World Cup question

[Valuist]

Let me preface this by saying I'm not a soccer expert, but with past performances available and wagering opportunities, I may be playing it.

By looking at the futures prices for the WC, it looks like there's only around 5, maybe 6 teams that can possibly win. Yet when I look at the past perfs, on paper it looks much more wide open than that. I see a highly regarded team like France losing to 100-1 shot Belgium. I see Italy, also very highly regarded, only tying Uraguay. I'm sure there's many more instances like these. Here's my questions:

1. Were those games considered meaningless, much like the way the Lakers may view a February game vs Golden State?

2. Are the underdogs great bets in a sport that's often decided by one goal? I would have to think so, but maybe someone who's knowledgeable about soccer can educate me.

 

[Monarch]

It's important to remember that it has taken each team the best part of 2 years to qualify for this tournament (bar France, SK + Japan). Also, this is the greatest sports event the world has to offer. No team will be giving any less than 110%. However, there are huge quality gaps between the top 6-7 in the world and the rest. It is highly unlikely the winner will come from outside Brazil, Argentina, Italy and France.

Those games u mentioned were totally meaningless. These were friendly matches, no more than a training exercise. If you went through the record books and bet on the best teams in friendlies before the WC you would be backing teams like Poland, USA and SK to win the whole thing.

 

[Valuist]

Thanks for the response. I kind of figured that was the case, but just looking at the stats w/out seeing the games, there was no way I could gauge how important the recent games have been.

 

[Monarch]

Your right to look for value in certain underdogs. Remember the European nations are not going to be used to the climate in the far east nor the sticky grass that is expected. England ie play a fast pressing game which will severly test the fitness levels of our players. It's also worth noting that no European side has won the WC when played outdside of our continent. If u follow this criteria then only Brazil/Argentina have a chance of winning the tournament. The South Americans/African nations may well have an advantage climatically throughout the tournament so value may be sought there.

 

[Valuist]

Very good points. Do you think the climate factor will help, or hinder scoring?

 

[Monarch]

1998 - 64 matches - 170 goals - 2.66 p/game av
1994 - 52 - 138 - 2.65
1990 - 52 - 109 - 2.10
1986 - 52 - 127 - 2.44
1982 - 52 - 142 - 2.73
1978 - 38 - 100 - 2.63
1974 - 38 - 97 - 2.55
1970 - 32 - 88 - 2.75

WC'94 in America was incredibly hot, yet scoring was similair to the less humid France'98. In theory the humidty could slow the pace of games down and result in lower scoring matches or stronger teams may use fresh pacy subtitutes late in the game to counter lethargic defenses. I expect a similair scoring pattern to the previous WC. Players have had 2-3 weeks preparation in the heat now and with their exceptional fitness levels scoring should remain constant.