That second part was referring to the small sample size of an international tournament. I mean that from the perspective of—the sample size in baseball matters because of things like Pythagorean expectation, regression to the mean, etc. over multiple 162 game season and with such a heavily individualized, compartmentalized game (ie. one guy, one pitcher—either you hit the ball or you don't), it's a game where it's important not overreact in the moment.
but in a world cup—there IS no mean. you get ONE shot at winning the thing because in four years, the teams are completely different, you may not even be there, etc. so really, the only thing that's going to tell us if the tactics work or not is if we get the results or not. it doesn't matter if we're unlucky, it doesn't matter if we're outplayed. what matters is if we win or not and every decision you make has to be based around winning now.
and that's why Greece 2004 is considered a work of tactical genius while every other team that has parked the bus at international tournaments since then (and failed) has been derided. are the tactics, or even the level of players, any different? no. it just means that Greece had a, say, one in 250 chance of executing that game plan perfectly (their odds of winning the tournament) six games in a row and they did so. and that's how we'll judge them—not by the fact that they were "outplayed" in every single match or had practically no possession, but the fact that they won the damn thing.
