If you have a strong team and you would lose only one of seven matches, it is also question of luck  whom you have to play against when, especially if it is about play-off matches. Had Italy, who went out undefeated again (see 1990), not played France in their 5th, how far might they have got?    In a few tables it is tried to 'measure' success a little different. Also a look at the continents strength is taken  GO FIGURE SKATING

• the tables - putting achievement into a little different light

    - featuring the special table after logarithmic winning percentage
• the continents comparison

If you have a strong team and you would lose only one of seven matches, it is also question of luck  whom you have to play against when, especially if it is about play-off matches. If you lose right the first one, you won't have five more to prove you are great. This is why a regular table after points does not display right, how strong teams played in such a tournament. Take for example the unbeaten Italians. Other teams sneak through by luck or with the help of penalty shoot-outs without having really dominated. Whatever you try, you will find, there is no real way to measure the strength of the teams, all ways expose particular aspects and can be questioned for neglecting others. Not to speak of that a performance needs its context, that some teams do easier against particular style of play and worse against a second, while that second again loses to the first. Anyway here are some suggestions to have a different view, some food for your discussions. The view is different from that sense that those tables do not consider for example the four semi-finalists as the four best teams, as you will see. The first idea is always the table after winning percentage. It gives all matches the same evaluation and measures the average of success per game. Traditionally a tie here counts as half a win, when the 3 point rule is more considered as a method to change the attitude than to have a fair way to measure strength.

so here it is:
1) table after winning-percentage (US-notation used, 0.750 = 75 %)
 

	team	matches	wpct
1	FRANCE	7	0.929
2	ITALY	5	0.800
3	NETHERLANDS*	6	0.750
4	ARGENTINA	5	0.700
5	GERMANY	5	0.700
6	CROATIA*	6	0.667
7	BRAZIL	7	0.643
8	ENGLAND	4	0.625
9	YUGOSLAVIA	4	0.625
10	ROMANIA	4	0.625
11	SPAIN	3	0.500
12	DANMARK	5	0.500
13	MEXICO	4	0.500
14	PARAGUAY	4	0.500
15	NORWAY	4	0.500
16	MOROCCO	3	0.500
17	BELGIUM	3	0.500
18	NIGERIA	4	0.500
19	CHILE	4	0.375
20	AUSTRIA	3	0.333
21	IRAN	3	0.333
22	COLOMBIA	3	0.333
23	CAMEROON	3	0.333
24	SOUTH AFRICA	3	0.333
25	JAMAICA	3	0.333
26	TUNISIA	3	0.167
27	SCOTLAND	3	0.167
28	SAUDI ARABIA	3	0.167
29	BULGARIA	3	0.167
30	SOUTH KOREA	3	0.167
31	JAPAN	3	0.000
32	USA	3	0.000

*note: third match play off is not taken into account (otherwise: Croatia 0.714, Netherlands 0.643, would swap places), result before penalty shoot-out counts

Most conspicious: the rise of Italy and Spain, the drop of Brazil and Chile.

Anyway this tables leaves you with the idea that advancing to further knock-out rounds should be awarded and taken into account as well somehow as this affects play. This leads to the next solution:

2) table after ®logarithmic winning-percentage
A table for absolute experts. By using the logarithm of the number of games played, instead of the number of games themselves, this table takes into account, that the later matches should have been more difficult than the first ones. It credits the success of the teams that advanced further in the tournament.
 
the first column shows the team, the second the number of matches, the last column then the number of wins devided by the logarithm of the number of matches played to the base of  the square root of 2 (what is the same as the same calculation to the base of 2 and then the result devided by 2 again).
By this selection of the base trick it is easier to see how this logarithmic calculation affects the table: The teams that advance from group matches to first round but then lose are somehow defined as a kind of average. If they are really average (like Nigeria, unlike Chile, does not get affected while the value for teams that do worse gets lowered and the value for teams that advance further gets boosted. You can see this when you compare to the regualr winning percentage table:  have the same winning-percentage as in the first table, teams that advanced further a higher one, teams that were knocked out in first round, fall back a little.
®© The Shot That Passed Right Through The Net, reprinting of the table or application of the calculation method is appreciated but reference to The Shot That Passed Right Through The Net is asked for.

 

Continents comparison

The question how to compare the continents achievements is discussed in The conclusions for 2002 - How many places for whom?

Here only a short excerpt:

1) The 'relegation zone':
 

32	USA (Nth/Ctl-Am 2)	0.000
31	Japan (Asia 3)	0.000
30	South Korea (Asia 1-2)	0.167
29	Bulgaria (Europe I)	0.167
28	Saudi Arabia (Asia 1-2)	0.167
27	Scotland  (Europe II)	0.167
26	Tunisa (Africa)	0.167

EuropeI/II=qual. as one of the 9 group-winners (I) or as one of the 5 runners-up (II)
Asia, Sth-America, and Nrth/Ctl-America=here a ranking of the participants after the qualification performance is possible (Asia only 3 and 4)

2)  Continents after winning percentage:
 

1	Europe	0.608
2	South-America	0.543
3	Africa	0.375
4	North/Central-America	0.300
5	Asia	0.167

 

3) continents vs. continents:

(in brackets the number of matches played)

AFRICA vs. AFRICA (-)
AFRICA vs. ASIA (1) 0.500
AFRICA vs. EUROPE (11) 0.455
AFRICA vs. NTH/CTL-AM (-)
AFRICA vs. SOUTH-AM (4) 0.125

ASIA vs. AFRICA (1) 0.500
ASIA vs. ASIA (-)
ASIA vs. EUROPE (7) 0.071
ASIA vs. NTH/CTL-AM (3) 0.333
ASIA vs. SOUTH-AM (1) 0.000

EUROPE vs. AFRICA (11) 0.545
EUROPE vs. ASIA (7) 0.929
EUROPE vs. EUROPE (26) 0.500
EUROPE vs. NTH/CTL-AM (6) 0.833
EUROPE vs. SOUTH-AM (15) 0.600

NTH/CTL-AM vs. AFRICA (-)
NTH/CTL-AM vs. ASIA (3) 0.667
NTH/CTL-AM vs. EUROPE (6) 0.167
NTH/CTL-AM vs. NTH/CTL-AM (-)
NTH/CTL-AM vs. SOUTH-AM (1) 0.000

SOUTH-AM vs. AFRICA (4) 0.875
SOUTH-AM vs. ASIA (1) 1.000
SOUTH-AM vs. EUROPE (15) 0.400
SOUTH-AM vs. NTH/CTL-AM (1) 1.000
SOUTH-AM vs. SOUTH-AM (2) 0.500

Why those tables deceive, what can be read out of it, and what could be different tables, how they look like, much more statistics about the continents topic you will find in The conclusions for 2002 - How many places for whom?

You are interestet in more tables about former World Cups?
Check The "true" World Cup tables 1982-1990 (all kinds of continents comparisons and wpct-tables)
(1994 not yet available)