Interesting article: How to win a World Cup

[canucklefan]

I thought it's worth the read.

http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/worldcupcentral/id/2544?cc=5901

There are 209 nations affiliated to FIFA and yet, in the past 50 years, 20 of the 24 teams that have reached the World Cup final have come from only five nations: Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. Together with Spain, France and England, they are the only nations to have reached a final since Ringo Starr replaced Pete Best in a band called The Beatles.

Is there a common thread? Is there a recipe to success? And, if so, what are the ingredients?

Of the factors that contribute, none is, necessarily, a prerequisite. But the more of the seven ingredients below you have in your shopping cart, the more likely you are to win a World Cup.

Total population

The more bodies you have, the better the odds are that you find 11 guys good enough to win a World Cup. Seven of the eight countries cited above rank in the world's top 30 in terms of population, the one exception being the Netherlands.

A larger population also increases the chances of producing the kind of game-changing superstar that delivers success. In 1986, Diego Maradona carried Argentina on his back through the knockout phase to a 3-2 win over West Germany in the final.

Along the way, he scored two goals in the quarterfinal against England and another two in the semis against Belgium. Plus, he provided the assist for Jorge Burruchaga's winner in the final.

I know what you're thinking. What about China? India? Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh? Together, that's nearly half the earth's population and, between them, they've only qualified for the World Cup once. On to my next point...

The pipeline

The five countries mentioned above have a combined total of roughly 1.5 million registered players. That's less than Italy, whose population is 1/50 of the five put together.

The vast majority of professionals you're likely to see at the World Cup followed the same path. They began playing in streets, parks or backyards as a child and then, at some point, almost always before turning 16, they joined a club.

It may have been the youth system of a major European juggernaut like Real Madrid, it may have been a local recreational team, but it was some form of organized soccer with scouts -- real ones or just parents or coaches who knew somebody at a bigger, better team -- watching them and flagging potential.

Without that step, the pipeline leaks. Football, particularly in the developing world, is full of guys with the talent and athleticism who simply lie outside the system. They don't get spotted, don't improve and never make it.

Infrastructure

Whether it's a gaggle of preteens looking for a free patch of grass (or even asphalt, sand or rubble) on which to kick a ball around or a 16-year-old in the youth team of an established club, the quality of infrastructure varies wildly.

Imagine you're spotted and make it into organized football at a decent level, perhaps affiliated to a professional club. You could find yourself practicing in a freshly laundered uniform on lush fields with brand spanking new equipment, an array of qualified coaches fussing over you and a warm-down massage waiting afterward.

Or you could be on a dusty, threadbare mound of packed earth, with one coach and a hand-me-down jersey which, obviously, you'll have to take home and wash yourself.

Climate

Extremes aren't good. You can't really play football on snow, in a monsoon or in the desert. Or, at least, you can't play it well. Ideally, you want as much of your soccer playing population as possible to live in a region where most of the year the daytime temperatures are between 50 and 70 degrees, with as little wind, humidity or rain as possible.

Most nations don't exist in such biosphere-like conditions, but it's a question of degree and how much time you can devote to working in that environment. And it's not a coincidence that the eight nations who have reached World Cup finals in the last half-century all have a significant chunk of their population living in a mild climate.

Climate also tends to impact how a nation plays and what sort of players it tends to produce. Very broadly speaking, hot and humid conditions lend themselves to a slower pace, while when it's cold and windy the game gets faster and more physical. A temperate climate is obviously somewhere in between, but it's also ideal for building a player's fundamentals.

Know-how

This is something that's tricky to quantify, but you know it when you see it. It's having a history of football culture, a strong pool of coaches, scouts and media who think and talk about the game continually. It's the oft-repeated stereotype of being a "football nation" where the sport pervades every sinew of a country.

In some nations, traditions and concepts amounting to "best practice" have been passed down through the years, mulled over, refined, tweaked, analyzed ... all by a group of clever, committed soccer folks. And that, ultimately, provides an edge and turns some countries into "hotbeds" capable of punching above their weight.

