Ted Knutson World Cup Quarterfinals Q&A Transcript

Ted Knutson World Cup Quarterfinals Q&A Transcript

By Gary Wise Jul 4, 2014

Tweet

On July 3rd, 2014, Pinnacle Sports senior soccer trader and widely respected soccer analyst Ted Knutson (Knut) took over the official @PinnacleSports twitter account for a special World Cup Quarterfinals discussion. The conversation was divided into two parts: Ted’s predictions for the quarterfinals and beyond, and a Q&A exchange with our followers. Below, find a tidied up transcript of how it all unfolded.

Knutson’s predictions

Pinnacle Sports’ Manager of Social Media (MSM) mediated this portion of the event.

MSM: As promised, to start, I’m going ask Ted for a few predictions. Please keep in mind that these are Ted’s predictions and that your betting decisions are your own. That said, I’m curious to know how he thinks this will all play out. So we start with Brazil-Colombia. Ted, what will our final score be?

Knut: I think it’s 1-1 and I think Columbia win it in penalties.

MSM: HFA not enough?

Knut: Hasn’t been enough so far. They have two draws in four games!

MSM: France-Germany final score?

Knut: I’m really on the fence with this one. I’ll go 2-1 GER, but with no confidence. You’re forcing my hand.

MSM: Netherlands-Costa Rica?

Knut: 3-0 NED. CRC have had a good run, but I think it comes to an end here.

MSM: …and Argentina-Belgium?

Knut: I have 1-0 Belgium.

MSM: Golden Boot? Who do you have winning?

Knut: It’s funny, I have trouble seeing past Neymar, but I have them losing to COL, so I have to say Muller.

MSM: Not James Rodriguez?

Knut: I don’t have COL going to the finals. I’m seeing a NED-GER final, so nope, not James Rodriguez

MSM: OK, lastly, who wins that Netherlands-Germany final?

Knut: Ze Germans.

Q&A session

Q1. From @cbrentv3: If the World Cup was played in the fall, would America care as much?

Knut: That’s a tricky question. I think soccer in America has been changing a lot, since I was a kid anyway. I think there’s enough sustainable interest that everyone would be interested. Would it get crowded out by American sports? There’s only so much attention span to go around.

Q2. From @benjaminpugsley: What did you make of the USA’s performance last night (in R16)?

Knut: As a fan, I was very proud. I thought it was a really enjoyable performance. As an analyst, the defense had a lot to answer for. Howard was the only reason they were in that game.

Q3. From @Dennis7menace: If the World Cup wasn’t in Brazil or any of the remaining countries, which one would you have priced as favorite to win it?

Knut: I still have Germany. Pre-tournament, I said Germany and Spain were the neutral favorites.

@Dennis7menace: Are you convinced by the way that they’ve played so far?

Knut: I’m not convinced by how anybody has played. I think all of the teams are flawed. Germany have a ton of attacking talent, solid defenders (esp if Hummels is fit). The weakest area might be manager, but their manager is still better than some teams’. I think Van Gaal is the best manager left…that’s part of why I have Netherlands going to the final.

Q4. From @shackfu99: How would I convert your 3 way lines for World Cup to a two-way ties push?

Knut: State secret. Most of these are on a buy/sell, so you’ll be able to see the zero (DNB) line.

Q5. From @Nick_Crossland: Will exhaustion set in now for any of the teams following 120-minute matches in the heat? I’m looking at you Costa Rica.

Knut: It’s tough for all the teams. The World Cup is a grinder. Fatigue and injuries (and muscle injuries…hamstrings etc) start to set in. Rotation is a must, but you still want to play your best players. Very, very hard.

Q6. From @Darkagefootball: (Regarding Golden Boot) what about goals in the 3rd/4th play off though…if you think Colombia will beat Brazil on pens?

Knut: I don’t pay attention to friendlies:) I think Muller is still the right choice.

Q7: From email: With Lukaku scoring on Tim Howard, how much do you think club play familiarity plays into these matches?

Knut: None, actually, aside from penalties. Teams play very differently.

Q8. From @BradCole: Thoughts on betting market valuation of Brazil vs Goldman/538?

