World Cup Draw Analysis
Wasn't it glorious? All those balls in their big shiny fish bowls; impeccable live graphics with flags in bright primary colours; a glamorous, sophisticated, multilingual presenter, and his equally impressive co-host Maria Komandnaya. They didn't even drag it out with excessive ceremony and cultural presentations; the only delay was when Gordon Banks couldn't pop his ball open. By 3am, I was staring in bleary-eyed contentment at this:
There's been much talk of how balanced the draw is, in terms of each group being openly competitive in contrast to previous draws, due to the new seeding system. Personally I think that there's the usual mixture of weak and strong groups, and that some of the strong teams have an easy draw and some of the weak teams have it tough, as always. There is balance though, in the horizontal sense; the seeds and their challengers are beautifully arranged.
The middle four groups (and the position of each group really matters, as we'll discuss shortly) are headed by the four strongest teams - strongest based on a combination of rank, World Cup pedigree, current form and my personal opinion. The top two, Brazil and Germany, are alongside each other in E and F, with two contrasting implications: if they both, as expected, win their groups, then they can't meet each other until the final; but if one of them slips to second place in the group, then they will contest a heavyweight clash in the first knockout round.
The same applies to France and Argentina in C and D, and the position of these four middle groups means that our potential, theoretical semi-finals - in the event that all of the top four teams win all of the matches that they are supposed to win - are France v Brazil and Argentina v Germany. These would be historic, utterly compelling occasions, twice pitting Europe against South America in pairings steeped in World Cup history - Argentina and Germany have met in three finals. This outcome will, of course, definitely not actually happen.
Moving outward the balance continues. Groups B and G belong to Portugal and Belgium, next strongest seeds, European pretenders, who in turn are joined by the strongest Europeans in Pot 2 (okay - definitely Spain, arguably England), and will contest top spot in 'local' derbies: the Iberian rivalry goes way back; Belgium's team all star in the English league, adding new frisson to the fixture.
Finally, the outermost groups feature weakest seeds Russia and Poland - good news for the strong Pot 2 Americans, Uruguay and Colombia, who will eye first place. It might not matter too much though, because these outer pairs of groups - A & B, and G & H - have no outstanding team and will produce closely matched last 16 ties - with the possible exception of Spain v Russia...
That's why the additional bold vertical lines above are no formatting error. Rather than attempt to decipher all of the: "A1 v B2" and "winner game 49 v winner game 50" on the FIFA website, you can just look at each pair of groups - each group of eight teams - and ask yourself which two will reach the quarter-finals. I predict that Belgium and England will both get there, and that Portugal v Uruguay will be the closest of the last 16 games. Again though, prediction is a fool's game.
That said, let's look at each group and make a few predictions. I believe that in each group there is a line representing a gulf in quality between those nations above and below it. In other words, there are three types of groups:
1) It's clear which is the best team, and the other three are fighting for 2nd place.
2) The top two teams stand out, and it's just a question of which one finishes 1st.
3) Three teams are competing for the two spots, with one scrapping beneath them.
Also, following the brief data on each team's World Cup history in my preview, I'm now treating you to a year-by-year summary to illustrate the pedigree of each group. For a more present day approach to assessing the draw, with lots of lovely numbers, I recommend this analysis.
Group A
Type
2, but only due to home advantage. Russia are better than their ranking, but still needed this relatively soft draw to have a decent chance of progression. It would be no great surprise if either of the Middle Eastern underdogs were to upset them, with Egypt the stronger of the two. This is a great draw for Uruguay, although less so given the presence Spain in the adjacent group.
History
Uruguay's 2010 semi-final was a rare return to form, although, after their trailblazing twin trophies, they remained competitive for two decades coinciding with a four-tournament Soviet era of near success. The two met in the group stage in 1962, USSR the victors, only for Uruguay to claim revenge in the 1970 quarter-final. Next year's other five Group A matches will all be first time encounters.
Egypt, six-time African champions including a three-peat this century, are far more competent than their World Cup record suggests. Even their 1934 appearance amounted to a solitary defeat, that year's all-knockout format flattering them with yellow ink here. The Saudis won two games in 1994, but these days are delighted to be back in the tournament at all.
