This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/28/upshot/how-records-in-group-play-predict-world-cup-success.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
How Records in Group Play Predict World Cup Success How Records in Group Play Predict World Cup Success
(about 1 hour later)
Teams’ performance in the World Cup’s group stage often says a lot about how they’ll fare in the knockout rounds. Since 1986, when a version of the current format began, no team has won the championship without winning at least two of three group matches. And six of the seven champions in that time did not lose any group-stage matches — going either 3-0-0 or finishing with two wins and a draw in the group stage.Teams’ performance in the World Cup’s group stage often says a lot about how they’ll fare in the knockout rounds. Since 1986, when a version of the current format began, no team has won the championship without winning at least two of three group matches. And six of the seven champions in that time did not lose any group-stage matches — going either 3-0-0 or finishing with two wins and a draw in the group stage.
This year, Argentina, Belgium, Colombia and the Netherlands were the only teams to sweep all three of their group games, while Brazil, Costa Rica, Germany, Mexico and France won two matches and drew one.This year, Argentina, Belgium, Colombia and the Netherlands were the only teams to sweep all three of their group games, while Brazil, Costa Rica, Germany, Mexico and France won two matches and drew one.
Goal differential in the group stage may be an even better predictor than record. Goal differential in the group stage may be an even better predictor than record. The chart shows the distribution of team performance in the knockout stages based on goal differential in the group stages.
Of the 10 teams with a goal differential of at least +7, four made the final, and three won the championship. Of the 83 teams with a goal differential of +3 or worse, 50 lost their Round of 16 match; only 13 of those 83 reached the semifinals.Of the 10 teams with a goal differential of at least +7, four made the final, and three won the championship. Of the 83 teams with a goal differential of +3 or worse, 50 lost their Round of 16 match; only 13 of those 83 reached the semifinals.
This year, the best performers in the group stage were Colombia and the Netherlands (both +7), followed by France (+6) and then Brazil and Germany (+5). Of the remaining teams, the worst performers were Greece (-2), followed by Nigeria, the United States and Uruguay (all 0).This year, the best performers in the group stage were Colombia and the Netherlands (both +7), followed by France (+6) and then Brazil and Germany (+5). Of the remaining teams, the worst performers were Greece (-2), followed by Nigeria, the United States and Uruguay (all 0).
If fans of these teams are looking for reason to hope, they can focus on the 1986 West Germany team, which posted a goal differential of -1 in the group stage but still made a run to the final. That same year, both Denmark and the Soviet Union posted a goal differential of +8 in the group stage only to lose in the Round of 16. Surprises happen.If fans of these teams are looking for reason to hope, they can focus on the 1986 West Germany team, which posted a goal differential of -1 in the group stage but still made a run to the final. That same year, both Denmark and the Soviet Union posted a goal differential of +8 in the group stage only to lose in the Round of 16. Surprises happen.
— —
Points in this analysis are based on the current system of three points for a win, rather than the pre-1994 system of two points for a win.