Knut: I think the 538 model got almost everything right except for their Brazil valuation. Very impressive work. Goldman’s headline number was impossible, so I didn’t pay any attention to it. I can’t say why 538 got Brazil wrong, but it looks like they thought the team was too good or they gave them too much for home field. As we’ve seen so far, that Brazil team isn’t particularly good.

@BradCole: What about the persistent undervaluation of Germany by 538? Seems like markets love UEFA, 538 less so.

Knut: That depended entirely on who they were playing. 538 felt there was a continental advantage and in most cases they were right. Judging by the crowds. There were a lot of matches that looked like Colombia, Argentina or Mexico home games. Fans sway referees.

@BradCole: So why do you think the markets missed that so much? Customer bias? Bias by the books?

Knut: Two words: Small N. Unlike club football, international football has few games. It’s much harder to have a handle on what’s actually going on across so many countries, players, and managers.

Q9. From @gui_m_p : Is the WC market more efficient, considering the abnormal amount of money on it (in general more $ means more efficient)?

Knut: All big events are going to be distorted by public money. The biggest event isn’t going to deviate from that pattern. I have to run, but I want to say this has been an awesome World Cup. None have come close since I started following. Also want to say that you should check out our EPL season points totals, H2Hs and outrights, since I worked hard of them! I like to call them the fan appreciation props. Take care everyone! Enjoy the ending!

Click here for the latest 2014 World Cup Quarterfinal odds.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Germany vs. Argentina & Brazil vs. Netherlands

Germany vs. Argentina & Brazil vs. Netherlands

By Calum Ward Jul 10, 2014

Tweet

Read this World Cup Final & 3rd Place Playoff betting preview for an insight into how you could find an edge in determining which team will lift the World Cup and who will claim the consolation prize of 3rd place .

World Cup Final betting: Germany vs. Argentina (13th July)

 

While it was disaster for Brazil, it was sheer ecstasy for Germany as they reached the World Cup Final in emphatic style.

Miroslav Klose broke Ronaldo’s all-time World Cup scoring record, Thomas Mller took a step closer to the Golden Boot and Toni Kroos showed why the biggest clubs in Europe have been chasing him this summer.

The German’s look tough to beat, and match odds of 2.350 – an implied probability of 42.55% – make them the hot favourites to lift their fourth World Cup trophy on Sunday.

But this tournament has been full of surprises, and nobody can write off Argentina just yet. Lionel Messi, the captain of La Albiceleste, could cement himself as the greatest player of all time if he leads his nation to World Cup glory in Sunday’s final at the Maracan.

Argentina are proving a lot of doubters wrong about their label as a “one man team,” and showed real unity in their Semi-final victory against the Netherlands on Wednesday.

Arguably, Sergio Romero was the hero that night, saving two penalties and proving he isn’t just there to make up the numbers after making just three appearances for Monaco this season. Argentina are available at 3.520 on the 1X2 – a 28.41% chance of an upset.

Germany have scored 9 more goals than Argentina at this World Cup, and the total has been set at OVER/UNDER 2 goals. With a huge range of match props and $1,000,000 betting limits, this is sure to be an unforgettable encounter.

World Cup 3rd place Playoff betting: Brazil vs. Netherlands (12th July)

 

On Tuesday night, history was made as Brazil suffered their largest ever defeat at a World Cup finals. A merciless German side put seven goals past Julio Cesar, three more than he had conceded throughout the rest of their World Cup campaign. Phil Scolari’s Brazilian side will have to put in an incredible performance in their 3rd place playoff to even try and ease the pain of being out-classed on their own turf in their disastrous Semi-final match.

The Netherlands will be equally as disappointed to be playing in the 3rd place playoff rather than Sunday’s Final in Rio. They were deadlocked with Argentina after 120 minutes of play, and misses by Ron Vlaar and Wesley Sneijder in the penalty shootout means they will have to wait at least four more years for their first World Cup trophy.

Brazil are the favourites on the 1X2 at Pinnacle Sports, with odds currently being offered at 2.220 for the hosts to win in normal time. Netherlands are available at 3.280, while the OVER/UNDER total has been set at 3 goals.

