Correction: Spain are the World cup champion with the least amount of goals scored in a single tournament (8) and not Italy in 1982. Hey guys, as the World Cup is the star of the hour currently, I figured why not do a study to find out more about the competition's history. Hope you guys enjoy it! To support the channel on Patreon: www.patreon.com/balon
I dont think a regular average of tournament participants really make sense for this. It might be relevant to how enjoyable it is for a fan but not as much for difficulty. I think the better approach is to either add weights, e.g. have the top 16 weighted much more heavily than the rest so its comparable across all world cups, and the remainder up to 24 and then again the remainder up to 32 have smaller weights, whether to do a weighted average or a weighted sum Average would make sense if all teams played the same number of matches, but the teams in bigger tournaments had to play more games. Having to play 4 really tough games to make the final isn't /easier/ than having to play 1 extra easy game before 4 really tough games. It might dilute the product for the fans, but additional teams don't make the tournament easier to win Imagine a World Cup with 128 teams and you had to play 3 more knockout rounds before you get to the Round of 16 and then it's the usual path through to the final. That wouldn't be an easier tournament than the current one, even if there's going to be a lot of boring cakewalks before we get to the good stuff. Or even let's imagine if the 1958 World Cup that won this had that same set of really strong teams, but the final round of qualifying had been brought forward to be held right at the same World Cup event in June at Sweden. It wouldn't have made that tournament be easier, it's just a technicality Same in reverse if Russia had had an earthquake damage some stadiums and asked FIFA to reclassify the group stage as the last stage of Qualifiers instead of the first stage of the Finals, so that the final 16 flew in for the same knockout ties in 2018 Whether you go for weighted average or weighted sums is a choice. Weighted average might reflect how the chances are now of a small team fluking into your way when you might've been guaranteed a tough opponent every step with a more concentrated tournament. But a weighted sum would reflect how every additional game you have to play is one more chance of blowing it altogether even if it's a small chance against a much weaker opponent (Germany this year and Argentina or France in 2002 can vouch that if they'd got to bypass having to play a weaker team at the start and gone right to the final 16 they would've had a better chance to win the WC I would say a weighted sum is the most accurate way, with a full weight for the top 16 teams, a small weight for the next 8 (to get up to 24) and a tiny weight for the next 12 (getting up to 32). Maybe something like a weight of 1 for the top 16 teams, a weight of 0.25 for the next 8 teams (the equivalent of adding 2 full teams) to get to 24, and a weight of 0.167 for the next 12 teams (equivalent of adding 2 full teams) to get to 32 That acknowledges that the additional matches that had to be played by more recent winners is harder than just getting a free bye, without overvaluing them One other option is to adjust for the number of games you need to win a WC. Currently it's 3+1+1+1+1 = 7 for group stage R16 QF SF WCF, in 1978 it was 3+3+1 = 7 for two group stages and the WC final, in 1970 it was 3+1+1+1 = 6 for group stage QF SF WCF. So 1978 having tougher teams on average with the same number of rounds as now means it was really hard to win, while a WC with same strength of teams on average but only having to play 5 rounds wouldn't be as hard
2126 - 3734 = -1608. So maybe your formula should be the other way round, in other words, how difficult is the tournament and the path the champions took vs how good they were. I’m not sure you should be using the elo at the end of the tournaments though, as you’re then factoring in the tournament results, so it becomes something of a self fulfilling prophecy and there’s a degree of double counting going on. Overall though I thought it was pretty good 👍
Despite Germany not having a stacked team as in 2014, perhaps 2006 was the best WC in terms of star power. The Joga Bonito Brazil team, Italy with the best of an extremely competitive Serie A, England's Golden Generation, Portugal with Figo, Deco, Pauleta and CR*17*, France's 98 stars aiming for redemption after 02, Argentina with Riquelme at the peak of his powers, Netherlands with a squad full of superstars, Czech Republic with Nedved, Rosicky, Baros, Koller and Cech, Ukraine with peak Shevchenko, the last great Mexican team, Spain with Raúl, Torres and Villa, peak Drogba for Ivory Coast, Zlatan, Larsson and Ljunberg for Sweden... Perhaps the only true superstar that missed that WC was Eto'o and Cameroon. It also helped that football was a globalised game and the top players for the "small teams" played for big clubs in Europe (Drogba, Adebayor, Shevchenko, Park Ji-Sung, to name a few). 1994 had also a stacked field, but it lacks in comparison to 2006 because England, France and Denmark didn't qualify, the Netherlands had just lost Marco van Basten, and top strikers of that era such as Weah, Zamorano and Suker weren't there as well. However, the top teams there had some huge names: Brazil had Romario, Italy had Baggio and the great Milan team of Sacchi and Capello, Argentina had Diego, Batistuta, Redondo and Caniggia, Bulgaria had Stoichkov, Hagi for Romania, Valderrama for Colombia, and a German team that was supposed to be even better than 1990's winning team. 1982 and 1970 had also some excellent teams and superstars back then. For example, to win the WC in Spain, Italy had to overcome arguably the best Brazilian team of all time, defending champions Argentina and Germany who had the best player in Europe in Rummenigge. 2014 had also a whole lot of superstars but I feel that the tournament will be better known in the future for the thrashings of Spain and Brazil rather than the quality of the players and the games (there were a lot of really exciting matches in that WC).
Some really good arguments there mate. You cite some big teams with big players, you contextualise it well too. Just in passing, 1998, 1990, 2006, and 1982 feel the strongest. When I think of those tournaments, I see a series of teams that were all with a big shout for a win, but came up short.
@nenemuy It wasn’t easy bro It was very tough Argentine gifted a penalty every game just to win This how tough it was for Argentine God knows of how much match fixation was in this tour They didn’t even check VR in some decisions
I never doubt that top 5 tournaments with highest average ELO led from 50’s -70’s 1. There’re only 16 teams in tournaments so there’re not so many slots for weak teams like nowadays (this may be main factor) 2. Qualified team after World War 2 got more developed and strictful WC qualification instead qualification WC in first era by invitation 3. The presence of Stars like Pele that was encouraging the popularity of football. That’s suddenly soft power to make many nation teams get more focus on WC tournament. I still feel appreciated watching your content. So much quality and effort in this work 😊
Get out of here. You saying many team slot means much weaker ? You know how many qualifier a team have to play to show their worth to reach there. Just because that team doesn't have the history or i could say the privilege of 1950-70s doesn't make them weak. Especially during when World cup was played during 50-70s with 8-16 team they hardly had to play that much qualifier also more like a almost free ticket to enter that tournament and just give your aĺl for 4-5 Games throughout the Tournament.
