Odds are that USMNT is not respected
I received the following email from ThreeLions:
The U.S. are currently 16th favorites to win the World Cup at 80-1. This puts them in immediately behind the Ivory Coast (at 66-1) and just ahead of Switzerland and Serbia & Montenegro (each at 100-1).
While I have my reservations about the U.S.’s ability to get out of their group, I certainly think they have a better shot at lifting the Cup than the Ivory Coast. The team is largely intact from the quarter-final appearance four years ago and the roster changes that have occurred are for the better. What’s the story with the lack of respect for the USMNT?
England, by the way, are second favorites at 7-1. Unless Wayne Rooney is visited and healed by the Lord, I wouldn’t be wagering at those odds.
Anyone putting money on the World Cup? What’s your best bet?
9 comments
Every foreigner I know here in the U.S. is dismissing us. Probably most people are dismissing us. But I don’t think the coaches of Czech Republic and Italy are that foolish. Hope I’m wrong.
Take a look at the US performances in previous World Cups played on European soil. That might explain a lot. I think the overall perfomance of the US team in past World Cups certainly helped to explain why Mexico got seeded and the US didn’t, even though we won our qualifying group.
I’d rather have everyone dismissing us, and then we play with nothing to lose, rather than be in the position that, say, Germany is in. High expectations, weak team…
Ah, the ol’ nobody-believes-in-us, loosey-goosey theory. As a Minnesota sports fan, I know it well.
Take a look at the US performances in previous World Cups played on European soil.
If previous World Cup performance is that big a part of the equation, England has no business as the #2 favorite.
Good point. And I bet Tishiba wouldn’t like that either since they promised a 66% rebate to anyone who buys a Toshiba laptop between now and the start of the WC if England wins.
My sense is the formulation of these odds is about as hocus-pocus as how the FIFA rankings are determined.
Pulled this off of fifa.com website
“The new FIFA World Ranking will be published three days after the World Cup final, based on a simplified method of calculation. Next month promises to be a very different picture, given that the evaluation period will be cut from eight to four years and that a plethora of points are lying in wait from the jamboree of 64 World Cup matches. The principles of calculation for the modified World Ranking will be announced to the media and general public during the World Cup final week in Berlin.”
Perhaps 4 years of data will paint a little better picture than 8, but I doubt it.
If previous World Cup performance is that big a part of the equation, England has no business as the #2 favorite.
Um, I’m sure this was put there just to get a rise out of me, but England hasn’t performed that badly at past World Cups:
1990: Semi-finals (lost on penalties)
1998: Quarter-finals (lost on penalties)
2002: Quarter-finals (lost to eventual champions Brazil)
Is the U.S.’s history even moderately comparable? I’ll give you the rape-job that kept the U.S. out of the semis in 2002, but what else have you got?
Does England’s history in the cup warrant being second favorites? Probably not. But other than Brazil, there is no clearly dominant team in the tournament. If Rooney were heatlhy, and with their group as easy as it is, Enlgand would have a pretty strong case to reach the finals.
But let’s not forget how the odds are calculated. It’s largely dependent on how many bets are being placed on a given team. Clearly, with the Englishman’s penchant for gambling (and having false hope when it comes to the success of the national team), England’s odds are grossly out of line with reality.
England’s odds are grossly out of line with reality.
That was my only point. No harm intended.
I’m sure glad to hear about the 4 year data method. A team’s performance 8 years ago has NO relevance today!