For outright bettors, 1.694 is available on Brazil finishing in 3rd place by any means – an implied probability of 59.03%, while the Netherlands are available at 2.330, a 42.92% chance of another upset.

Click here for the latest World Cup Final & 3rd Place Playoff odds.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Predict the 2014 World Cup Final with a Poisson analysis

Predict the 2014 World Cup Final with a Poisson analysis

By Mark Taylor Jul 10, 2014

Tweet

Bettors should read this 2014 World Cup Final betting Poisson analysis to help them predict the winner between Germany and Argentina. It explains HFA for the Americas, how not to overvalue the 7-1 outlier and the Poisson percentages for the World Cup final.

No assessment of Germany’s chances of lifting the World Cup on Sunday can begin without reference to their extraordinary 7-1 victory over the hosts, Brazil in Tuesday’s Semi- final. The pre-game odds to qualify for the final favoured neither side. Therefore, Germany were perceived as the stronger side, with the home and continental advantage that had been enjoyed by teams from the Americas bringing Brazil on par prior to the game.

The impact of HFA on the Americas

Following the Quarter-final matches, South American teams had an overall success rate over 90 minutes – where draws are counted as half wins – of 0.78 in matches against the rest of the world. The average FIFA ranking of the South American sides had been 1095 and that of their opponents was 898. By contrast European teams had recorded a success rate of just 0.57 in very similar matchups. The European teams, on average had been rated slightly lower at 1068, but so had their opponents at 856.

So given comparable tasks, South American teams over the tournament as a whole had performed better as a group and it was reasonable to assume that was at least partly down to a continental advantage and an additional home advantage in the case of Brazil.

Concacaf sides had recorded as success rate of 0.5, inferior to that of European teams, but achieved in much more difficult matchups, perhaps indicating that the continental premium had advantaged Central and North American teams, as well.

Don’t overvalue the Germany performance

These factors, along with the absence of key Brazilian players combined to make choosing a favourite difficult and in defeating an evenly matched opponent on the pitch by six clear goals, Germany delivered a result that might occur or be bettered once in 1400 attempts.

Further evidence of the unlikely nature of Germany’s progression to the final can be found in the shot location data for their matches prior to Tuesday. Goal scoring depends on the ability to generate shots and the ability to convert these chances. Success in this field is prone to luck driven factors, so the more extreme a team’s figures become, the more luck should be considered as a possible non repeatable cause.

Inclusive of blocked efforts and dependent upon source, Germany had scored 10 goals from 75 shots, including penalties, up to their semi-final date with Brazil. Using the shot location and type of attempt for all 75 efforts, based on goal expectations derived from competitive international games, a typical international team would have expected to score just over 8 goals from the 75 goal efforts made by Germany.

An average international side would expect to equal or better the German total of 10 goals around 30% of the time. So Germany, on this evidence had possibly been slightly lucky to score around 2 extra goals, or they had better finishers than was general for internationals, or most probably a combination of the two.

However, once we include the 14 shots from Tuesday night that resulted in seven goals, the figures change dramatically. Germany now has a goal expectation of just over 10 goals from 89 attempts, but an actual total of 17 goals. So their scoring rate over the tournament is 70% higher than expected if an average team had created and attempted the German’s 89 shots. Also, an average team would expect to equal or better 17 goals from such attempts only 1.6% of the time.

These figures describe perfectly the level of performance Germany had achieved during the World Cup, but are likely to over rate their level of future performance if they form a sizeable part of that evaluation.

A similar effect was to be seen in the Netherlands’ scoring rates prior to the semi-final game with Argentina. Their shots, headers and regular time penalties would usually yield on average seven goals, but Spain’s cavalier disregard for their own goal difference in the opening group game helped to contribute to an actual Dutch goal tally of 12.

Results such as these are therefore both rare and partly driven by factors that are unlikely to repeat with any regularity. Brazil’s meltdown, especially in the period following Muller’s opening strike from a corner is virtually unprecedented in top class international football. This presents problems when attempting to calculate credible scoring rates that may reflect future performance that could be used to project future match odds, for example by way of a Poisson process.

