How to assess the quality of a world Cup🇧🇷 It is possible? Therefore, what level does the Copa do do Qatarthe 22nd in history?
It is not a simple task to classify the degree of excellence of a competition, be it the World Cup or any other, olympics a Brazilian championshipas each football fan has his or her own view of a given event.
This is not just true of football. People evaluate differently a film, a play, a restaurant, a trip, a government, and so on.
From the best to the worst, passing through the good and the regular, the particular impression is unique, so often the arguments presented, in the evaluation of a third party, are not sufficient, convincing or sustainable.
Quantitatively, it is possible to place the Qatar Cup at a certain level, based on some available sporting topics – the purpose of this text is not to address political, economic or social aspects, without highlighting their importance.
In favor of the World Cup in Qatar, the absolute record of goals in the current format (32 teams, 64 games), as comparing with fewer games generates incongruity. There were 172, surpassing the 171 of the 1998 Cups, in France, and 2014, in Brazil. Who doesn’t like goals, anyway?
Okay, but that number could only be reached because the final, Argentina v France at the Lusail stadium, there was a festival of them. The Argentines scored three, the French three.
Only one previous decision, Sweden 2 x 5 Brazil, in 1958, was more goalscoring. Another four, including as of 2018also registered six goals (all 4 to 2), like in Qatar.
By the way, the decision of the Cup, on Sunday (18), can be, without dispute, mentioned as a high point, of quality, in this year’s World Cup. Not only for the number of goals, not only for confronting the two most popular players (Messi and Mbappé), but for the “drama” factor.
Argentina 2-0 (one by Messi), game dominated until more than halfway through the second half. France reacts surprisingly, draws (two from Mbappé). Extension. Argentina ahead (Messi), France draw (Mbappe). Penalty shootout. As Galvão would say, “there’s heart”.
If it wasn’t the best final, it’s on the podium. Among the ones I saw, Mexico-1986, Argentina 3 x 2 Germany, Maradona x Rummenigge, was breathtaking.
So, a qualitative point for the Qatar Cup in terms of, which has enormous weight, the “exciting final”.
Returning to the quantitative issue, the 2022 World Cup had another relevant ingredient, the record penalty shootouts🇧🇷 There were five, including the one in the decisive game.
More “drama”, more emotion, more excited spectators (except when that spectator is a fan of Brazil, and it is Brazil who dispute the penalties, and Brazil loses and is eliminated), which does not mean more quality.
The Qatar Cup had a negative quantitative data to be placed as a counterweight on the scale: it became a record holder of the World Cup with more games 0-0.
There were seven, including what eliminated Belgium and ranked Croatia and what took Spain out (beat Japan on penalties🇧🇷 The rest are forgettable (I don’t remember them off the top of my head).
There are other points that can theoretically raise the quality of a competition, such as the routs (in Qatar there was Spain 7-0 Costa Rica, England 6 x 2 Iran, Portugal 6 x 1 Switzerland, Brazil 4 x 1 South Korea).
Theoretically because, despite the rain of goals pleasing one side and those who are neutral, it also shows the imbalance, which reduces such quality, if not eliminates it.
Beautiful goals. Synonym of quality, right?
Richarlison’s volley (Brazil 2 x 0 Serbia), that of Julián Álvarez, starting from the defense field (Argentina 3 x 0 Croatia), another by Julián Álvarez, in the same game, after Messi dribbled half a dozen times past defender Gvardiol, the one by Aboubakar, covering the goalkeeper (Cameroon 3 x 3 Serbia), that of Mbappe, no-jump in the final. And a few more.
So there was a beautiful goal in Qatar. However, there are beautiful goals in every World Cup, so it cannot be decisive as a qualitative differential, unless you enter the quantitative field, and perhaps not even then, due to the aforementioned matter of taste – a beautiful goal for me may not be for you. .
Stars in excellent shape, with great performances, the duo “MM”: Messi and Mbappe. Who else?
Neymar, no. Kane, no. Not from Bruyne. Lewandowski, no. Van Dijk, no. Neuer, no. Cristiano Ronaldo, definitely not. Modric even did well, but he didn’t have “that” shine.
Salah, Haaland, Benzema, Mané, others with the potential to fly high, couldn’t even play in Qatar because their teams didn’t qualify or because they were injured.
There was a lack of outstanding performances by first-class footballers in the fields of the first Cup in the Middle East, not least because holding the tournament in the middle of the season in Europe (the continent where almost all the players who go to the World Cup play) would put an end to the argument that they were exhausted.
That written down is nothing, however, that hasn’t happened in other World Cups. Stars shine, others disappoint. There are also surprises, sometimes more, sometimes less. In Qatar, the biggest one was not individual: with the strength of the collective game, Morocco reached the semifinals.
ESPN set up a ranking of the best cups do Mundo, based on items (some discussed in this text) such as “great players”, “number of goals”, “excitement”, “zebras”, “crowd”.
Qatar’s ranked sixth, tied with US-94 and behind Spain-82 (1st), Mexico-86, Germany-06, France-98 and Mexico-70 (5th).
Adequate. The Qatar Cup seemed cool, above average, with decent football quality, note 7. But there is no data that assertively determine that this was the case. There is a lot of subjectivity, and (dis)satisfaction depends on each person’s demands.
Football enchants, or disenchants, full of nuances. That’s how it is, that’s how it is. Wanting to rank Cups by qualitative aspect is, to say the least, reckless.