Uruguay is the ultimate example of this. With a population of just over 3.3 million, it ranks 134th in the world by population and yet only Brazil, Italy and Germany have won more World Cups.

Critics may point out that Uruguay's success came early, before the game globalized and it's true that its two wins were in 1930 and 1950. But it's equally true that it reached the World Cup semifinal twice since 1970.

Furthermore, despite being the smallest nation in its confederation by population, since 1980 it won the Copa America four times (more than Argentina), while making the final four on all but three occasions.

Netherlands, with a population of 16.8 million, is another fine example: They have reached the World Cup final three times in 44 years: only Brazil, Germany and Italy have that beaten.

It's also no coincidence that arguably two of the last three great tactical leaps in the game -- Total Football (with players adapting to any position) and possession-based "tiki-taka" -- are credited to Dutch coaches: Rinus Michels and Johan Cruyff, respectively.

Cross-pollination

Smart people in business and academia have known this for a long time. If you can bring together different backgrounds and approaches in one place and create dialogue, everyone learns from one another. New ideas help breed innovation, the more inward-looking you are, the less slowly you're going to renew and grow.

In football, this happens in two ways. Some countries import high-end coaches and players (England, Spain), some export them (Argentina, Brazil, Netherlands) and some do a bit of both (Germany, Italy and France). But no successful nation isolates itself and, in fact, the ones who are more open tend to benefit.

The world's top leagues are already a virtual graduate school for high-end football. If you're a part of it -- and many are, players from 65 different nations were represented on Premier League rosters in 2013-14 -- it's like being in a football PhD seminar. (On the other hand, if you only watch it on TV -- like folks in 200 territories and nations around the world do every week -- at best it's like taking those online courses over the web.)

It also applies to players. Facing a range of diverse styles and tactics tends to make them better-rounded and more adaptable. It is, in part, the reason why United States coach Jurgen Klinsmann is so big on sending his players abroad. You experience a different brand of soccer, you force yourself to thrive in a new environment and, relative to Major League Soccer, if you can get into one of Europe's big five leagues, you'll play at a higher level.

Gross domestic product

Argentina ranks lowest in terms of GDP among the countries who have reached a World Cup final in the past half-century and it clocks in at 22. Germany, Brazil and Italy all rank among the world's 10 biggest economies and, between them, they've won 12 of the 19 World Cups held.

In some ways, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. A big economy implies a bigger population, with more players to choose from and more cash splashing around from sponsors and therefore better infrastructure, ability to attract coaches, and so forth. Football may be a cheap sport to play, but nurturing talent costs money. It's the business at the top that drives the development of the next generation.

The interesting thing is that, while it helps if the overall number is big, how the money is distributed seems less relevant. Germany and The Netherlands have very low income inequality and a large middle class.

Meanwhile, Brazil, Mexico and Nigeria, all of whom rank in the top 30 and are football powerhouses, have a relatively smaller middle class with a sizable proportion of rich folks and a large population in poverty.

Opportunity cost

There are two categories to this. One links to social mobility and aspiration. Countries with a large middle class face the challenge of developing youngsters as football players while also getting them to pursue their education. It's the classic scholar-athlete dilemma.

When there are parents around who have alternatives and understand that the chances of making it as a professional are small, kids will sometimes be pushed toward school, rather than sports. And while that may be the right choice for them, it diminishes the pool of potential top-notch players.

On the other hand, in those nations like the ones cited above where income inequality is high, it's less of an issue: If you're talented, soccer is your best way out.

The other is competition from other sports. There is obviously a technical and skill component to the game, but ultimately it's an athletic pursuit. David Epstein's book, "The Sports Gene" lays out the argument very clearly that athletic freaks -- and, make no mistake about it, most professionals at the highest level, in any sport are just that -- are born, not made.

Incidentally, this is one of the most oft-cited reasons for why the U.S. lags somewhat behind. Many of the best American athletes end up playing basketball or football, leaving us to speculate what Kobe Bryant or LeSean McCoy might have achieved had they devoted their lives to world football.

[Unnamed Trialist]

Don't even mention having competitive football at a youth and pro level. Shocking miss and anyways, the population factor does not hold water at all.