Poisson analysis

Larger data sets can dilute the effect of atypical score lines, such as Germany’s 7-1 win or indeed their 4-0 win against a depleted Portugal in the group stages, but such data may require multiple years of results, during which the team make up may change greatly, especially in competitive international football.

In all competitive matches from the start of Euro 2012 Germany scored an average of 2.9 goals per match and conceded 0.9 goals. Argentina over a similar number of competitive matches comprising the current World Cup and their qualifying process, scored an average of 1.95 and allowed 0.8.These raw numbers, when applied to a Poisson give Germany a 48% chance of winning on Sunday in 90 minutes, compared to a 28% chance for Argentina.

However, smoothing the data, to dampen the effect of atypical results does bring the two teams closer together. Smoothed data gives a 40% chance for Germany against 26% for their rivals, with the increased possibility of a draw reflecting the excellent recent defensive record of both teams.

Very similar win percentages are found if we use the goal expectations for each side based on the amount and location of the shots and headers they have created and faced. As we have seen, Germany has created attempts at the World Cup that would yield 10 goals. Argentina has created a similar amount of poorer quality chances, with a goal expectation of just over 6.

Defensively both teams have attempted to keep opponents shooting from distance and Germany’s four goals allowed tallies well with a location based expectation of just over five. Similarly Argentina has conceded shots that would on average expect to yield just over four goals compared to the three they have actually conceded.

Again translating these expected scoring and conceding rates to a Poisson based approach gives Germany a near 40% chance over 90 minutes, much more in keeping with the actual odds available.

Use of smoothed data or goal expectation based on shot volume and location, rather than luck based reality, often offers a better alternative to odds setting and both of these approaches generate probabilities that just fall short of finding value in any of the three 90 minute alternatives in the final.

However, the continental advantage that has been present in previous World Cups contested in the Americas does also seem to be present for South American teams in particular at Brazil 2014. This should give an additional boost to Argentina and while it won’t elevate them to favouritism to lift the trophy, it may well make them a value alternative in the result market at the current prices.

Click here to see the latest World Cup Final odds.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Against All Odds: Paysandu to keep it tight

Coritiba could do with a win to boost morale

It should be a routine win for Coritiba in the Copa do Brasil tonight but Paul Robinson thinks that it will only be a narrow one.

Coritiba v Paysandu
Friday August 1, 01:00 BST
Available on Betfair Live Video  

Coritiba are having a poor campaign to date as they are down in the relegation zone after a dozen games in Serie A. While they have at least made it through to this round of the Copa do Brasil, they haven't faced anyone of note yet and they will again be pleased that they have drawn a poor side.

It's the goal aspect of things we're interested in tonight though as although the market is suggesting we'll be in for some, I'm not overly convinced. Since the season began, five of Coritiba's six at home have gone under 2.5 - including the home leg of their cup tie with minnows, CENE.

Paysandu were relegated from Serie B last term so they are now plying their trade in Brazil's third tier. Things haven't been going smoothly even at that lower level as the Belem based club are ninth of 10 after eight fixtures.

Mazola Junior's men have scored eight and conceded 11 to give their games an average of 2.38 goals each time and while they've netted two themselves in four of their last five on the road, it's doubtful that they will at Couto Pereira.

This is the first leg so neither side will be in a rush to press the action. All things considered, at around the 1.75/7 mark, I have to make over 2.5 goals my lay of the day.

Recommended Bet
Lay Over 2.5 goals in Coritiba v Paysandu @ 1.75/7 

2014 P/L (1pt each bet)

Wagered: 202 pts
Returned: 208.59 pts
P/L: + 6.59 pts (after commission)
(2013 P/L: + 3.80 pts)
(2012 P/L: + 9.60 pts)

Why a MVPs absence is important for baseball bettors

Why a MVPs absence is important for baseball bettors

By Gary Wise Jul 30, 2014

Tweet

We were recently approached on twitter asking which MLB players (non-pitchers), when missing from their respective lineups, have the biggest effect on MLB money lines? Read this MLB betting article to understand how missing MVPs influence the moneyline and why this is important for baseball bettors.

