The key to World Cup success? Clean sheets
In knock-out competitions, a focus on ‘not losing’ often seems to take precedence over ‘winning’.
It is therefore little surprise that recent champions have boasted good defensive records in the final few games of their victorious tournaments.
Still, it is interesting to note the similarity in the records of the past four World Cup winners – each have only conceded a goal in one knockout tie.
There are five opposition goalscorers in total (in one instance, the team conceded two in a game). How many can you name? Answer at the top of the comments section.
And the answers are…
Dennis Bergkamp, Aron Winter, Davor Suker, Michael Owen, Zinedine Zidane.
oi !
shudve waited for me to answer :p
i know Owen and Zidane =))
You forgot Marc Wilmots for 2002
I knew Zidane and Suker, but kudos to those who knew all! (or just more)
There I was racking my brain to figure it out and you had already posted the answer
So each of the last four winners kept a clean sheet in the ’round of 16′?
Meaning only Brazil, Paraquay and Spain are likely winners now…
I wasn’t sure about Suker, but I figured since he was the top scorer ‘98 that he was the one who scored in the 1/2 Finals against France
I was looking at that and thinking I need a nice google search on this one, then the answers pop up
Has anyone noticed that no side has lost at this tournament after taking the lead?
I think Greece came from behind against Nigeria.
Edit: And Denmark vs Cameroon
Cameroon lost to Denmark despite taking the lead I think it was, Eto’o scored then Bendtner a bit before half time and Rommedahl in the second half
Nigeria lost 2:1 after a 0:1 against greece… not to forget camerron’s defeat against danmark…
Greece got back in the game only after one nigerian had been sent off though.
A comeback from them would have been unlikely otherwise.
Yeah I thought that!
Even if your comment was not exactly right, I wouldn’t be that surprised if it was. Given this is the WC of tactics, defensive midfields and no individual superstars. Villa against Chile was closest to the super… adjetive. Ooops, now I realize that some other fans may come flagging Özil’s name. I will stick though to my assertion, so far.
Saying clean sheets is the key to WC success ignores the fact that you usually need to score goals to win football games.
That’s the key. Outscoring your opponent.
Not really, considering the nature of drawn games and penalty shoot-outs.
Which would mean even the losers kept clean sheets? Doesn’t do much to advance the theory that clean sheets are key!
BTW, how many penalty shootouts after goalless draws have their been in knockout rounds of the last 4 World Cups?
No idea.
5
2006
Switzerland - Ukraine 0:3 (L16)
Portugal - England 3:1 (QF)
2002
Spain – South Korea 3:5 (QF)
1998
Italy – France 3:4 (QF)
1994
Brasil – Italy 3:2 (F)
But I don’t know what this information could contribute to the discussion.
…despite the fact that -of all other teams- the only one with two goalless draws in the knockout stage is …Italy
@ Treter
We could never bet about that…
This means that only 5 out of the 64 games contributed against Ole gunner’s point. In 59 games, winner had to score to win, to win in extra time or to at least take the game to a penalty shootout.
But I also think Ole is missing the point
Ole Gunner is correct, though I can see Zonal Marking’s point.
But if you somehow manage to not score throughout the knockout stages and win all four games in shootouts after 0-0 draws, I would be very surprised.
Also he wisely said “…you usually need to score goals to win football games.”
Emphasis should be put on usually.
Don’t mean to dump on the article. Just my 2 cents worth.
Portugal-England shootouts = classic
Not conceding a goal in 120mins (90 + extra time) guarantees you not loosing while the team has some control. Once it gets to penalties it is a lottery. That’s why knock out tournaments are usually won by teams that are good on the counter.
If you dont concede you cant lose, Jack Charlton mantra, they cant score if the ball is always behind their full backs
Shortest article on ZM. And to think i was waiting for one since two days. Not fair after so much dope that you have been feeding.
There’ plenty of articles this short, to be fair. Previews later.
Oh! Didnt know you were around to snap back….Just kidding
A little off-topic. Is it true David Silva has signed for Manchester City?
Yup
Thanks. That’s right under Chelsea’s nose yet again. Hope he doesnt turn out as another Robinho.
Right after they realize that they have to many attackers… they go sign another attacker. At least they are on the right path with Yaya Toure.