@@Gantaipao I respect your opinion but totally disagree with you. Don’t be shy to say about weak team and strong team. you should not distort my statement. I’m focusing only the weak and the strong by their past performances not about their worth. That’s why football betting run their business from the fact of that. That’s why football analysts predict the result of matches from that data don’t try to link between worth and potential. concept of comparison between weaker one and stronger one is legit.
2006 was the clash of eras similar to this current 2022 versions the old guard vs the new. 2006 had past era of R9, Dinho, Zidane, Figo, Beckham, Roberto Carlos, Etc and the new era of Messi, CR7, Ramos, Modric, Iniesta, etc 2022 has the past era of CR7, Messi, Modric, Dani Alves, Thiago Silva, and the new of Mbappe, Vini, Pedri, Gakpo, etc
I should note, about France in 2010. It was not so much a disappointment. Everyone knew the team was not ready, especially after losing to China right before the tournament started. But, how it all transpired, with the strike from the players notably, is what makes it truly noteworthy. It was a stain that was only erased in 2013
Not forgetting a certain Thierry Henry cheated Ireland by handling the ball (twice!). And then when they arrived at the World Cup, France were divided - a strike against their manager and didn't try to play once they were. That made it all the more bitter a pill to swallow. Disgusting behaviour from one of the bigger nations. Shameful
@@greetingsiamross Yes, Henry cheated. He was demoted to the bench and lost his captain's armband. He was depressed from the media onslaught, his role in Barcelona and his role with France. Putting him on the bench was a poor decision as he needed to be a starter to be effective. Just another way Domenech showed his incompetence
precision: the team of China which beat us was considered as a B team of China... Since Euro 2008, everyone in France knew how bad this team was, they never told us about that.
@@reintaler6355 Because our federation was dumb. This is the same federation that a few months before the tournament, announced a shortlist of who could replace Domenech as he would be gone afterwards, undermining his authority
Man, I cannot describe how much of a fan I'm for your work ! This is so brilliantly presented and yet we don't want the video to end ! Can't wait for your next analysis! ⚽⚽⚽
Make it 0 goals, and even a defeat You are team A AB : 0-1 CD : 0-0 AC : 0-0 BD : 2-0 AD : 0-0 BC : 2-0 (B can win harder so long that you lose to them by less than C and D did. Hell you can even lose by the same score as them but edge them by having fewer yellow and red cards if we want to push it to the max) End of group stage : 1- B : 9 points, +5 2- A : 2 points, -1 3- C : 2 points, -2 4- D : 2 points, -2 Then 0-0 while winning at penalty kicks. 6 draws, 1 defeat, 0 goal scored, 1+ goal taken, and some insane luck at penalty kicks.
Pretty sure if the rest of your group fell a certain way to allow you to advance with three 0-0 draws that you could have in a World Cup scoring 0 goals. You’d need to win all the knockout games on penalties. But 3 points can get you out of a group on goal differential if it fell right
Impossible! If you draw the game will go to penalties and you will have to score to win. Sorry if your not mentally well or just a child but the fact you think this is embarrassing, stop watching football
@@dondamon4669 are you a little kid or do you actually not know what you’re talking about? Might wanna take this comment down. You can actually win a WC scoring no goals at all. Three 0-0 draws in the group stage can occasionally get a team through. From there you’d need to win each knock out game on penalty kicks. Penalty kicks (In a penalty shootout) do not count as goals. I think you’re missing that point
Based on my opinion, the 2006 world cup is the strongest I have wittned, with so manny great teams was on there prime, Italy, France, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain, Portogal, England, Holland etc. Great times.
To be fair, neither Germany nor Spain were in their prime. Moreover (and I say it as an Italian), Italy had a very easy path to the final, beating Australia, Ukraine and Germany which was nowhere near the heights of the following decade. On the other hand, France beat Spain, Brazil (i.e. the big favourites) and Portugal. On the other hand, it was a passing of the torch between the giants of the prior decade (Ronaldo and Zidane above all, but also Ronaldinho, Totti and Figo played the last World Cup) and the giants of the following decade (Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi played their first World Cup).
My grandpa and uncles who watch the World Cup "Mexico 1970" they mentioned that that was the highest level world cup ever because it was "only 16 teams" but not just random 16 teams , but teams that all of them could make a deep run. Examples like freaking Peru "on their golden era" having an insane match with Pele's Brasil , Uruguay giving Brasil a run of their money , Italy with their perfect dicipline defensive game reaching the finals , and the winner of that World Cup show to us that you can win while playing beautiful , probably the pinnacle of "JOGO BONITO".
Ok so according to these calculations and if I did my calculations right, these would be the stats from the 2022 World Cup: The average tournament ELO is 18.51 The average path ELO for Argentina is 18.77 The champion ELO for Argentina is 21.43 Using all of these numbers this means that the ODR of the tournament is 15.85 Historically I am unsure of how all of these numbers rank, however it does not seem to make the top 5 of any of the categories listed in the video
I would've made an ajustment for how many knock-out games there were in each world cup. Because the margin of faliure to win is much smaller than years with more group games. A team does not need to win every single group game to advance, just look at Argentina, but a team does need to win every knock-out game to advance.
It was fixed for Argentina to win in 78 with the kick off time allowing them the advantage of knowing what they had to do. It was also fixed in 1966 with England being allowed to play all their games at Wembley - their national stadium (it's never been allowed since).
1986 was the toughest WC followed by 1982 and 1990. Why? Maradona was fouled 55 times in 1986, 50 times in 1990 and 38 times in 1982 in only 19 games in total! That's 7.5 fouls on average for each game! Nobody has ever been close to accumulate that amount of fouls ever, not Pele and not even Messi and CR7 who have 5 WC and even more games now.
That’s a very poor metric. Maradona is the one example you bring to the table, and he’s unbelievably skilful, always drawing fouls. Do you have any other statistics or observations? Or just more Maradona stats?
@@CrashJC123 it shows the level football was at in the 80s and also 90s because it was athletic and brutal. Many players were butchered. Argentina just beat Croatia and they got their 4th penalty in this WC!! I remember only 5 penalties in total from 1982 to 1994 for all teams combined! That's how tough football was back then.
Im from Bensonhurst Brooklyn born and raised 🇮🇹💯% i was 6 in 94 and i still remember crying on the couch with 3 of my cousins and my Nonna when Baggio missed that penalty
Finally you are back with a bang, brother Fahad. I have been waiting for this since your UEFA Cup study. This surely will be an instant classic! (Literally)
Great analysis, the ELO ranking is by far the best, but it's better suited to compare the current form of each team. In my opinion 1982, 1974 or 2006 seemed more competitive just looking at the final stages, than 1978, but thats my subjective opinion. Anyway, thank you for bringing this great content once again, best football channel on YT.