Minor movement

In a recent game between the Oakland A’s – who hold the MLB’s best record – and the Texas Rangers – who have the worst record – Oakland’s starter was Scott Kazmir, their most consistent pitcher, who went in on a run of 5 strong starts. Texas, meanwhile, started Mike Mikolas, a journeyman with 4 career starts in the major leagues and poor numbers to show for it. While Texas were at home, this was about as big a mismatch as you’d find on the MLB calendar this season. Oakland were at 1.493 on Money Line.

The above paragraph illustrates the relative parity in baseball and betting. No team has won two-thirds of its regular season games since 2001, and with a 162-game schedule, there are too many variables in a single game sample size to assume a result.

In addition to the effect of parity on MLB money lines, it’s important to note that the difference between a star player and a replacement in baseball might be a 30% production uptick (A crude example would see a star’s 0.390 on-base percentage replaced by a back-up’s 0.300 on-base percentage) over the course of a single game in which a player will average approximately four plate appearances.

Starting pitchers are easily the most influential players on markets, so while MLB’s best non-pitchers bring star appeal and potential explosiveness, as one of just eight position players (in the American league, effectively nine), their influence on single-game lines is a matter of cents. Of course, a few cents either way with any consistency can have a big impact on a bettor.

The top five MLB players whose absence affects the money line the most

With the above context provided, who are the top market movers and what can we take from their examples? These players all tend to move the Money Line approximately ten cents with their absences:

1)   Mike Trout – Simply, MLB’s best all-around player, be it using old- or new-school stats or the eye-test. The cream rises to the top in betting.

2)   Miguel Cabrera – The two-time reigning American League MVP, Cabrera hasn’t quite been the same player in 2014 as he was in 2012-13. After posting WAR** of at least 6.2 for every season since 2010 (and 7.6 a year ago), Cabrera is projecting to “just” 5.8, which would put him 18th amongst position players. This may not be a fluke; Cabrera is 31-years-old, carries a heavy frame, had injury issues in late 2013 and has posted his highest strikeout rate and lowest walk rate since 2008, recognizable signs of decline.

So why is Cabrera still on this list? It may be due to reliability and a touch of name recognition. Baseball is a large sample game and from those seventeen players ahead of him on the WAR leaderboard, only Trout, Andrew McCutcheon and Josh Donaldson (who all provide more defensive value than Cabrera) finished ahead of Cabrera in WAR a year ago. Bettors are betting on Cabrera’s name, bat and five-year steadiness.

** WAR is a statistic that measures a player’s overall value above the average replacement-level player, and especially useful statistic for our purposes here. For this article, we’re using WAR data from fangraphs.com

3)   Troy Tulowitzki – Currently injured, Tulowitski’s value can be summed up in positional scarcity. Finding a replacement outfielder or first baseman that can hit isn’t the greatest of rarities, but a shortstop (the game’s most important defensive position) that can hit nearly as well as the best in the game is a generational talent. Replacing such a rarity is impossible, a reality that’s reflected in market movement.

4)   Buster Posey – Yadier Molina barely missed our top 5, but it’s interesting to note that our senior MLB trader told me Yadi’s recent injury was more influential than Edwin Encarnacion’s, despite the latter being the MLB home run leader at the time. The reason? Catchers inspire a different valuation than other non-pitchers because of their roles as field generals.

For top catchers like Posey and Molina, responsibilities include preparing their pitchers for a given day’s opponents, relaying managerial dictums to the rest of the field, calling pitches during a game and co-ordination between a pitcher and their defense. While other fielders can be summed up by surface numbers, the value a top catcher brings is more difficult to measure without descending into minutia, leaving bettors an opportunity to capitalize on market laziness. Properly assess a catcher’s value to their team and you may have the kind of edge that can consistently produce results.