As a Chelsea fan, I think we’ve been unfairly involved in this Silva transfer.
Not once has Ancelotti or any other Chelsea players come out and said we want Silva at Chelsea. Don’t get me wrong, he is a fantastic player but Malouda was arguably our best player in the second half of the season. Would we really pay £25 million for a guy when we have a proven player at Chelsea?
I think it was simply Silva’s agent using Chelsea to drive the bid up. I would have liked to see Silva at Chelsea but the left wing berth is not our priority. We need a creative midfielder and a young striker.
Having said that, I don’t honestly believe he’ll be there more than 2 years. Isn’t this the same guy who said he didn’t want to join City because he wanted Champions League football? I feel he’ll do a Robinho or Tevez and start making noises when City don’t top the league.
Haha, yeah, you would – his name was Shaun Wright-Phillips!! Although to be fair, he was only £21m.
@ ZM can i link this article on our site… i have been reading this site for awhile now without ever saying anything
There is actually a connection betweeen keeping clean sheets, and (usually) not losing after taking a lead. It emerges here that goals are not merely things to add up after 90 mins. Instead, they part these 90 mins into distances before and after they´re scored; thus essentially structuring time. In this line of thought, the first goal will often be the most important of the game.
Considering that we have a collection of very strong teams in the sample ZM gave us, one might hypothesize that they were able to control the time structure of the match. However, we cannot deduce at this point if this comes as an act of refitting their approach after scoring, or a success of the tactics they had been using from the start. But in the ongoing World Cup it seems clear that some teams do have a strategy to structure the time of their matches, most notably amongst them being the venomous brazilian snake and the spaniards with their ultra-defensive tiki-taka.
I see your point and it is very interesting.
Spain for instance could be a good candidate to analyze. I believe that since 2008 they are nearly unbeatable once they score their first goal (I think there’s two matches where the opponent scored first but as long as Spain put a ball into the net they win. More often than not they probably did score and won with a blank sheet though, Spain-Portugal might be a good illustration?).
However being French, I am fairly certain that the 98 winners were not really in control of the “scoring tempo” so to speak
Round of 16 -> Only goal at 118′, after a painful closed game
Quarter -> penalties
Semi -> Miraculous comeback thanks to the only two international goals of Thuram
Final -> Brazil in complete disarray. The second goal was “well timed” though, just before half-time, as it killed the game.
Don’t take this the wrong way, ZM, but I hope that you are wrong. I don’t want to see Brazil winning the cup one more time.
I think a lot of people are missing the point to this article.
ZM isn’t saying that if you keep a clean sheet, you’ll progress to the next round. Of course not, that’s absurd. The chances of winning 4 penalty shoot-outs in one competition are highly unlikely.
What ZM is saying is that the basis for most successful World Cup winning teams is a solid defence. Italy were not at all renowned for their attacking exploits in Germany 4 years ago yet they won the tournament. The same applies to France ‘98 and this current Brazil squad. The defences were/are so solid that the team simply has to score 1 and know that they’ll grind out the win; a point being justified by Spain’s current squad.
Even a lot of successful club managers build teams on unbelievably strong defences. Look at Mourinho at Porto, Chelsea and Inter. He proved that for all the fluid, flair football out there….a bank of 4 that is rarely breached will always improve your chances of winning matches and tournaments. Who would have honestly said last August that Inter would triumph over both Chelsea and Barcelona? Yet if you watch the 4 matches, their defence was air-tight. Then there’s Capello whose defensive Milan side triumphed over Barca all those years ago in the Champions League final.
A key point of interest is that Arsenal are known for their fluid attacking play which is arguably the best in the league. Yet they haven’t won a trophy in 5 years because they’ve had a weak defence for years which leaks cheap goals and is often caught out of position.
They say attack is the best form of defence but more often than not in football….building a team from the back is more effective.
It is right that defence is important. I want to remind of the Dutch team 1974. Before the final they had conceded just one goal. They kept a clean sheet in 5 games.
Strikers win games, defenders win championships.Rafa Benitez
This goes well with “guards win games, centers win championships”
Finally only Spain or Germany can win the world cup, ’cause Urus and Oranje not enough clean sheet already.
My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!