more, but never quite get around to it.

 

[SAMCRO]

Sadly I didn't even realize the draw was last Friday. I am still pretty disgusted at how the US crapped out. The ratings for this WC in the US will be so dismal... people are anticipating they will be bad, and I think they will be worse than those "in the know" people are anticipating.

 

[shizzle787]

Here's the draw:

Group A: Russia, Uruguay, Egypt, Saudi Arabia

Group B: Portugal, Spain, Iran, Morocco

Group C: France, Peru, Denmark, Australia

Group D: Argentina, Croatia, Iceland, Nigeria

Group E: Brazil, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Serbia

Group F: Germany, Mexico, Sweden, South Korea

Group G: Belgium, England, Tunisia, Panama

Group H: Poland, Colombia, Senegal, Japan

Who do you have?
A: Uruguay, Egypt
B: Spain, Morocco (Portugal has a habit of crapping the bed in the WC)
C: France, Peru
D: Argentina, Iceland
E: Brazil, Switzerland
F: Germany, Mexico (Mexico is one thing: consistent)
G: Belgium, England
H: Colombia, Poland

 

[SAMCRO]

Who do you have?
A: Uruguay, Egypt
B: Spain, Morocco (Portugal has a habit of crapping the bed in the WC)
C: France, Peru
D: Argentina, Iceland
E: Brazil, Switzerland
F: Germany, Mexico (Mexico is one thing: consistent)
G: Belgium, England
H: Colombia, Poland

I think this is going to be an all UEFA / CONMEBOL knockout round. Mexico may sneak thru ahead of Sweden, but that's about it. I think CONCACAF, AFC, and CAF all struggle this cycle.

Uruguay, Russia
Spain, Portugal
France, Denmark
Argentina, Croatia
Brazil, Switzerand
Germany, Sweden
Belgium, England
Colombia, Poland

 

[UConNick]

A: Uruguay, Russia
B: Spain, Portugal
C: France, Denmark
D: Croatia, Iceland
E: Brazil, Costa Rica
F: Germany, Mexico
G: Belgium, Tunisia (there's gonna be a UEFA blue blood upset somewhere. how about England?)
H: Colombia, Poland

Quarterfinals:

Portugal v. France
Mexico v. Belgium
Spain v. Croatia
Germany v. Colombia

Semifinals:

France v. Belgium
Croatia v. Germany

Final:

Germany over France

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

Africa: Interesting to note 3 of 4 northern African nations: Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco + Senegal.

 

[UConnDan97]

Africa: Interesting to note 3 of 4 northern African nations: Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco + Senegal.

I don't think of the African soccer countries as north vs. south. I think of them as west vs. east. And with very few exceptions, all of the top soccer is in the west. Egypt is probably the only exception to that World Cup rule (depending on where you would put South Africa). Over the last 30 years, you could point to the following western African teams as being World Cup quality at various times: Morrocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Senegal, and Ghana. Hell, even Liberia was one point shy of the 2002 World Cup when a very old George Weah was still playing...

 

[LIuconn]

Brazil over France

 

[meyers7]

I don't think of the African soccer countries as north vs. south. I think of them as west vs. east. And with very few exceptions, all of the top soccer is in the west. Egypt is probably the only exception to that World Cup rule (depending on where you would put South Africa). Over the last 30 years, you could point to the following western African teams as being World Cup quality at various times: Morrocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Cameroon, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Senegal, and Ghana. Hell, even Liberia was one point shy of the 2002 World Cup when a very old George Weah was still playing...

This book covers some of the differences between the west and east African countries/peoples. Gets down into the biological/physical make up (fast twitch, slow twitch muscles, etc.) of each. Don't remember if it really discussed how the differences evolved though?? (read it quite a few years ago) Basically it comes out that the western nations were more inclined to be better at speed, strength (sprinting, soccer, etc.) while the eastern nations (Kenya, Ethiopia) were more inclined to be better at endurance (10K, marathon, etc.). That part of the book applies to what you are suggesting.

The book goes on to hypothesis that in the Americas (USA, Jamaica, etc.) the athletes of African decent mostly came from western nations. Most of the slave trade was along the west coast. So most of the black athletes in the USA play/excel in the more explosive sports (football, soccer, basketball, sprinting). Very few in long distance/endurance sports.

It's an interesting, some would say controversial read.