I always believed 1978 was the toughest World Cup not just for the Junta being what they were but the insane pressure the home nation had. What also blew my mind was of why Cruyff chose not to play. According to article from the Guardian, "Johann Cruyff's decision to miss the 1978 World Cup has long been attributed to his reluctance to give a propaganda coup to the military junta that controlled Argentina at the time, but the Dutch master has now revealed that there was another reason for his refusal to travel: a kidnap attempt during which he and his family were threatened with a rifle."
This is some really great work from you as well as the methodology you used. Some caveats however which I'd like to point out: -I reckon recent World Cups will be ranked lower using your method because more teams are now qualified, including many with a low ELO rating that will distort the overall average rating. -I feel ELO does not quite capture the difficulty of what Italy achieved in 1982. Overcoming both Brazil (the team that played the best football that year) and Argentina (defending champions) in the same group is unheard of. And Italy needed to beat BOTH to qualify, even a draw against Brazil would have seen them eliminated, in those days you could not qualify as a group runner-up. Poland and West Germany were very strong sides as well. -Finally ELO fails to account for certain aspects like home advantage, which was hugely beneficial to teams like England in 1966 and West Germany 1974.
Big shout out to you man. You have a natural talent for football journalism and love the content! You should make this a series with all domestic leagues, copa libertadores, euro and afcon etc
Your videos are amazing. Beside the great narrative, subject matter and research behind the topic, this particular video also features some beautiful-looking graphics. Keep up the great work!
Great intro.Honestly for me it was exactly like that.WC was really what gave me the feeling that i really need to know and understand football more,that happened at 14 years of age in 2014.That Van Persie header,a great run for netherlands that year,the 7-1 ofc and the Germany-Argentina final.One of my first expierences of greatness in football.
I wonder if there is a cycle in the quality of national teams. I'm Croatian, and so far both times when our team was at the top, it met with the French team, which also achieved its best results! between those two tournaments there are 20 years, exactly how long it would take for someone to get to know the sport and reach their full strengthis is it a coincidence or is there something more?
This is great but I find that it is ironic, the fact that the toughest world cup path was arguably one of the most controversial as it regards match fixing. I think it makes even more sense now, Jorge Videla must have a hand (and some money) in Argentina's victory. 6-0 over a Peruvian team that were no walkover. That Argentina team was good but Videla made sure they were even better. It was definitely stacked against them to win the tournament with such a path to the final, especially from the group stages. Oh well, a goal is a goal!
And they even drew to Brazil. How were they world champions without beating brazil? I think in groups 2 teams must advance, and if only one team can advance, than thats what a knockout stage is. That is why i like more the modern format over the older ones. Imagine if Brazil drew to italy in 1982, they would be world champions without beating italy. Tho i do agree that with more teams you make the competition weaker.
Congrats for the video, you clearly put careful effort in this content. The Elo system really brings more accuracy to WC analysis, but I think the system's numbers should be analyzed along with other variables that have big potential impacts on shorter time scales. For example, scaling tactical improvement across most national teams will tend to increase WC overall difficulty, as even teams with historically lower Elo ratings will be harder to beat due to their improved tactics and strategies (and depending on the case even relatively better team composition and/or coaching staff).
First of all, great analysis, it is always interesting to see these comparisons based on data rather than feelings. With all this said, after watching the video and seeing who come ahead of it, I'm convinced 1982 Italy had the toughest path, in the knockout phase they simply faced all the strongest teams of the tournament but France, and all those teams are somehow iconic: 1) world cup winners Argentina with an extra Maradona 2) the mighty Brazilian team 3) a crazily good Poland, if someone is not aware of it, full of giants of the time like Lato, Boniek and szamarch 4) a wonderful and strong German side, that had won the Euro 2 years before, had defeated France (that was probably the most brilliant team of the tournament) and was on the way to dominate world football for a decade. So full of champions, great players in all the positions. For these reasons there is really something special surrounding that Italian side, plus the Paolo Rossi fairytale, something that the 2006 squad could not match, and that remains the most beloved Italian side ever, all those players, from Zoff to Selvaggi.
Incredible work, as always. However, I wonder whether the average ELO path should be adjusted for the group stage. For example, I assume West Germany's path in 1954 was the hardest due to playing the mighty Hungarian team twice. However, the first encounter occurred in the group stage and West Germany lost 8-3. Therefore it should not count in the ELO path given that West Germany won despite losing that one. For example, a team with ELO 1,800 would have a harder time qualifying in a group with two teams with ELO 2,000 and one with ELO 1400 (avg. ELO = 1,800), than in a group with one team with ELO 2,500 and two with ELO 1,600 (avg. ELO = 1,900) given that two teams qualify per group. Not sure if your calculation includes an adjustment for this.
This is a fun video but I have one pedantic point. I think using Average ELO of opponents has some major flaws because it does not account for the added difficulty from playing more games. The best team does not always win, so playing more games introduces more chances for upsets and lowers the likelihood that the best team will win. In a hypothetical tournament Brazil advances from group stage and has to beat Italy (1900 ELO) in the QF, Germany (2000 ELO) in the SF, and Argentina (2100 ELO) in the final. The average ELO of opponents in the knockout stage is 2000. In another hypothetical scenario Brazil advances from group stage and has to beat Iran (1500 ELO) in the RO16, Italy (1900 ELO) in the QF, Germany (2000 ELO) in the SF, and Argentina (2100 ELO) in the final. The average ELO of opponents in the knockout round is now 1875, but it is obvious that the path is harder because they have to face the exact same teams plus win an additional match against Iran. I think there needs to be an adjustment in the formula, otherwise it will be biased toward teams that played fewer games.
Love your work! I'd like to ask one question though. Would it not be better suited to measure the difficulty using your system by using the ELO ratings from before the tournament started, so you can see the relative strength of that tournament, or that nation's average ELO, since it is dynamic and changes match per match. But I can also see the reasons for using the final ELO. Loved the content though, thoroughly interesting and broken down very comprehensively into bitesize info. You understand well how to get the attention of the viewer/listener
I think in strictly in terms of WC success the 1970 tournament was like the all-star world cup, especially with the added bonus of a 3rd-time winner keeping the trophy. The final KO stage saw all 3 double world champions in the semifinals with the last semifinalist being the winner of the QF which had the only 2 other champions in history. It's fitting that Brazil won by beating it's 2 other competitors for the treble in the SF and F.
