Fun with Excel #19 – Defending the World Cup

The World Cup is undoubtedly one of the most prestigious tournaments in all of sports. Although the competition has been held 21 times since its debut in 1930, only eight national teams have won it: Brazil (5 times), Germany (4), Italy (4), Argentina (2), France (2), Uruguay (2), England (1), and Spain (1). Only twice has a World Cup champion successfully defended the title (Italy in 1938 and Brazil in 1962). This is not too surprising, given that the tournament is held once every four years, which can be a lifetime in professional sports.

Summary of World Cup Results, 1930–2018
Points Per Game for Defending Champions (Red Bars = Eliminated in the First Round / Group Stage)

The above charts show the performance of every defending champion since 1930, as well as their average points per game (Win = 3 points, Draw = 1 point, Loss = 0 points). Interestingly, since the World Cup expanded to 32 teams in 1998, the defending champion has lost in the group stage (i.e. failed to reach the knockout stage) in four out of the last six World Cups, including the last three tournaments.

One potential explanation for these early exits is the increase in competition over the last 20 years, both from the higher number of teams participating in the World Cup, as well as the rise in overall skill levels which has led to more parity among nations. Even so, out of the four most recent instances where the defending champions were eliminated in the group stage (France in 2002, Italy in 2010, Spain in 2014, and Germany in 2018), all four countries entered their respective World Cups ranked in the top 20% of all teams. On top of that, all of them had favorable groups from which they were expected to advance. So who suffered the worst group stage exit from a defending champion?

A Slight Detour on Methodology

To analyze each team’s performance, I not only examined their win/loss records, but also how they played relative to expectations. I accomplished the latter by comparing each defending champion’s Elo rating to the ratings of all the nations competing in World Cup. I also compared each team’s Elo to the ratings of the other three nations in its group to determine how difficult it would be for each team to advance from the group stage.

Used widely across sports, board games, and video games, the Elo rating system calculates the relative skill of players (or teams) based on match outcomes.

After every game, the winning player takes points from the losing one. The difference between the ratings of the winner and loser determines the total number of points gained or lost after a game. In a series of games between a high-rated player and a low-rated player, the high-rated player is expected to score more wins. If the high-rated player wins, then only a few rating points will be taken from the low-rated player. However, if the lower-rated player scores an upset win, many rating points will be transferred.

Wikipedia

In soccer, the rating system is further modified to account for the goal difference of the match, such that a 7–1 victory will net more rating points than a 2-1 win. Thus, we expect nations with higher pre-World Cup Elo ratings to perform better than those with lower ratings, which the chart below illustrates.

The relationship isn’t perfect, but we can see that teams with higher Pre-World Cup Elo ratings tend to perform better during the tournament

We’re more interested in the outliers on the right side of the chart, so without further adieu, here is my ranking for the “worst of the worst” World Cup defenses.

The Hall of Shame

4. Italy (2010): 0W/2D/1L, -1GD

Italy entered the tournament with the sixth highest Elo (1938), 142 above the average of 1796
Italy had the fifth easiest group (out of eight) in the first stage of the tournament

In 2010, Italy (1938 Pre-WC Elo) drew Paraguay 1–1 (-14 Elo), drew New Zealand 1–1 (-24 Elo), and lost to Slovakia 2–3 (-50 Elo) in Group F, for a cumulative loss of 88 Elo. In doing so, it gained the dubious honor of being the only defending champion to be eliminated in the first round twice (1950 was the first time). That said, compared to other early exits, this one was slightly more forgivable. For one, Italy entered the World Cup ranked sixth by Elo, by far the weakest of the four most recent defending champions that failed to advance past the group stage. Italy also had the fifth easiest group (out of the initial eight), the only defending champion to start off in the bottom half of group difficulty.