 

[Waquoit]

I'm rooting for England, Senegal and maybe Messi . Not sure who else, yet. Not rooting for Mexico or Germany.

 

[UConnDan97]

This book covers some of the differences between the west and east African countries/peoples. Gets down into the biological/physical make up (fast twitch, slow twitch muscles, etc.) of each. Don't remember if it really discussed how the differences evolved though?? (read it quite a few years ago) Basically it comes out that the western nations were more inclined to be better at speed, strength (sprinting, soccer, etc.) while the eastern nations (Kenya, Ethiopia) were more inclined to be better at endurance (10K, marathon, etc.). That part of the book applies to what you are suggesting.

The book goes on to hypothesis that in the Americas (USA, Jamaica, etc.) the athletes of African decent mostly came from western nations. Most of the slave trade was along the west coast. So most of the black athletes in the USA play/excel in the more explosive sports (football, soccer, basketball, sprinting). Very few in long distance/endurance sports.

It's an interesting, some would say controversial read.

Yikes!

I'd agree with the folks that would say it was controversial, if the book mirrors your description. If the book is as you describe, it's utter horsecrap.

The major difference between those countries is much more likely due to culture and stability rather than physical attributes of the population. In other words, there are very few differences between Libya and Algeria from a physical attribute standpoint (or Libya and Egypt). But stability and culture wise, they are probably VERY different, and that's why Libya isn't very good as a soccer nation. The same goes for Cameroon and Chad. Chad sucks. Cameroon is a perennial African soccer power. They border each other.

I wouldn't give any credence at all to authors who would try to make biology as the difference between soccer nations...

 

[shizzle787]

Yikes!

I'd agree with the folks that would say it was controversial, if the book mirrors your description. If the book is as you describe, it's utter horsecrap.

The major difference between those countries is much more likely due to culture and stability rather than physical attributes of the population. In other words, there are very few differences between Libya and Algeria from a physical attribute standpoint (or Libya and Egypt). But stability and culture wise, they are probably VERY different, and that's why Libya isn't very good as a soccer nation. The same goes for Cameroon and Chad. Chad sucks. Cameroon is a perennial African soccer power. They border each other.

I wouldn't give any credence at all to authors who would try to make biology as the difference between soccer nations...

Actually, biology would have a lot to say with it. It is well known people of black descent have the fastest twitch muscles and people of Asian descent have the slowest so what meyers is saying makes sense.

As to the east/west vs. north/south, I would say it is Saharan vs. west vs. east. The north African countries were good about 25 years and these things come in cycles. It wouldn't surprise me if Morocco and Egypt get out of their groups.

 

[UConnDan97]

Actually, biology would have a lot to say with it. It is well known people of black descent have the fastest twitch muscles and people of Asian descent have the slowest so what meyers is saying makes sense.

As to the east/west vs. north/south, I would say it is Saharan vs. west vs. east. The north African countries were good about 25 years and these things come in cycles. It wouldn't surprise me if Morocco and Egypt get out of their groups.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong six ways to Sunday about the biology aspect and about the split in Africa.

There's more good soccer being played in the west because there is more appreciation for soccer in the west, pure and simple. Countries like Algeria and Ivory Coast have French roots culturally, and they love soccer as part of that. Morocco has French and Spanish roots culturally, so the same thing there. South Africa have Dutch influences, so that's there.

It's about culture. It's about stability of government. It's not about eugenics...

 

[meyers7]

Yikes!

I'd agree with the folks that would say it was controversial, if the book mirrors your description. If the book is as you describe, it's utter horsecrap.

The major difference between those countries is much more likely due to culture and stability rather than physical attributes of the population. In other words, there are very few differences between Libya and Algeria from a physical attribute standpoint (or Libya and Egypt). But stability and culture wise, they are probably VERY different, and that's why Libya isn't very good as a soccer nation. The same goes for Cameroon and Chad. Chad sucks. Cameroon is a perennial African soccer power. They border each other.

I wouldn't give any credence at all to authors who would try to make biology as the difference between soccer nations...

You'd have to read it, it's really quite a good read. It's not so much about soccer as it is about general athletics/sports, particularly in the US. I'm sure culture plays a huge part (e.g. USA), but this book discusses another part, biology. I realize it's "taboo" to talk about it, hence the title of the book. You just have to open up your mind a little, get beyond the taboo of it. Or don't.