I think your model overvalues tournaments with less teams, it's harder to win a world cup when the tournament has 32 teams instead of the same tournament with strongest 16 teams.
In the 32 team tournaments, some paths can be easy until the last 8. Then it's just three hard games (qf, sf, final). In a very high quality 16 team tournament, all 6 games are difficult.
It's odd that Uruguay's path in 1950 came out as one of the hardest. There were only 2 teams in their group, and they played the fewest number of games among any WC winners.
Years ago I looked into it … if memory serves me right England played Italy twice in the mid to late 30s …think England won comfortably at home and maybe drew in Italy …… so my opinion just looking at it on paper is if British nations had never left fifa is either England or one off the other British teams would have most likely taken on off the two titles off Italy …which one off 34 (in Italy ) or 38 (in France) I could not say but I really think it would be unlikely Italy win both … and despite the British strength relative to both the world in the 30s and to themselves ever since ( and how few times British teams have stayed strong during an whole tournament) I don’t see the British teams winning both tournaments either … so think it be one win each but harder question is would the British winners be England or one off the other 3? ( probably Scotland)
Very cool video and super informative. But the logic in the ranking is severely flawed. You’d almost be better off taking the top 13 teams since that was the lowest amount allowed in the beginning, and getting their average Elo. No matter how you slice it with this model I’d say it’s pretty much impossible by these rankings for any 32 team World Cup to make it in the top 5, which I don’t think I agree with. Even though the teams are worse, adding more teams only makes it less likely the better teams will win be because those teams have at least 1/1000 chance of winning
In the question about which one is "harder" I wish there would be a way to account for things like environment. For example Brazil winning in Europe and being the first team to win outside of their own continent is pretty special. Also in 1970 before players had all the resources and access to nutrition and training it had to have been extremely hard specially for the Europeans to play in Mexico city during the summer in the middle of the day. The Italians looked dead vs Brazil in the second half of the final.
Brazil winning in Sweden in 1958 against the host is one instance, there could possibly be another instance where Brazil or Argentina winning in Europe in 2030 (the tournament will be held in Spain, Portugal and Morocco, most of the final matches will likely be in Spain).
Portugal with their Golden Generation of footballers chocking in World cup is the biggest shock Hope they make it this year There are Many nations but Portugal had collective at a time still they chocked
chocking? 2002 we were robbed by korea 98 we didnt qualify and 2006 we lost to a zidane penalty... what is a fking crime is how england stole the 1966 from eusebio by changing the stadium where the game would take place
I really doubt these ELO ratings if Germany 2014 is not here. First European team to win in South America. They went through Ghana, USA, Portugal, Algeria, France, Brazil, Argentina. I genuinely cannot think of a recent World Cup winner that went through so many good teams.
Thanks a lot for very interesting videos needed a lot of research and are very informative. Just maybe you can update this video with including the latest world cup in Qatar. The final match was a really trilling and in total teams quality were high. That would be great if you make a single video for it or just let us know the results in comments.
You keep mentioning the controversy in 1978, but said nothing about 1966 (England fixing matches and ghost goal in final), 1974 (Havelange confessing the tournament was arranged for Germany), 1930 (Uruguay police threatening Argentina players), 1934 (tournament arranged for fascist Italy), etc. I´m not denying that 78 had some controversies, but you should give equal treatment in your narrative and acknowledge what happened in the other WC you mentioned
Correction: Spain are the World cup champion with the least amount of goals scored in a single tournament (8) and not Italy in 1982.
Hey guys, as the World Cup is the star of the hour currently, I figured why not do a study to find out more about the competition's history. Hope you guys enjoy it!
To support the channel on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/balon
Oh you did again, thanks for the informative video, it's clear it took effort and passion to come up with the content. Thank you and keep it up.
I have been waiting for this since the UEFA Cup study video 👍👏
I dont think a regular average of tournament participants really make sense for this. It might be relevant to how enjoyable it is for a fan but not as much for difficulty. I think the better approach is to either add weights, e.g. have the top 16 weighted much more heavily than the rest so its comparable across all world cups, and the remainder up to 24 and then again the remainder up to 32 have smaller weights, whether to do a weighted average or a weighted sum
Average would make sense if all teams played the same number of matches, but the teams in bigger tournaments had to play more games. Having to play 4 really tough games to make the final isn't /easier/ than having to play 1 extra easy game before 4 really tough games. It might dilute the product for the fans, but additional teams don't make the tournament easier to win
Imagine a World Cup with 128 teams and you had to play 3 more knockout rounds before you get to the Round of 16 and then it's the usual path through to the final. That wouldn't be an easier tournament than the current one, even if there's going to be a lot of boring cakewalks before we get to the good stuff.
Or even let's imagine if the 1958 World Cup that won this had that same set of really strong teams, but the final round of qualifying had been brought forward to be held right at the same World Cup event in June at Sweden. It wouldn't have made that tournament be easier, it's just a technicality
Same in reverse if Russia had had an earthquake damage some stadiums and asked FIFA to reclassify the group stage as the last stage of Qualifiers instead of the first stage of the Finals, so that the final 16 flew in for the same knockout ties in 2018
Whether you go for weighted average or weighted sums is a choice. Weighted average might reflect how the chances are now of a small team fluking into your way when you might've been guaranteed a tough opponent every step with a more concentrated tournament. But a weighted sum would reflect how every additional game you have to play is one more chance of blowing it altogether even if it's a small chance against a much weaker opponent (Germany this year and Argentina or France in 2002 can vouch that if they'd got to bypass having to play a weaker team at the start and gone right to the final 16 they would've had a better chance to win the WC
I would say a weighted sum is the most accurate way, with a full weight for the top 16 teams, a small weight for the next 8 (to get up to 24) and a tiny weight for the next 12 (getting up to 32). Maybe something like a weight of 1 for the top 16 teams, a weight of 0.25 for the next 8 teams (the equivalent of adding 2 full teams) to get to 24, and a weight of 0.167 for the next 12 teams (equivalent of adding 2 full teams) to get to 32
That acknowledges that the additional matches that had to be played by more recent winners is harder than just getting a free bye, without overvaluing them
One other option is to adjust for the number of games you need to win a WC. Currently it's 3+1+1+1+1 = 7 for group stage R16 QF SF WCF, in 1978 it was 3+3+1 = 7 for two group stages and the WC final, in 1970 it was 3+1+1+1 = 6 for group stage QF SF WCF. So 1978 having tougher teams on average with the same number of rounds as now means it was really hard to win, while a WC with same strength of teams on average but only having to play 5 rounds wouldn't be as hard
I appreciate the effort put into this video but the formula has way too many flwas thus the conclusion of the video makes no sense.
