Home team always has an advantage. Hopefully not a pharmaceutical one... As for Spain, Iran had some big chances. Portugal put three past them. Iniesta can't last 90mins. It's pretty open this year.
what would be interesting is seeing the figures for euro 16 in what would have been a similar climate in France I would imagine? wonder if those figures are to be found anywhere for comparison (although tempered obviously with what @Sage has already outlined i.e not enough data yet in this tourney and not enough details in this study as well for example intensity etc)
OK I found some stats for euro 16 group stages, according to the site i'll link below, Italy as a team covered an average of 112.4 KM in their 3 group games which was the highest in the tournament, Russia were 7th with an average of 110 KM.
The host nation boost didn't seem to be in effect for France who only covered 106 km average (18th)
So Russia have managed to find (as it stands) an extra 8 and then 5KM (so lets say an average increase of 6.5KM) distance covered from 2 years ago. For comparison, England, France and Spain have gone up 3KM, Croatia up 2KM, Portugal are up 4KM and everyone else has largely stayed the same or had less distance covered.
Make of that what you will - but i'd say that the climate is about the same in France, it's big tournament football and there were just as many lesser nations in the Euros as the WC so the standards are similar.
I'd still take Sage's advice that it is not enough data but the signs are that there has been a significant and way above average increase in distance covered for Russia compared to other teams from the Euros.
The top two teams after the round-robin is completed in each group are determined as follows (regulations Article 32.5):[32]
points obtained in all group matches; goal difference in all group matches; number of goals scored in all group matches; If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings are determined as follows:
points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned; goal difference in the group matches between the teams concerned; number of goals scored in the group matches between the teams concerned; fair play points first yellow card: minus 1 point; indirect red card (second yellow card): minus 3 points; direct red card: minus 4 points; yellow card and direct red card: minus 5 points; drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee.
I don't know if I'm missing something, but what's the point in adding these two lines? If they're not separated by the line above, they can't be separated by these!
Spain are my tip for winners, but they do look vulnerable defensively. With some decent luck, England could beat them. They do not like bodies in the box against them.
OK I found some stats for euro 16 group stages, according to the site i'll link below, Italy as a team covered an average of 112.4 KM in their 3 group games which was the highest in the tournament, Russia were 7th with an average of 110 KM.
The host nation boost didn't seem to be in effect for France who only covered 106 km average (18th)
So Russia have managed to find (as it stands) an extra 8 and then 5KM (so lets say an average increase of 6.5KM) distance covered from 2 years ago. For comparison, England, France and Spain have gone up 3KM, Croatia up 2KM, Portugal are up 4KM and everyone else has largely stayed the same or had less distance covered.
Make of that what you will - but i'd say that the climate is about the same in France, it's big tournament football and there were just as many lesser nations in the Euros as the WC so the standards are similar.
I'd still take Sage's advice that it is not enough data but the signs are that there has been a significant and way above average increase in distance covered for Russia compared to other teams from the Euros.
edit to add Spain and Portugal's games tonight the distance covered was 105km each.
It is tactics too - Russia play a pressing game in midfield which requires running. It is very effective against the poorer sides but I don't think it will help them against the better ones.
The top two teams after the round-robin is completed in each group are determined as follows (regulations Article 32.5):[32]
points obtained in all group matches; goal difference in all group matches; number of goals scored in all group matches; If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings are determined as follows:
points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned; goal difference in the group matches between the teams concerned; number of goals scored in the group matches between the teams concerned; fair play points first yellow card: minus 1 point; indirect red card (second yellow card): minus 3 points; direct red card: minus 4 points; yellow card and direct red card: minus 5 points; drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee.
I don't know if I'm missing something, but what's the point in adding these two lines? If they're not separated by the line above, they can't be separated by these!
If there is a 3 way tie in the group. Those two line discount matches against the 4th team
Re the distance covered. The guy has said he will update again at the end of the group stage. So that will be more telling with a bigger sample of games.