5)   Ryan Braun – Of the names on this list, Braun’s is the most surprising. After his MVP season in 2012, Braun came under scrutiny for performance enhancing drug use, after which a rash of injuries demolished his 2013 season. 2014 has seen him post his lowest on-base percentage since 2008 with reduced power numbers. On July 22nd, ESPN’s Buster Olney published a blog that revealed Braun’s average pulled fly ball is travelling 41 feet fewer than in 2013 and that the one-time slugger has been forced to adapt by hitting to the opposite field. In short, his power has been greatly reduced, likely either by a lingering thumb injury, his no longer using performance enhancing drugs, or both. Also the fact his stolen base numbers are down might make the more conspiracy-minded observer think it’s not the thumb.

One of baseball’s most consistent hitters for the last half-decade, Braun’s presence on this list, like Cabrera’s, loans to the importance of perceived predictability and name recognition, but it also means something else.

Braun’s old-school stats—home runs, RBI, batting average—have always made him look stronger than advanced stats do (he only has two elite seasons of > 5 WAR). If that’s the case, the market may not be optimizing baseball’s advance data analysis revolution. That means that, if you were to do so, the bottom line could make the benefits apparent.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Will European nations be at an added disadvantage at the 2014 World Cup?

Will European nations be at a disadvantage at the 2014 World Cup?

By Mark Taylor May 29, 2014

Tweet

Home Field Advantage (HFA) in soccer is widely accepted but very difficult to accurately quantify. It is likely to play a significant role at the World Cup in Brazil, but to what extent, if at all, will European nations be disadvantaged?

Globalisation of the World Cup

Until the globalisation of soccer towards the end of the 20th century, the World Cup had been held exclusively in Europe and the Americas. A tight correlation existed between the winners, and the continent of the host country. Brazil’s win in Sweden in 1958 was the only exception to that trend.

Looking at all tournaments, modern era included, no European side has ever won when the World Cup has been staged in either North or South America.

Italy, Netherlands, and West Germany have each fallen at the final hurdle when the events has been held in the Americas, with the Azzurri’s penalty shoot-out defeat at USA 94 the closest any team has come to breaking that hoodoo.

The winning side has been either Brazil – winning in 1962, 70 & 94 - and Argentina – as hosts in 1978, and again in 1986. Uruguay’s two wins started the trend but came at the dawn of the competition in 1930 and 1950.

Although these statistics hint at the added difficulty faced by European sides in winning “away”, we have to distinguish this effect as separate from the expected dominance of teams which are simply better on neutral footing, rather than a more general continental home field effect.

Measuring the impact of HFA

Conventional home field advantage (HFA) is both the most widely recognised, yet least understood effect in team sports. Although random variation will inevitably produce some clubs sides that produce better results away from home, even over the course of a season, these “away specialists” are not repeatable traits. Over the long term sides perform better at home than away.

Numerous explanations have arisen to account for this ubiquitous effect, ranging from crowd influence, familiarity with your surroundings to increased levels of testosterone when defending your own territory.

I have looked at the performance of English club sides when they move to a new home ground and the amount of HFA only gradually returns to normal league levels over the course of a few seasons. In addition, HFA appears to be steadily declining in many national leagues, implying that the effect, although real is also susceptible to change over time and shouldn’t be treated as an absolute.

If we want to see if any of the many possible contributing factors that produce a HFA can also spill over to also assist teams from the same geographical catchment area, giving them a continental boost, we need to look at all of the group and knockout finals matches rather than relying on simply the identity of the side that lifted the trophy.

With due respect to the rest of the world, Brazil 2014 again appears to be a contest between Europe and South America. The big two from each confederation, Brazil and Argentina and Spain and Germany respectively, dominate the betting and it is odds on that one of these four will be crowned winners. It is only when we reach halfway in the betting that a different confederation, Ivory Coast for CAF appears.

Measuring Home Continent Advantage

When looking at the possibility of a continental effect our remit must be relatively broad. By including USA in a catch all Americas, we are certainly moving away from a like for like comparison to a World Cup played in Brazil. However, if we exclude USA ‘94 we then should also omit two competitions played in Mexico, leaving very little data.

Limited sample sizes can lead to conclusions that may fail to be repeated in future events, so to maintain a decent sample size, but with that caveat, I have included Central and North American sides and venues in the data and disregarded tournaments prior to England’s sole success in 1966, where participation levels and logistical arrangements were very different to today.