2126 - 3734 = -1608. So maybe your formula should be the other way round, in other words, how difficult is the tournament and the path the champions took vs how good they were. I’m not sure you should be using the elo at the end of the tournaments though, as you’re then factoring in the tournament results, so it becomes something of a self fulfilling prophecy and there’s a degree of double counting going on. Overall though I thought it was pretty good 👍
Despite Germany not having a stacked team as in 2014, perhaps 2006 was the best WC in terms of star power. The Joga Bonito Brazil team, Italy with the best of an extremely competitive Serie A, England's Golden Generation, Portugal with Figo, Deco, Pauleta and CR*17*, France's 98 stars aiming for redemption after 02, Argentina with Riquelme at the peak of his powers, Netherlands with a squad full of superstars, Czech Republic with Nedved, Rosicky, Baros, Koller and Cech, Ukraine with peak Shevchenko, the last great Mexican team, Spain with Raúl, Torres and Villa, peak Drogba for Ivory Coast, Zlatan, Larsson and Ljunberg for Sweden... Perhaps the only true superstar that missed that WC was Eto'o and Cameroon. It also helped that football was a globalised game and the top players for the "small teams" played for big clubs in Europe (Drogba, Adebayor, Shevchenko, Park Ji-Sung, to name a few).
1994 had also a stacked field, but it lacks in comparison to 2006 because England, France and Denmark didn't qualify, the Netherlands had just lost Marco van Basten, and top strikers of that era such as Weah, Zamorano and Suker weren't there as well. However, the top teams there had some huge names: Brazil had Romario, Italy had Baggio and the great Milan team of Sacchi and Capello, Argentina had Diego, Batistuta, Redondo and Caniggia, Bulgaria had Stoichkov, Hagi for Romania, Valderrama for Colombia, and a German team that was supposed to be even better than 1990's winning team.
1982 and 1970 had also some excellent teams and superstars back then. For example, to win the WC in Spain, Italy had to overcome arguably the best Brazilian team of all time, defending champions Argentina and Germany who had the best player in Europe in Rummenigge.
2014 had also a whole lot of superstars but I feel that the tournament will be better known in the future for the thrashings of Spain and Brazil rather than the quality of the players and the games (there were a lot of really exciting matches in that WC).
Personally I think 66 was the most stacked and the hardest
2006 sounds like the greatest World Cup. Too bad I was only 7 years old and didn’t watch it :(
Some really good arguments there mate. You cite some big teams with big players, you contextualise it well too.
Just in passing, 1998, 1990, 2006, and 1982 feel the strongest. When I think of those tournaments, I see a series of teams that were all with a big shout for a win, but came up short.
@@StoutProper your argument???
@@varadramakrishna he is a bong
For anyone wondering about the 2022 World Cup:
Champions ELO: 2143
Average Path ELO: 1876.57
Average Tournament ELO: 1851.75
ODR: 15.85
Argentinan bums got it easy
@@nenemuy If it was so easy, how did Portugal not win it?
@@genzhippie3211because portugal is shit while argentina isn't
@nenemuy
It wasn’t easy bro
It was very tough
Argentine gifted a penalty every game just to win
This how tough it was for Argentine
God knows of how much match fixation was in this tour
They didn’t even check VR in some decisions
@@gewnurbthey had better players why didn’t they win
I never doubt that top 5 tournaments with highest average ELO led from 50’s -70’s
1. There’re only 16 teams in tournaments so there’re not so many slots for weak teams like nowadays (this may be main factor)
2. Qualified team after World War 2 got more developed and strictful WC qualification instead qualification WC in first era by invitation
3. The presence of Stars like Pele that was encouraging the popularity of football. That’s suddenly soft power to make many nation teams get more focus on WC tournament.
I still feel appreciated watching your content. So much quality and effort in this work 😊
Get out of here.
You saying many team slot means much weaker ?
You know how many qualifier a team have to play to show their worth to reach there.
Just because that team doesn't have the history or i could say the privilege of 1950-70s doesn't make them weak.
Especially during when World cup was played during 50-70s with 8-16 team they hardly had to play that much qualifier also more like a almost free ticket to enter that tournament and just give your aĺl for 4-5 Games throughout the Tournament.
@@Gantaipao I respect your opinion but totally disagree with you. Don’t be shy to say about weak team and strong team. you should not distort my statement. I’m focusing only the weak and the strong by their past performances not about their worth.
That’s why football betting run their business from the fact of that.
That’s why football analysts predict the result of matches from that data
don’t try to link between worth and potential. concept of comparison between weaker one and stronger one is legit.
2006 was the clash of eras similar to this current 2022 versions the old guard vs the new.
2006 had past era of R9, Dinho, Zidane, Figo, Beckham, Roberto Carlos, Etc and the new era of Messi, CR7, Ramos, Modric, Iniesta, etc
2022 has the past era of CR7, Messi, Modric, Dani Alves, Thiago Silva, and the new of Mbappe, Vini, Pedri, Gakpo, etc
I just realized that some big names were missing for 2022 like Salah, Haaland, Rodriguez, Vidal, Sanchez, and the whole Italian players.
06 was far far better
Gakpo???????😂😂😂😂
who invited gakpo
I should note, about France in 2010. It was not so much a disappointment. Everyone knew the team was not ready, especially after losing to China right before the tournament started.
But, how it all transpired, with the strike from the players notably, is what makes it truly noteworthy. It was a stain that was only erased in 2013
Not forgetting a certain Thierry Henry cheated Ireland by handling the ball (twice!). And then when they arrived at the World Cup, France were divided - a strike against their manager and didn't try to play once they were. That made it all the more bitter a pill to swallow. Disgusting behaviour from one of the bigger nations. Shameful
@@greetingsiamross Yes, Henry cheated. He was demoted to the bench and lost his captain's armband. He was depressed from the media onslaught, his role in Barcelona and his role with France.
Putting him on the bench was a poor decision as he needed to be a starter to be effective. Just another way Domenech showed his incompetence
precision: the team of China which beat us was considered as a B team of China...
Since Euro 2008, everyone in France knew how bad this team was, they never told us about that.
Idk why you went back to China for a warmup after they literally broke Djibril Cissé's career 4 years ago
@@reintaler6355 Because our federation was dumb. This is the same federation that a few months before the tournament, announced a shortlist of who could replace Domenech as he would be gone afterwards, undermining his authority
Man, I cannot describe how much of a fan I'm for your work ! This is so brilliantly presented and yet we don't want the video to end ! Can't wait for your next analysis! ⚽⚽⚽
@@dondamon4669 Wait ... What ? Wrong comment, I guess !