3. Spain (2014): 1W/0D/2L, -3GD

Spain entered the tournament with the second highest Elo (2109), 267 above the average of 1842
Spain had the third easiest group (out of eight) in the first stage of the tournament

In 2014, Spain (2109 Pre-WC Elo) lost to the Netherlands 1-5 (-75 Elo) in a re-match of the 2010 Finals, lost to Chile 0-2 (-57 Elo), and beat Australia 3-0 (+16 Elo) in Group B, for a cumulative loss of 116 Elo. Spain entered the World Cup with the second highest Elo overall and played in the third easiest group, but still found themselves mathematically eliminated after only two games, the quickest exit for a defending champion since Italy in 1950 tournament. Pretty embarrassing, but still not enough to make our Top 2…

2. Germany (2018): 1W/0D/2L, -2GD

Germany entered the tournament with the second highest Elo (2077), 249 above the average of 1828
Germany had the second easiest group (out of eight) in the first stage of the tournament

In 2018, Germany (2077 Pre-WC Elo) lost to Mexico 0-1 (-47 Elo), beat Sweden 2-1 (+14 Elo), and lost to South Korea 2-3 (-80 Elo) in Group F, for a cumulative loss of 113 Elo. For the first time since 1938, Germany did not advance past the first round. Although this remarkable streak was bound to end at some point, almost no one would have thought that 2018 would be the year. After all, Germany entered the World Cup with the second highest Elo and also played in the second easiest group.

Unlike the Spanish team in 2014, which appeared to be on its last legs after a remarkable run from 2008 to 2012 during which it won back-to-back European titles and a World Cup, the German team was seemingly still near the height of its powers. Indeed, their early “exit at group stage was greeted with shock in newspapers around the world,” according to The Guardian.

1. France (2002): 0W/1D/2L, -3G

France entered the tournament with the highest Elo (2096), 274 above the average of 1822
France had the easiest group (out of eight) in the first stage of the tournament

In 2002, France (2096 Pre-WC Elo) lost to Senegal 0-1 (-54 Elo), drew Uruguay 0-0 (-19 Elo), and lost to Denmark 0-2 (-61 Elo) in Group A, for a cumulative loss of 134 ELO. Shockingly, the French failed to win a single match despite starting the World Cup with the highest Elo and playing in the easiest group. Perhaps more embarrassing, the team bowed out without scoring a single goal, good enough for the worst performance ever by a defending champion.

An Important Caveat

Of course, one should never draw conclusions solely from data, because knowing the context surrounding the data is just as crucial. As Gareth Bland rightly points out in his article detailing the story behind France’s failure in the 2002, several factors contributed to the team’s early exit besides mere under-performance:

  1. France’s star player, Zinedine Zidane, regarded as one of the greatest players of all time, injured himself in a friendly less than a week before the team’s first match against Senegal. He returned for France’s third match against Denmark, but was clearly not 100%.
  2. Thierry Henry, considered one of the best strikers to ever play the game, committed a poor challenge in the second match against Uruguay and received a red card. Although France managed to scrape a tie while down one man, Henry was forced to miss the third match because of the red card.
  3. Many members of France’s old guard like Marcel Desailly, Frank Leboeuf, and Youri Djorkaeff were pushing their mid-thirties. Although not old by any stretch of the imagination, they were undoubtedly past their prime as players.
  4. On the other hand, the team’s younger players like Patrick Vieira, Sylvain Wiltord, and Henry found themselves mentally and physically exhausted after a successful but grueling campaign with their domestic club Arsenal.

While none of these reasons should pass as excuses (after all, other teams had to deal with injuries and fatigue as well), this perfect storm of events helps to explain why France so drastically under-performed relative to their Elo rating. As Bland writes, the team’s “return home was not met with disgrace…Rather, it was an acknowledgement that some legs had got tired, while some needed to be moved on, while those of the maestro must just be left to heal.”

Lessons Learned?

One last observation is that none of the four defending champions won their opening matches (Italy drew, and the other three lost). With every match being so critical to advancing, a poor start likely put a tremendous amount of pressure on the defending champions and affected their remaining two matches. Perhaps the defending champions failed because of their relatively easy groups, which led them to become complacent going into the first match. In that case, the biggest takeaway is to not be overconfident, advice that I hope team France will heed going into Qatar 2022.