Keep in mind Russia have one of the oldest teams at the tournament too. Which makes this distance run stat even more surprising really
The top two teams after the round-robin is completed in each group are determined as follows (regulations Article 32.5):[32]
points obtained in all group matches; goal difference in all group matches; number of goals scored in all group matches; If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings are determined as follows:
points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned; goal difference in the group matches between the teams concerned; number of goals scored in the group matches between the teams concerned; fair play points first yellow card: minus 1 point; indirect red card (second yellow card): minus 3 points; direct red card: minus 4 points; yellow card and direct red card: minus 5 points; drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee.
I don't know if I'm missing something, but what's the point in adding these two lines? If they're not separated by the line above, they can't be separated by these!
If there is a 3 way tie in the group. Those two line discount matches against the 4th team
Ah! Of course. Good spot. I was only thinking about two teams. Cheers.
OK I found some stats for euro 16 group stages, according to the site i'll link below, Italy as a team covered an average of 112.4 KM in their 3 group games which was the highest in the tournament, Russia were 7th with an average of 110 KM.
The host nation boost didn't seem to be in effect for France who only covered 106 km average (18th)
So Russia have managed to find (as it stands) an extra 8 and then 5KM (so lets say an average increase of 6.5KM) distance covered from 2 years ago. For comparison, England, France and Spain have gone up 3KM, Croatia up 2KM, Portugal are up 4KM and everyone else has largely stayed the same or had less distance covered.
Make of that what you will - but i'd say that the climate is about the same in France, it's big tournament football and there were just as many lesser nations in the Euros as the WC so the standards are similar.
I'd still take Sage's advice that it is not enough data but the signs are that there has been a significant and way above average increase in distance covered for Russia compared to other teams from the Euros.
edit to add Spain and Portugal's games tonight the distance covered was 105km each.
It is tactics too - Russia play a pressing game in midfield which requires running. It is very effective against the poorer sides but I don't think it will help them against the better ones.
I don't really follow Russia enough to know, but I wonder is the high pressing a new tactic for them? It doesn't appear to have been one they used based on the stats for the Euros 2 years ago, but I suppose a massive change in tactics and match philosophy could be a valid reason for the sudden huge jump in distance covered stats when compared to the other 10 or so European teams much smaller improvements.
Again as has been said though, once we have more data the picture will become a lot clearer hopefully, although you would expect Russia's performance level to drop next game since they are already through and will be conserving energy against Uruguay.
Wouldn't read too much into the distance run stats, surely it stands to reason that a home nation playing in a world cup might put a bit more effort in than usual when roared on by 60-70k home fans?
Look at how well we performed at Euro 96 after being awful at Euro 92 and then not even qualifying for the 94 world cup.
Wouldn't read too much into the distance run stats, surely it stands to reason that a home nation playing in a world cup might put a bit more effort in than usual when roared on by 60-70k home fans?
Look at how well we performed at Euro 96 after being awful at Euro 92 and then not even qualifying for the 94 world cup.
France had the 18th lowest distance covered stats in their home Euro 16, and that was out of 24 teams so clearly not the case for them. I haven't looked at stats for other host nations yet.
Certainly against a team like Saudi Arabia - they are no mugs on the ball if you give them time but when you press them they panic and play rushed balls and the quality goes out of the window. It was interesting watching them against Uruguay as they weren't pressing them at all and they looked better in that area for it. The problem was ultimately, Uruguay have great defenders and they were always going to struggle getting past them.
I was comparing France 2016 rather than south Africa because 1) is a similar climate to this tourny 2) more recent to account for the tactics discussion since generally nations won't change too drastically in that time and 3) to draw a comparison with this "host nation boost" people have mentioned to explain the massive difference between Russia and the rest.
Apparently a high press is uniquely Russian in this tournament since no other country of the 32 can touch them for distance covered as yet, and they are also having a massive "host nation boost" on top of that despite the fact that nobody has been able to come up with any figures to support that such a correlation between hosting a tournament and distance covered exists (not saying it doesn't but where is the evidence?)
@Manicmania with further statistics coming out, especially the one about how far out the Russians are withing the standard deviation it is interesting for sure. As said and you agree with, the data at the moment is very small and there are many more factors that need to be considered and ones already mentioned such as climate, location of matches played, time of matches played, tactics, opposition, adrenaline, intensity etc.