@@dondamon4669 Nahh.. go touch some grass, weasel
One again, you've hit it out of the park, balón. Truly underrated!
Fun Fact: It's possible to win the World Cup scoring 1 goal
Make it 0 goals, and even a defeat
You are team A
AB : 0-1
CD : 0-0
AC : 0-0
BD : 2-0
AD : 0-0
BC : 2-0
(B can win harder so long that you lose to them by less than C and D did. Hell you can even lose by the same score as them but edge them by having fewer yellow and red cards if we want to push it to the max)
End of group stage :
1- B : 9 points, +5
2- A : 2 points, -1
3- C : 2 points, -2
4- D : 2 points, -2
Then 0-0 while winning at penalty kicks.
6 draws, 1 defeat, 0 goal scored, 1+ goal taken, and some insane luck at penalty kicks.
Pretty sure if the rest of your group fell a certain way to allow you to advance with three 0-0 draws that you could have in a World Cup scoring 0 goals. You’d need to win all the knockout games on penalties. But 3 points can get you out of a group on goal differential if it fell right
Impossible! If you draw the game will go to penalties and you will have to score to win. Sorry if your not mentally well or just a child but the fact you think this is embarrassing, stop watching football
@@dondamon4669 Penalty shootouts don't count as goals Einstein. The final score is 0-0. Try again
@@dondamon4669 are you a little kid or do you actually not know what you’re talking about? Might wanna take this comment down. You can actually win a WC scoring no goals at all. Three 0-0 draws in the group stage can occasionally get a team through. From there you’d need to win each knock out game on penalty kicks. Penalty kicks (In a penalty shootout) do not count as goals. I think you’re missing that point
Based on my opinion, the 2006 world cup is the strongest I have wittned, with so manny great teams was on there prime, Italy, France, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain, Portogal, England, Holland etc. Great times.
@@juno768 you forgot borgetti for mexico
@@juno768 and ilic for croatia
Absolutely
@@cristianoarrogantaldo1344 Croatia did not have a good team in 2006 and nobody named Ilic played for the team. Wtf are you talking about?
To be fair, neither Germany nor Spain were in their prime. Moreover (and I say it as an Italian), Italy had a very easy path to the final, beating Australia, Ukraine and Germany which was nowhere near the heights of the following decade. On the other hand, France beat Spain, Brazil (i.e. the big favourites) and Portugal.
On the other hand, it was a passing of the torch between the giants of the prior decade (Ronaldo and Zidane above all, but also Ronaldinho, Totti and Figo played the last World Cup) and the giants of the following decade (Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi played their first World Cup).
Great study. You are a great content maker. Very well produced videos. But you are also a great football researcher. Congratulations
My grandpa and uncles who watch the World Cup "Mexico 1970" they mentioned that that was the highest level world cup ever because it was "only 16 teams" but not just random 16 teams , but teams that all of them could make a deep run. Examples like freaking Peru "on their golden era" having an insane match with Pele's Brasil , Uruguay giving Brasil a run of their money , Italy with their perfect dicipline defensive game reaching the finals , and the winner of that World Cup show to us that you can win while playing beautiful , probably the pinnacle of "JOGO BONITO".
Ok so according to these calculations and if I did my calculations right, these would be the stats from the 2022 World Cup:
The average tournament ELO is 18.51
The average path ELO for Argentina is 18.77
The champion ELO for Argentina is 21.43
Using all of these numbers this means that the ODR of the tournament is 15.85
Historically I am unsure of how all of these numbers rank, however it does not seem to make the top 5 of any of the categories listed in the video
It was a weak path, and average tournament. Kind of a middle year like 2010. I got Path at 18.6416... tho
I would've made an ajustment for how many knock-out games there were in each world cup. Because the margin of faliure to win is much smaller than years with more group games.
A team does not need to win every single group game to advance, just look at Argentina, but a team does need to win every knock-out game to advance.
It was fixed for Argentina to win in 78 with the kick off time allowing them the advantage of knowing what they had to do. It was also fixed in 1966 with England being allowed to play all their games at Wembley - their national stadium (it's never been allowed since).
1986 was the toughest WC followed by 1982 and 1990. Why? Maradona was fouled 55 times in 1986, 50 times in 1990 and 38 times in 1982 in only 19 games in total! That's 7.5 fouls on average for each game! Nobody has ever been close to accumulate that amount of fouls ever, not Pele and not even Messi and CR7 who have 5 WC and even more games now.
Fair play
And in those days fouls were real fouls not like today, most fouls then would be a straight red now
That’s a very poor metric. Maradona is the one example you bring to the table, and he’s unbelievably skilful, always drawing fouls.
Do you have any other statistics or observations? Or just more Maradona stats?
@@CrashJC123 it shows the level football was at in the 80s and also 90s because it was athletic and brutal. Many players were butchered. Argentina just beat Croatia and they got their 4th penalty in this WC!! I remember only 5 penalties in total from 1982 to 1994 for all teams combined! That's how tough football was back then.
@@StoutProper Word!
I wish Balon posted more, these videos are incredible, but I understand there is tons of research
One of the best football videos on this site.
Im from Bensonhurst Brooklyn born and raised 🇮🇹💯% i was 6 in 94 and i still remember crying on the couch with 3 of my cousins and my Nonna when Baggio missed that penalty
Finally you are back with a bang, brother Fahad. I have been waiting for this since your UEFA Cup study. This surely will be an instant classic! (Literally)
Great analysis, the ELO ranking is by far the best, but it's better suited to compare the current form of each team. In my opinion 1982, 1974 or 2006 seemed more competitive just looking at the final stages, than 1978, but thats my subjective opinion.
Anyway, thank you for bringing this great content once again, best football channel on YT.
I always believed 1978 was the toughest World Cup not just for the Junta being what they were but the insane pressure the home nation had. What also blew my mind was of why Cruyff chose not to play. According to article from the Guardian, "Johann Cruyff's decision to miss the 1978 World Cup has long been attributed to his reluctance to give a propaganda coup to the military junta that controlled Argentina at the time, but the Dutch master has now revealed that there was another reason for his refusal to travel: a kidnap attempt during which he and his family were threatened with a rifle."
The day before flying to Argentina, France's coach Michel Hidalgo escaped a kidnap attempt too !
Kidnapping attempt on Cruyff was not related to the world cup or Argentina at all, nor the Michel Hidalgo one
@@dami5663France weren’t even favorites at that time so why would the government try to kidnap him
This makes it sound like the kidnap attempt was related to the 1978 World Cup, but it wasn't at all.