As always, you can find my work here.

Fun with Excel #10 – World Cup Goals

While I’ve always been fascinated by sports statistics, I must admit I did not realize that gathering data for this particular project would be so time consuming. No, it didn’t take me 9 months to tally up all the goals ever scored in the World Cup starting from 1930, but I did lose interest about halfway through the data mining (from Wikipedia, no less), and I never got around to tying up loose ends until now. Nevertheless, I’m proud to present my results in this post.

 

Raw Data
The raw data spanned 836 rows…

Let’s get straight into the pretty charts shall we?

Goals - All YearsThis first chart shows the pace at which goals were scored for every World Cup in history, and while it is indeed pretty, it does a poor job of showing any trends. You might notice that more recent World Cups have seen more goals scored on an absolute basis (and that is indeed the case if you look at the following chart), but you must also keep in mind that the tournament has expanded drastically since its early days.

Goals - Time PeriodsStarting with just 13 teams at the inaugural 1930 World Cup in Uruguay (18 matches were played), the tournament expanded to include 24 teams in 1982 (52 matches) and finally to 32 teams (the current format) in 1998 (64 matches). Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anyone that more goals are being scored in the modern era, as there are simply more matches being played.

We can quickly verify this by comparing “% Matches Complete” versus “% Goals Scored” rather than “Cumulative Goals Scored,” as this will normalize for the increasing number of matches played over time. As the following two charts show, the actual pace of goalscoring on a per match basis has remained relatively consistent over time. This should be expected, as the rules of the game have changed little since the inception of the World Cup.

Goals Norm - All Years

Goals Norm - Time PeriodsI will leave you with one more chart before I sign off, which I find very interesting:

Goals Per MatchThis is a busy chart, but it shows 2 trends which should be obvious, and 2 trends which are not as obvious. The 2 obvious trends are: (1) the absolute number of goals scored per tournament has, on average, increased over time, and (2) the number of matches per tournament has increased over time. The 2 less obvious trends are: (1) the early years of the World Cup (1930-1958) had the highest number of goals per match and (2) that same early period also had the highest average goal differential per match. There are a couple of explanations for this intriguing pattern. First, soccer as a game was not as developed in the early days of the World Cup. There were only a few powerhouse countries in South America and Europe that dominated the international scene, but seeing as the entire purpose of the World Cup was to bring together teams from all over globe, it was inevitable that lopsided results would arise from powerhouse countries stream rolling some of their less fortunate competitors (e.g. Argentina dismantling USA 6-1 in the semifinals in 1930, Hungary beating the Dutch East Indies 6-0 in 1938, with Sweden overrunning Cuba 8-0 that same year). Second, the format of the tournament was in part to blame, an issue most pronounced in the 1954 World Cup, which featured an astounding 5.38 goals per match and 3.00 average goal differential, statistics which will likely never be matched again in the modern era. From Wikipedia: “The sixteen qualifying teams were divided into four groups of four teams each. Each group contained two seeded teams and two unseeded teams. Only four matches were scheduled for each group, each pitting a seeded team against an unseeded team.” In other words, low ranking teams were forced to play high ranking teams, which led to such absurd scorelines like: Brazil 5 – Mexico 0, Hungary 9 – South Korea 0, Turkey 7 – South Korea 0, Uruguay 7 – Scotland 0, and Austria 5 – Czechoslovakia 0. As the game grew in popularity worldwide and more and more countries began sending their most promising players to play in the most competitive leagues in Europe, the playing field has evened substantially. Furthermore, the modern game places a lot more emphasis on defense, which is why it is now rare to see a lopsided scoreline in any competitive international match (and also why Germany’s 7-1 drubbing of Brazil last year was so unexpected). While further expansions in the tournament seem almost certain (after all, more matches played = more money to be made), I expect the goals per match and average goal differential to remain in line with where they have been in the modern era.

For those of you interested, the data I aggregated can be found here.