I still find it strange that Iceland winning was considered to be a great shock. Sure, it was a surprise, but if you had ignored all of the talk about population and money, and only focused on the respective form of the teams, it wouldn't have come as such a shock.
Iceland had qualified for the tournament and then made the knock-out rounds, so they were clearly a very good side. England had done the same, but had already shown that they were less than the sum of their parts. They also had a goalkeeper who had previously blundered against Wales.
Of course it was a massive shock. England's entire team were good Premier League players, and Iceland had many players who didn't even play football as their main job. Let alone Iceland having 1/30th the population of just London
No, population, economy, history, etc...none of that counts once the game actually starts as it's then XI vs XI plus substitutes. Form, group dynamics, teamwork, etc: these are infinitely more important at that moment than all that other stuff. Otherwise only the rich nations with high populations would be contenders.
Croatia continue to prove this, while Uruguay (1920s - 1930, and again in 1950); Hungary (1950s); Denmark (1992), and others, also back the argument.
As such, Iceland's win was extremely unlikely before the tournament started, but can't be considered a GREAT shock after one considers just how well they were playing, and how poorly England were playing, at the time.
On the other hand, despite what some statisticians are trying to claim about Saudi Arabia's win over Argentina, the USA's win over England in 1950 remains the most genuinely freakish event because it featured a team of amateurs against a team of full-professionals.
It's a British word! My dad always talks about soccer and rugger, which are the same kind of word formation. He likes to point out that rugby is a sort of football ("rugby football"), so you should say soccer to distinguish between the two sorts of football.
In the UK I remember hearing the term 'rugby football' quite a lot in the 80s but haven't heard it for a long time. I think the term soccer was used more back then too.
It was used a lot until the 1980s (loads of British books with soccer in the title, and usages in print media), and it lingered on into the 1990s (Sky did have Soccer AM, and still use the word in Soccer Saturday). British people seem to have just forgotten quite quickly how frequently the word used to be used (and clearly still is in some cases) in Britain.
Maybe add the standard guidance "Some of these countries don't exist anymore", as appears on many other quizzes (particularly those regarding international sporting events) when it's applicable to some of the responses?
Australia beat England in a friendly match in London in 2003. The score was 3-1. A massive upset given England had a World Cup-level squad and were playing at home while we hadn’t made it to the 2002 World Cup (we have however made every single World Cup since 2006 though and we also made it in 1974).
Iceland had qualified for the tournament and then made the knock-out rounds, so they were clearly a very good side. England had done the same, but had already shown that they were less than the sum of their parts. They also had a goalkeeper who had previously blundered against Wales.
It was hardly the 1950 match against the USA.
No, population, economy, history, etc...none of that counts once the game actually starts as it's then XI vs XI plus substitutes. Form, group dynamics, teamwork, etc: these are infinitely more important at that moment than all that other stuff. Otherwise only the rich nations with high populations would be contenders.
Croatia continue to prove this, while Uruguay (1920s - 1930, and again in 1950); Hungary (1950s); Denmark (1992), and others, also back the argument.
As such, Iceland's win was extremely unlikely before the tournament started, but can't be considered a GREAT shock after one considers just how well they were playing, and how poorly England were playing, at the time.
On the other hand, despite what some statisticians are trying to claim about Saudi Arabia's win over Argentina, the USA's win over England in 1950 remains the most genuinely freakish event because it featured a team of amateurs against a team of full-professionals.
The Saudi's are all pros.
I'd forgotten that they beat us - once - a million years ago. Was our entire team drunk or something?
That, or UEFA and/or FIFA have something against England.
Cameroon, who morally beat the English but were undone by some (admittedly masterful) diving for penalties that Ronaldo would be proud of.
Hungary - still up there with the biggest stuffing that England have ever had - 6-3 (at a time when England thought that they were best in the world).