2010 was special to me as an african n a barca fan, 2006 was packed with legends, 02 brazil made it memorable
Nice video, didn't know you were from Kuwait
This is some really great work from you as well as the methodology you used. Some caveats however which I'd like to point out:
-I reckon recent World Cups will be ranked lower using your method because more teams are now qualified, including many with a low ELO rating that will distort the overall average rating.
-I feel ELO does not quite capture the difficulty of what Italy achieved in 1982. Overcoming both Brazil (the team that played the best football that year) and Argentina (defending champions) in the same group is unheard of. And Italy needed to beat BOTH to qualify, even a draw against Brazil would have seen them eliminated, in those days you could not qualify as a group runner-up. Poland and West Germany were very strong sides as well.
-Finally ELO fails to account for certain aspects like home advantage, which was hugely beneficial to teams like England in 1966 and West Germany 1974.
And even teams which aren't technically at home, like Morocco in 2022.
Don't forget about fifa's refs. Those bloody bastards have been fixing world cup matches left and right for years
Great work!
Big shout out to you man. You have a natural talent for football journalism and love the content! You should make this a series with all domestic leagues, copa libertadores, euro and afcon etc
Your videos are amazing. Beside the great narrative, subject matter and research behind the topic, this particular video also features some beautiful-looking graphics. Keep up the great work!
Great intro.Honestly for me it was exactly like that.WC was really what gave me the feeling that i really need to know and understand football more,that happened at 14 years of age in 2014.That Van Persie header,a great run for netherlands that year,the 7-1 ofc and the Germany-Argentina final.One of my first expierences of greatness in football.
Another masterpiece your videos are always interesting.
Oh yes! Nothing makes me happier than to see your video pop up. I love your videos
I wonder if there is a cycle in the quality of national teams. I'm Croatian, and so far both times when our team was at the top, it met with the French team, which also achieved its best results! between those two tournaments there are 20 years, exactly how long it would take for someone to get to know the sport and reach their full strengthis is it a coincidence or is there something more?
I was thinking that the other day. A repeat of last final would be amazing! Hope Modric takes it!
So excited to watch this vid, just what I needed today, hope it's the same as the ucl/uel research video, cos that was bomb!
This is great but I find that it is ironic, the fact that the toughest world cup path was arguably one of the most controversial as it regards match fixing. I think it makes even more sense now, Jorge Videla must have a hand (and some money) in Argentina's victory. 6-0 over a Peruvian team that were no walkover. That Argentina team was good but Videla made sure they were even better. It was definitely stacked against them to win the tournament with such a path to the final, especially from the group stages.
Oh well, a goal is a goal!
And they even drew to Brazil. How were they world champions without beating brazil? I think in groups 2 teams must advance, and if only one team can advance, than thats what a knockout stage is. That is why i like more the modern format over the older ones. Imagine if Brazil drew to italy in 1982, they would be world champions without beating italy. Tho i do agree that with more teams you make the competition weaker.
This is my kind of video. Love it! Great job 👍
Congrats for the video, you clearly put careful effort in this content. The Elo system really brings more accuracy to WC analysis, but I think the system's numbers should be analyzed along with other variables that have big potential impacts on shorter time scales. For example, scaling tactical improvement across most national teams will tend to increase WC overall difficulty, as even teams with historically lower Elo ratings will be harder to beat due to their improved tactics and strategies (and depending on the case even relatively better team composition and/or coaching staff).
*Me watching the World cup*
Balon : Challenge accepted 😂
I am totally happy to see Balon posting another great vid taht was clearly worked on
Fahed, you are nothing short of amazing. Thank you for all your hard work
First of all, great analysis, it is always interesting to see these comparisons based on data rather than feelings.
With all this said, after watching the video and seeing who come ahead of it, I'm convinced 1982 Italy had the toughest path, in the knockout phase they simply faced all the strongest teams of the tournament but France, and all those teams are somehow iconic:
1) world cup winners Argentina with an extra Maradona
2) the mighty Brazilian team
3) a crazily good Poland, if someone is not aware of it, full of giants of the time like Lato, Boniek and szamarch
4) a wonderful and strong German side, that had won the Euro 2 years before, had defeated France (that was probably the most brilliant team of the tournament) and was on the way to dominate world football for a decade. So full of champions, great players in all the positions.
For these reasons there is really something special surrounding that Italian side, plus the Paolo Rossi fairytale, something that the 2006 squad could not match, and that remains the most beloved Italian side ever, all those players, from Zoff to Selvaggi.
Which program and applications do you use for your documentarys?
Love your videos. Don't stop Balon
every video of yours is a delight to watch. great content!
Man, what a video. Glued the whole way, shukran and looking forward to more mate.
Amazing and educational video as always. I hope for your next video your will research Premier League 2013/14 season with Agueroooo.
If you’re referring to the goal he scored in the last minute against QPR, that was 2011/12.
The content on this channel is simply the best.
Love your work keep doing what you're doing
All the way from Tanzania..on alert..Great work as usual..
Incredible work, as always. However, I wonder whether the average ELO path should be adjusted for the group stage. For example, I assume West Germany's path in 1954 was the hardest due to playing the mighty Hungarian team twice. However, the first encounter occurred in the group stage and West Germany lost 8-3. Therefore it should not count in the ELO path given that West Germany won despite losing that one.
For example, a team with ELO 1,800 would have a harder time qualifying in a group with two teams with ELO 2,000 and one with ELO 1400 (avg. ELO = 1,800), than in a group with one team with ELO 2,500 and two with ELO 1,600 (avg. ELO = 1,900) given that two teams qualify per group. Not sure if your calculation includes an adjustment for this.
you're a special man who makes special content, Fahad
I am intrigued with the argument. Only wished if I could see where you would rank the other iterations, champions and path to glory in your ranking.
Bro this channel is amazing
Balon has dropped my day is filled with joy
Yessssss it’s a good day every time Balon posts
This is a fun video but I have one pedantic point. I think using Average ELO of opponents has some major flaws because it does not account for the added difficulty from playing more games. The best team does not always win, so playing more games introduces more chances for upsets and lowers the likelihood that the best team will win. In a hypothetical tournament Brazil advances from group stage and has to beat Italy (1900 ELO) in the QF, Germany (2000 ELO) in the SF, and Argentina (2100 ELO) in the final. The average ELO of opponents in the knockout stage is 2000. In another hypothetical scenario Brazil advances from group stage and has to beat Iran (1500 ELO) in the RO16, Italy (1900 ELO) in the QF, Germany (2000 ELO) in the SF, and Argentina (2100 ELO) in the final. The average ELO of opponents in the knockout round is now 1875, but it is obvious that the path is harder because they have to face the exact same teams plus win an additional match against Iran. I think there needs to be an adjustment in the formula, otherwise it will be biased toward teams that played fewer games.
