Human Afazeli now destroys CQ

[Sam van Dam]

If USA was in POT 3 and drawn with Spain, Portugal, and Morocco, then everyone would be calling it the Group of Death

Our group was by far the toughest. had we played in any other group, especially Japan and Saudis, we too would have advanced.

our group was so close

[KC McElroy]

incorrect. I think that because it is impossible to have a group of death as maybe the term was used two or three world cups ago, the most competitive group is the group of death. And from the beginning this had the makings of the most competitive group, as echoed by many top pundits (not just the average ones that pick the two most noteworthy teams)

So you arbitrarily changed the definition of group of death once you realized we were not in a group of death and that in your own words "With the current seeding system, it is impossible to have a group of death, because any two teams from pot 3 and 4 are inferior to portugal/spain."?

[inarsenewetrust]

So you agree that it wasn't the group of death but rather you considered it the most difficult group? You not considering it a group of death is further verified by your prior statement where you explicitly say there can be no group of death when you state "With the current seeding system, it is impossible to have a group of death, because any two teams from pot 3 and 4 are inferior to portugal/spain."

incorrect. I think that because it is impossible to have a group of death as maybe the term was used two or three world cups ago, the most competitive group is the group of death. And from the beginning this had the makings of the most competitive group, as echoed by many top pundits (not just the average ones that pick the two most noteworthy teams)

[KC McElroy]

thats not ever what I meant this discussion to be. I was using group of death and most difficult group interchangably. I dont really care if it was or wasnt the group of death on paper, I dont even know why anybody would care about, as football is played on the pitch, not on paper. You sidetracked the discussion just so you dont have to say that TM was in the most difficult group of the WC. Congrats!

So you agree that it wasn't the group of death but rather you considered it the most difficult group? You not considering it a group of death is further verified by your prior statement where you explicitly say there can be no group of death when you state "With the current seeding system, it is impossible to have a group of death, because any two teams from pot 3 and 4 are inferior to portugal/spain."

[inarsenewetrust]

It's not what I envision, it's how it is defined. So given that you said that "I think the makeup of the group made it the closest thing to a traditional group of death that can exist now", do you agree that it wasn't a group of death? If you did I would have expected you to say ""I think the makeup of the group made it a group of death."

thats not ever what I meant this discussion to be. I was using group of death and most difficult group interchangably. I dont really care if it was or wasnt the group of death on paper, I dont even know why anybody would care about, as football is played on the pitch, not on paper. You sidetracked the discussion just so you dont have to say that TM was in the most difficult group of the WC. Congrats!

[KC McElroy]

that wasnt our previous discussion, my idea of a group of death is the most competitive because there is no more group of death with 4 equally matched teams. Your idea of group of death has remained the same even though the rules have changed with seeding, making it impossible for the group of death that you envision to ever exist. As always good discussing things with you KC, thought for once you could act like a decent person and have an open discussion but once again you regressed to trolling. Expect a bit better from sharif tbh.

It's not what I envision, it's how it is defined. So given that you said that "I think the makeup of the group made it the closest thing to a traditional group of death that can exist now", do you agree that it wasn't a group of death? If you did I would have expected you to say ""I think the makeup of the group made it a group of death."

[inarsenewetrust]

Before I answer that let's conclude our previous discussion. As the group had two clear favorites, you realize it wasn't a group of death, correct? Your statement that "I think the makeup of the group made it the closest thing to a traditional group of death that can exist now" indicates that you don't think it was an actual group of death.

that wasnt our previous discussion, my idea of a group of death is the most competitive because there is no more group of death with 4 equally matched teams. Your idea of group of death has remained the same even though the rules have changed with seeding, making it impossible for the group of death that you envision to ever exist. As always good discussing things with you KC, thought for once you could act like a decent person and have an open discussion but once again you regressed to trolling. Expect a bit better from sharif tbh.

[KC McElroy]

this is just trolling again. Do you want to have an open discussion or troll? We can agree to disagree on the group of death. But I also think that our group was the most difficult of the WC. I think everybody here can agree on that, do you?

Before I answer that let's conclude our previous discussion. As the group had two clear favorites, you realize it wasn't a group of death, correct? Your statement that "I think the makeup of the group made it the closest thing to a traditional group of death that can exist now" indicates that you don't think it was an actual group of death.