Measuring the performance of a side at its most basic level either involves tallying up the wins, draws and losses or the average number of goals both scored and conceded over a period of matches. Both methods have the advantage of simplicity.

A goal-based study delivers its verdict in terms that can be readily used later, for example in a Poisson approach, but may be susceptible to overweighting abnormal large margin results. Recording wins and draws as a percentage of total games played, where a draw is consider half a win, partly eliminates the influence of high margin wins or losses, but is less useful, subsequently. It is recorded as the success rate in the table below.

Inclusive of 1966, six tournaments have subsequently been played in Europe and four in the Americas. The remaining two were shared by South Korea and Japan in 2002 and South Africa in 2010. These are where the data is drawn from.

The Record of Europe vs. the Americas split by Venue: World Cup Finals from 1966-2010

Europe vs. Americas

Goals For per Game

Goals Against per Game

Goal Difference

European success rate

Europe in Americas

1.18

1.31

-0.13

0.43

Europe in Rest of the World

1.17

1.03

0.14

0.54

Europe in Europe

1.52

0.91

0.61

0.65

Sample sizes range from nearly 100 contests between Europe and the Americas in Europe to just over 60 in the Americas and nearly 40 in the two neutral venues of Africa and Asia.

A steady decline in performance by European sides against the Americas can be seen both in the success rate and the average goal difference as we move from games played in Europe, through the Rest of the World to the Americas.

It appears that failure of European teams to win the trophy in the Americas is an unhappy coincidence that disguises a more widespread advantage that exists and plays against visitors from Europe.

We have taken on trust that the relatively large sample size has produced similarly talented batches of opponents from the two confederations. Legitimate objections about the inclusion of North and Central American sides can be partly allayed by similarly tiered results appearing if these sides are omitted.

These trends also persist if the results recorded by the hosts, who will benefit from conventional HFA, are also given less weight. So there are good reasons to suspect the existence of a continental effect, if we stretch the definition to encompass North and South America, which will hamper European teams and assist countries closer to Brazil in 2014.

Europe’s record against the Americas in 2002 and 2010 might be considered as a baseline performance figure on relatively neutral ground. This performance level dips by an average of nearly three tenths of a goal per game when they face teams from the Americas on their own continent.

Allowing Brazil the more familiar home field advantage, but denying an additional continental premium to the hosts and their near neighbours is likely to result in over rating the chances of the European teams in a competition that is guaranteed to see many such games in the group stages alone.

Click here to see the latest World Cup outright odds.

Mark Taylor is a freelance soccer and NFL writer who, along with producing expert content for Pinnacle Sports, also runs his own soccer analytics blog, thePower of Goals.

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.

Argentina fail to convince but topped Group F

Argentina fail to convince but topped Group F

By Charlie Rowing Jul 4, 2014

Tweet

Argentina finished top of their group, despite only winning each game by a one goal margin, including a stoppage time winner against minnows Iran. Read this 2014 World Cup Group F betting review for an insight into how the group turned out and how accurate the pre-tournament odds were.

2014 World Cup Group F betting review

2014 World Cup Group F final table

Nation

W

D

L

GF

GA

GD

Points

Argentina

3

0

0

6

3

3

9

Nigeria

1

1

1

3

3

0

4

Bosnia-Herzegovina

1

0

2

4

4

0

3

Iran

0

1

2

1

4

-3

1

Argentina began the tournament as one of the favourites, however in each of their performances in Group F they never looked totally in control, despite odds of 1.033 to qualify – a huge implied probability of 96.81%

Bosnia-Herzegovina gave them a scare in their opening game when they pulled a goal back in the 85th minute to make it 2-1. Iran held their own against Argentina for 90 minutes until a moment of Messi magic gave them a late 1-0 win. In their final game they managed a 3-2 win against Nigeria, who twice pegged them back from losing positions.

2014 World Cup Group F pre-tournament implied probability table

Position

Nation

Odds

Implied probability

Actual finishing position

1

Argentina

1.033

96.81%

1

2

Bosnia-Herzegovina

1.833

54.56%

3

3

Nigeria

2.280

43.86%

2

4

Iran

7.440

13.44%

4

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.