Group B
Type
2, without a doubt. Portugal and Spain will be confident of progression, but one of my subscribers disagrees: "Spain's golden spell is over. They have now settled back into their previous pattern of looking good but getting knocked out in the first or second round of tournaments. I can see Spain getting drawn with some under-rated teams and crashing out in the first round."
[Both of the first two groups attempt to defy FIFA's preference for global spread by pairing teams across continental borders. Saudi Arabia is a short pilgrimage from Egypt, while Group B could be hosted in Gibraltar, with only Iran earning air miles. If only Colombia had drawn Panama, the defiance would have been complete.]
History
Portugal - a typical dark horse, with two semi-finals but not much else from just six appearances - have met all three opponents before, with mixed results. They lost to Morocco in group play in 1986, beat Iran at the same stage in 2006 and lost to eventual champions Spain in the last 16 four years later. None of the other three sides have played each other before.
Spain have as many tournament appearances as the rest of the group combined, and with more success than my quoted correspondent gives them credit for. They've reached at least the quarter-finals in alternate tournaments since the '80s, and, on schedule, will do so again.
Group C
Type
1, but of all the groups this one most warrants two lines. In the end, France's quality sets them apart, but Australia are sadly underdogs in the three-way battle for 2nd. Peru are from the weaker end of Pot 2, but compared to the Socceroos, Pot 2 is never weak, while Denmark are a worst case Pot 3 opponent. Much has been made of how Australia have finally avoided a Group Of Death; well, they've avoided Spain, but they would be better off in Group A, D, E or H.
History
France and Denmark met in consecutive group stages in 1998 and 2002, with one win each, and that's all the prior knowledge these nations have of each other. This is unsurprising given the other three's lack of experience: before 1970 there was only Peru's goalless effort at the inaugural tournament, where seven of 13 contestants were South American; before 1998 Denmark and Australia had just one appearance each.
Only Australia, thanks to Fabio Grosso's injury time deceit (or their own failure to score against 10 men for 40 minutes) have never reached the quarter-finals. Next year is unlikely to be different, with Argentina looming even if they negotiate the group. France, on the other hand, will see the quarters as a minimum expectation, but, in contrast to Spain, continuance of their own alternating schedule would entail another shock group exit. In fact these two powerful neighbours are like oil and water; the last time they both reached the last eight was in 1986.
Group D
Type
1, and in the best possible sense. All the pressure is on Argentina, with three other contenders of definitive quality and contrasting styles. Croatia's big name, slick passing midfield must atone for Euro 2016 disappointment. Nigeria's attacking stars are building to a breakthrough performance. Such is Europe's depth of quality that debutants Iceland could win any of their three games.
History
Argentina have an ongoing love affair with Nigeria. This is the fifth time that the two have met in group play. That's a new record, all achieved over the last seven tournaments, with the South Americans winning every time so far. In fact, having missed 2006 and never qualified before 1994, Nigeria have only once experienced a World Cup group without Argentina in it.
That was in 1998, the year Argentina beat Croatia in the group instead, only for the golden Croat generation to reach the semis at the nation's first attempt; they haven't escaped a group since. All of the above gives most of Group D a rather fresh feel, but perennial contenders Argentina will bring compensatory experience until a possible fourth consecutive World Cup defeat to Germany.
Group E
Type
1, and the symmetry continues with another cracker. Like Group D, it's South American giant plus evenly matched chasing pack, including one exotic dark horse and two from Europe (of which one ex-Yugoslav and the other icy and mountainous, but that's a bit contrived). Serbia are the team everyone wanted to avoid from Pot 4, and, after 2014, noone underestimates Costa Rica.
History
There's plenty of previous here. Brazil, Switzerland and Yugoslavia were drawn together in 1950 - this is the only such three-way recurrence we'll see next year. That was one of four previous group pairings of Brazil and Yugoslavia, (1930, 1954, 1974) so this fifth one matches the Argentina-Nigeria record. Brazil have also been grouped with Costa Rica twice, in 1990 and 2002, winning both times.