Amazing 🔥 this man always delivers
Love your work! I'd like to ask one question though. Would it not be better suited to measure the difficulty using your system by using the ELO ratings from before the tournament started, so you can see the relative strength of that tournament, or that nation's average ELO, since it is dynamic and changes match per match. But I can also see the reasons for using the final ELO. Loved the content though, thoroughly interesting and broken down very comprehensively into bitesize info. You understand well how to get the attention of the viewer/listener
real quality content keep up the work!!
I think in strictly in terms of WC success the 1970 tournament was like the all-star world cup, especially with the added bonus of a 3rd-time winner keeping the trophy. The final KO stage saw all 3 double world champions in the semifinals with the last semifinalist being the winner of the QF which had the only 2 other champions in history. It's fitting that Brazil won by beating it's 2 other competitors for the treble in the SF and F.
Quality in content and presentation Thank you for this content ❤️🇨🇳🇨🇳
Amazing video as always
I think your model overvalues tournaments with less teams, it's harder to win a world cup when the tournament has 32 teams instead of the same tournament with strongest 16 teams.
In the 32 team tournaments, some paths can be easy until the last 8. Then it's just three hard games (qf, sf, final).
In a very high quality 16 team tournament, all 6 games are difficult.
Nice study!!!
The man is back!
World cup actually used to be like the Euros featuring some South American countries and maybe, if you are lucky, bonus Mexico
It's odd that Uruguay's path in 1950 came out as one of the hardest. There were only 2 teams in their group, and they played the fewest number of games among any WC winners.
Bolivia were very weak, but Spain, Sweden and Brazil were all ranked in the top 7 at the time.
Great work. As an England fan, I always wonder how the British home nations would've done in the 1930s
Only the western world played in the 30s not much competition. Real football began with hungary
Years ago I looked into it … if memory serves me right England played Italy twice in the mid to late 30s …think England won comfortably at home and maybe drew in Italy …… so my opinion just looking at it on paper is if British nations had never left fifa is either England or one off the other British teams would have most likely taken on off the two titles off Italy …which one off 34 (in Italy ) or 38 (in France) I could not say but I really think it would be unlikely Italy win both … and despite the British strength relative to both the world in the 30s and to themselves ever since ( and how few times British teams have stayed strong during an whole tournament) I don’t see the British teams winning both tournaments either … so think it be one win each but harder question is would the British winners be England or one off the other 3? ( probably Scotland)
@@discodavid26 Scotland have never progressed beyond Round 1 of a World Cup or Euros
If it had been held in England..semi finals ..
England's best chance to win one would have been 1938, imo.
Very cool video and super informative. But the logic in the ranking is severely flawed. You’d almost be better off taking the top 13 teams since that was the lowest amount allowed in the beginning, and getting their average Elo. No matter how you slice it with this model I’d say it’s pretty much impossible by these rankings for any 32 team World Cup to make it in the top 5, which I don’t think I agree with. Even though the teams are worse, adding more teams only makes it less likely the better teams will win be because those teams have at least 1/1000 chance of winning
Great video, balon🔥
The toughest World Cup ever was the first one
That because no one knew what they were doing
7:31 The calculation seems off. You are supposed to get -1608 as the outcome here.
Yes, the formula is backwards. It needs to be Avg ELO + Path ELO - Champion ELO
This should be on tv
love ur vids u deserve more subs
In the question about which one is "harder" I wish there would be a way to account for things like environment. For example Brazil winning in Europe and being the first team to win outside of their own continent is pretty special. Also in 1970 before players had all the resources and access to nutrition and training it had to have been extremely hard specially for the Europeans to play in Mexico city during the summer in the middle of the day. The Italians looked dead vs Brazil in the second half of the final.
Brazil winning in Sweden in 1958 against the host is one instance, there could possibly be another instance where Brazil or Argentina winning in Europe in 2030 (the tournament will be held in Spain, Portugal and Morocco, most of the final matches will likely be in Spain).
I need a Messi world cup triumph documentary from Fahad..... MAKE IT HAPPEN!
Portugal with their Golden Generation of footballers chocking in World cup is the biggest shock
Hope they make it this year
There are Many nations but Portugal had collective at a time still they chocked
What about Belgium 😂?
G(olden generation)
@@ernestaddo9578 Not surprising at all 😂
chocking? 2002 we were robbed by korea 98 we didnt qualify and 2006 we lost to a zidane penalty...
what is a fking crime is how england stole the 1966 from eusebio by changing the stadium where the game would take place
Thank you Mr Fahad
I really doubt these ELO ratings if Germany 2014 is not here. First European team to win in South America. They went through Ghana, USA, Portugal, Algeria, France, Brazil, Argentina. I genuinely cannot think of a recent World Cup winner that went through so many good teams.
They were first all-time according to their elo in that competition though in the video
I think if you might as well use the last 16 and check which last 16 has the strongest ELO for a stronger judgment
Amazing documentary
Amazing video!
Really want to see where 2022 ranks now
Can we get a video on balon d'or and about its righteousness
hope everyone is having a great one!
u should make a video about which is the strongest regional cups. asian cup, copa America, euro, Africa cup of nations or something like that.
balon has amazing videos, keep it up guys
Thanks a lot for very interesting videos needed a lot of research and are very informative. Just maybe you can update this video with including the latest world cup in Qatar. The final match was a really trilling and in total teams quality were high. That would be great if you make a single video for it or just let us know the results in comments.
Make a Documentary on King Pele
I think 2022 final beats 1966 final as the most thrilling final, agree?
Yes
I think now 2022 is the best WC ever what do you guys think?
worst wc ever
You keep mentioning the controversy in 1978, but said nothing about 1966 (England fixing matches and ghost goal in final), 1974 (Havelange confessing the tournament was arranged for Germany), 1930 (Uruguay police threatening Argentina players), 1934 (tournament arranged for fascist Italy), etc. I´m not denying that 78 had some controversies, but you should give equal treatment in your narrative and acknowledge what happened in the other WC you mentioned
Arranged for Germany yet they had horrible camp conditions and a horrible federation
29:19 You mean the Ref had to stay focused on his mission of fixing the match. Lol
Not proven yet after 46 years
Good video bro
This guy does not miss!
I just love this guy
The goat is back!!!!
When is barca post 2006 video coming? I would love to see your documentary on it
amazing vid
You have to do the Galacticos era part 2, 2006-2018 ish
They are covered in Real Madrid vs Atletico Madrid video, so check out that one.
Someone give a nobel to this man ❤
This will make my day 😘