At the latter stages of the tournament or at the end, when further data is released, it is then we can fully analyse the position of which it will portray itself. There is certainly a cause of concern with the drastic changes in distance covered and when in comparison to other nations who people may class them to be 'fitter'. However, without the variables we need, it doesn't accumulate to much.
You made a very good point in the amount of distance covered that has increased between this World Cup and previous tournaments. As Russia covered an average of 110km over their group matches, to an average of around116.5km, the extra 6.5km is only around an additional 500-650m per player throughout the match when you take into consideration substitutions. That could easily be achieved through a change of tactic, approach, pressing intensity, style of play, or a simple fact that they may be fitter than they were two years ago. Of course, drugs for performance enhancement could be what has done this, but we simply do not know at present with the data we have available to us.
As when I mentioned about the fact they may be hyped up more by being the home nation, therefore being able to run that extra distance, this has been proven by much research of the psychological theory of social facilitation and home advantage, there is a lot of reading around these subjects, but they can further point towards how performance is improved because of these two theories alone.
Here's a slightly different take on the probabilities graphic, showing how the #WorldCup round of 16 is likely to shape up as it stands: https://t.co/rdcIdANeDw
@Manicmania with further statistics coming out, especially the one about how far out the Russians are withing the standard deviation it is interesting for sure. As said and you agree with, the data at the moment is very small and there are many more factors that need to be considered and ones already mentioned such as climate, location of matches played, time of matches played, tactics, opposition, adrenaline, intensity etc.
At the latter stages of the tournament or at the end, when further data is released, it is then we can fully analyse the position of which it will portray itself. There is certainly a cause of concern with the drastic changes in distance covered and when in comparison to other nations who people may class them to be 'fitter'. However, without the variables we need, it doesn't accumulate to much.
You made a very good point in the amount of distance covered that has increased between this World Cup and previous tournaments. As Russia covered an average of 110km over their group matches, to an average of around116.5km, the extra 6.5km is only around an additional 500-650m per player throughout the match when you take into consideration substitutions. That could easily be achieved through a change of tactic, approach, pressing intensity, style of play, or a simple fact that they may be fitter than they were two years ago. Of course, drugs for performance enhancement could be what has done this, but we simply do not know at present with the data we have available to us.
As when I mentioned about the fact they may be hyped up more by being the home nation, therefore being able to run that extra distance, this has been proven by much research of the psychological theory of social facilitation and home advantage, there is a lot of reading around these subjects, but they can further point towards how performance is improved because of these two theories alone.
Fair points and also worth noting I am NOT stating that I believe Russia are doping at this stage, my only point is there is potentially a case to answer and i'm exploring the possibility and trying to use facts and data to do that - and I again point out we don't have nearly enough yet to be sure but i'm still finding it interesting!
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the matches seem to be lasting longer than previous tournaments, Russia's first game had 8 minutes of injury time for example so that could also be a factor.
I was sceptical about your point about the Russian team becoming fitter so I had a quick look at the average age of the squad in 2016 compared to now - I assumed it would have gone up since we are hearing a lot about how Russia are an aging team but people might be surprised to know it has actually gone down slightly (so more fake news bbc!) from 29.3 to 28.8.
I understand that there will be lots of data around home advantage and the correlation to improved performance but the numbers seem overly high in this case for me and having looked at a couple of other host nations I am not seeing it yet (to be fair I have only looked at France and Brazil so far and their footballing style as pointed out may be why I haven't seen this reflected in their stats in terms of distance covered, where both sides score exceptionally low in their respective tournaments)
It is also worth pointing out that Russia's isn't the highest individual total KM covered in a match I have come across, Italy managed 119.7KM in their opening game of Euro 2016.
Spain are my tip for winners, but they do look vulnerable defensively. With some decent luck, England could beat them. They do not like bodies in the box against them.
I actually think Spain would be the worse team for England to play, they are the best side with the ball and we aren't that good without it so only one winner there. Any other side we play we will have a chance but Spain are too solid and unless they start overloading we would struggle to score, best chance on the counter.