Brazil, uniquely, have never missed a tournament and their record is well known. Switzerland have three quarter-finals to their name but none for over 60 years. Serbia's Yugoslav heyday (predictably similar to Russia's Soviet one) consisted of three consecutive quarters against (West) Germany, the last of which they finally won. They've struggled since independence, but 2nd in this group would probably earn them a record eighth tournament crack at the Germans.
Group F
Type
3, and that's really saying something. Germany are an outstanding team, but in Mexico and Sweden they face two seriously competent World Cup operators, especially the former. Mexico have negotiated six successive groups, a record matched only by Germany and Brazil. Sweden qualify for the tournament less consistently, but when they do they perform well. That's why Korea, sadly, are the 'outstanding' team in this group and face an eighth group stage exit, equaling Scotland's record.
History
There's even more of it than in Group E: only Sweden and Korea haven't met before; Mexico met Sweden in a 1958 group, and Korea at the same stage in 1998; then there's Germany's trail of destruction... They beat Korea in 1954 and 1994 groups, then ended their spectacular run to the 2002 semis. Mexico were Germany's victims in 1978 group play, 1998's last 16 and a 1986 quarter-final - one of the Central Americans' two last eight appearances, both achieved on home soil.
Germany and Sweden have never met in round one before but have four previous knockout meetings: Germany won in the last 16 of 2006, the quarter-final of 1934 and the data-blurring second group stage of 1974; but Sweden claimed the biggest game between the two, to reach the 1958 final as host nation. You'll recall, though, that the Scandinavians' most storied feud is with Brazil, and 2nd in this group would probably earn them a record equaling seventh attempt.
Group G
Type
2, thank goodness, fingers crossed... I'm going to tempt fate. I can't help being optimistic. The internet is already full of England doommongers. Belgium and England's game on June 28th should merely be a contest for 1st place. Against non European debutants and a nation with no knockout appearance in four attempts, anything less would be a disaster. Of course, disasters happen.
History
There's as much as you could hope for, all things considered. Tunisia lost to England in 1998 but at least drew with Belgium in 2002. This group's two favourites have given us two World Cup classics: a 4-4 group draw in 1954 (bizarrely, after unnecessary extra-time - 1954 was a year of needless format innovations); and the tense last 16 thriller of 1990 - a tournament loved only by England fans - when David Platt broke the deadlock in the 120th minute and I fell in love with international football.
Belgium were one of only four European teams at the first World Cup, but made no impact until half a century later, when they embarked on a run of six successive knockout appearances, highlighted by semi-final defeat to Maradona in 1986. England have a presentable tournament history, but since the home win of 1966 have beaten none of the true elite in knockout play, eliminated instead, in chronological order, by Germany, Germany*, Argentina, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Portugal and Germany one more time, before 2014's first group exit in over 50 years.
(*In the 1982 second group stage, England drew 0-0 with both Germany and Spain. By defeating Spain 2-1, Germany progressed to the semi-finals, thus eliminating England. As an obstacle to clear comparative analysis of tournament results, 1982 really does have a lot to answer for.
Group H
Type
3, but of all the groups this one most warrants no line at all. I've separated Japan as the team least likely to qualify, with the other three nations quite evenly matched. Conversely though, Japan could hardly have hoped for a better draw, and have a chance in all three games. There is no outstanding team in this group, and whichever two teams survive might well fall at the next stage.
History
Colombia beat Japan 4-1 four years ago to top Group C with a 100% record, going on to submit their best World Cup performance - having flattered to deceive in the '90s - before quarter-final defeat to Brazil. That's the only prior tournament meeting between any of these four teams, and there have been seven editions with none of them present, making this the least experienced group.
Poland had a good spell 40 years ago - in addition to 1982's semi, they were actually a game away from the 1974 final via another irritating second group stage. Senegal are defending a remarkable, if brief, 100% quarter-final appearance rate. Japan are perennial outsiders, but will hope that they continue their neat alternating pattern, and thus reach the last 16 for the third time.