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 👍

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.

@@GuinessOriginal your argument???

@@varadramakrishna he is a bong

Argentinan bums got it easy

@@nenemuy If it was so easy, how did Portugal not win it?

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

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.

@@paochongloi596 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.

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

@@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).

@@dondamon4669 Wait ... What ? Wrong comment, I guess !

@@dondamon4669 Nahh.. go touch some grass, weasel

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

It was a weak path, and average tournament. Kind of a middle year like 2010. I got Path at 18.6416... tho

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

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

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.

@@GuinessOriginal Word!

If you’re referring to the goal he scored in the last minute against QPR, that was 2011/12.

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.

I was thinking that the other day. A repeat of last final would be amazing! Hope Modric takes it!

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.

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.

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