[inarsenewetrust]

I wasn't asking if you saw two favorites in the group. My question was were there two favorites in the group. If you don't recall whether most everyone was considering two favorites in the group you may use google to look the information up.
The bolded section actually answers my question in that you did not consider it a group of death but rather something close to it.

this is just trolling again. Do you want to have an open discussion or troll? We can agree to disagree on the group of death. But I also think that our group was the most difficult of the WC. I think everybody here can agree on that, do you?

[KC McElroy]

no because I personally recognized the quality of all the teams, and was aware it would be a very close group. And yes, I rated morocco as on par with portugal actually. I think the makeup of the group made it the closest thing to a traditional group of death that can exist now, because Spain and Portugal are huge teams, but morocco was in terms of results and in terms of personnel the strongest team in africa, and iran were similar in asia. This sentiment was echoed by many others, like Gabrielle Marcotti, and Arsene Wenger for instance.

But thats besides point, was our group the most dificult group in the WC based on performance? Lets hope you dont side step it again just to tell us that we misused your definition of "group of death" - the horror.

I wasn't asking if you saw two favorites in the group. My question was were there two favorites in the group. If you don't recall whether most everyone was considering two favorites in the group you may use google to look the information up.
The bolded section actually answers my question in that you did not consider it a group of death but rather something close to it.

[inarsenewetrust]

While I had read many reviews prior to the World Cup (which I don't remember the exact sites), I did a simple google search now regarding the odds posted prior to the games. About 19 out of 20 of them picked Spain and Portugal to advance. To me the two favorites in the group, and the reason most others considered them as the two favorites were clear.

so do you want to respond to my post or...? Would like to see your opinion about this.

[KC McElroy]

Lets agree to disagree about this.

All the previews I read on places like the Guardian and Indie before the world cup (admittedly only by pundits who i respect so there will always be some inherent bias as the ones I like know more about world football ) had Morocco down as likely to get a win against either Spain or Portugal.

Some pundits even had Morocco winning the group:

https://torontosun.com/sports/soccer/larson-look-for-morocco-to-stun-portugal-in-tight-world-cup-group-b

Indeed, a few betting companies had more bets on Morocco to win than Portugal: https://twitter.com/BetStars/status/1007569805791113216

I see where you're coming from though.

While I had read many reviews prior to the World Cup (which I don't remember the exact sites), I did a simple google search now regarding the odds posted prior to the games. About 19 out of 20 of them picked Spain and Portugal to advance. To me the two favorites in the group, and the reason most others considered them as the two favorites were clear.

[DR Strangemoosh]

The previews you had read must have been different than the ones most people read as all others indicated the group had two clear favorites.

Lets agree to disagree about this.

All the previews I read on places like the Guardian and Indie before the world cup (admittedly only by pundits who i respect so there will always be some inherent bias as the ones I like know more about world football ) had Morocco down as likely to get a win against either Spain or Portugal.

Some pundits even had Morocco winning the group:

https://torontosun.com/sports/soccer/larson-look-for-morocco-to-stun-portugal-in-tight-world-cup-group-b

Indeed, a few betting companies had more bets on Morocco to win than Portugal: https://twitter.com/BetStars/status/1007569805791113216

I see where you're coming from though.

[inarsenewetrust]

Before I answer that let's conclude our previous discussion. As the group had two clear favorites, you realize it wasn't a group of death, correct?

no because I personally recognized the quality of all the teams, and was aware it would be a very close group. And yes, I rated morocco as on par with portugal actually. I think the makeup of the group made it the closest thing to a traditional group of death that can exist now, because Spain and Portugal are huge teams, but morocco was in terms of results and in terms of personnel the strongest team in africa, and iran were similar in asia. This sentiment was echoed by many others, like Gabrielle Marcotti, and Arsene Wenger for instance.

But thats besides point, was our group the most dificult group in the WC based on performance? Lets hope you dont side step it again just to tell us that we misused your definition of "group of death" - the horror.

[KC McElroy]

so based on performance, was this the most difficult group of the 2018 world Cup?

Before I answer that let's conclude our previous discussion. As the group had two clear favorites, you realize it wasn't a group of death, correct?