Ifs and buts, this is anyones world cup and the most wide open in a while.
Comments
France
Argentina
All to win tomorrow
The host nation boost didn't seem to be in effect for France who only covered 106 km average (18th)
So Russia have managed to find (as it stands) an extra 8 and then 5KM (so lets say an average increase of 6.5KM) distance covered from 2 years ago. For comparison, England, France and Spain have gone up 3KM, Croatia up 2KM, Portugal are up 4KM and everyone else has largely stayed the same or had less distance covered.
Make of that what you will - but i'd say that the climate is about the same in France, it's big tournament football and there were just as many lesser nations in the Euros as the WC so the standards are similar.
I'd still take Sage's advice that it is not enough data but the signs are that there has been a significant and way above average increase in distance covered for Russia compared to other teams from the Euros.
https://en.as.com/en/2016/06/27/football/1467025851_848006.html
edit to add Spain and Portugal's games tonight the distance covered was 105km each.
And Diego Costa is already on three goals for the tournament!
Keep in mind Russia have one of the oldest teams at the tournament too. Which makes this distance run stat even more surprising really
Again as has been said though, once we have more data the picture will become a lot clearer hopefully, although you would expect Russia's performance level to drop next game since they are already through and will be conserving energy against Uruguay.
Look at how well we performed at Euro 96 after being awful at Euro 92 and then not even qualifying for the 94 world cup.
Edit: although heat and altitude would play a massive part.
1) is a similar climate to this tourny
2) more recent to account for the tactics discussion since generally nations won't change too drastically in that time and
3) to draw a comparison with this "host nation boost" people have mentioned to explain the massive difference between Russia and the rest.
Apparently a high press is uniquely Russian in this tournament since no other country of the 32 can touch them for distance covered as yet, and they are also having a massive "host nation boost" on top of that despite the fact that nobody has been able to come up with any figures to support that such a correlation between hosting a tournament and distance covered exists (not saying it doesn't but where is the evidence?)
At the latter stages of the tournament or at the end, when further data is released, it is then we can fully analyse the position of which it will portray itself. There is certainly a cause of concern with the drastic changes in distance covered and when in comparison to other nations who people may class them to be 'fitter'. However, without the variables we need, it doesn't accumulate to much.
You made a very good point in the amount of distance covered that has increased between this World Cup and previous tournaments. As Russia covered an average of 110km over their group matches, to an average of around116.5km, the extra 6.5km is only around an additional 500-650m per player throughout the match when you take into consideration substitutions. That could easily be achieved through a change of tactic, approach, pressing intensity, style of play, or a simple fact that they may be fitter than they were two years ago. Of course, drugs for performance enhancement could be what has done this, but we simply do not know at present with the data we have available to us.
As when I mentioned about the fact they may be hyped up more by being the home nation, therefore being able to run that extra distance, this has been proven by much research of the psychological theory of social facilitation and home advantage, there is a lot of reading around these subjects, but they can further point towards how performance is improved because of these two theories alone.
Here's a slightly different take on the probabilities graphic, showing how the #WorldCup round of 16 is likely to shape up as it stands: https://t.co/rdcIdANeDw
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the matches seem to be lasting longer than previous tournaments, Russia's first game had 8 minutes of injury time for example so that could also be a factor.
I was sceptical about your point about the Russian team becoming fitter so I had a quick look at the average age of the squad in 2016 compared to now - I assumed it would have gone up since we are hearing a lot about how Russia are an aging team but people might be surprised to know it has actually gone down slightly (so more fake news bbc!) from 29.3 to 28.8.
I understand that there will be lots of data around home advantage and the correlation to improved performance but the numbers seem overly high in this case for me and having looked at a couple of other host nations I am not seeing it yet (to be fair I have only looked at France and Brazil so far and their footballing style as pointed out may be why I haven't seen this reflected in their stats in terms of distance covered, where both sides score exceptionally low in their respective tournaments)
It is also worth pointing out that Russia's isn't the highest individual total KM covered in a match I have come across, Italy managed 119.7KM in their opening game of Euro 2016.
Ifs and buts, this is anyones world cup and the most wide open in a while.