The figures have become ingrained into my head during the tournament, with the numbers repeated time and time again to highlight both nation's respective achievements.

With a population of their size, Iceland's very participation in the FIFA World Cup is viewed as a miracle. Croatia's coach Zlatko Dalić has claimed it is also a miracle his country is in the final, regardless of the outcome today against 1998 winners France.

Of course, the two achievements are remarkable due to the smaller pool of people who could ultimately emerge as top level footballers. The chances are you might get one or two good players, but to achieve a squad capable of competing with bigger nations seems unlikely.

This made Iceland the perfect feel good story for Euro 2016 and now this year's World Cup, while Croatia became full time members of the "tournament dark horses" club.

Population is clearly important, but I do wonder just how important a factor it is to developing a top level national team.

Some statistics I saw earlier this week stated that Uruguay, Croatia and Serbia were the largest exporters of players per capita, while football superpowers Brazil were unsurprisingly the largest exporter in general. 

This did not really come as much of a surprise to me, with Uruguay's deep-rooted football culture and youth system repeatedly highlighted as the reason why the country, with a population of around three million, punches above its weight.

Similarly, the success Croatia's most successful club Dinamo Zagreb have had in developing young talent is well documented. Over half of the country's World Cup squad were developed by the club before going abroad.

Croatia's neighbours Serbia have the two Belgrade based clubs, Red Star and Partizan, who have largely been responsible for producing players for the national team.

While Croatia have enjoyed success in reaching the FIFA World Cup final, Serbia were crowned under-20 world champions in 2015.

Croatian and Serbian team sport achievements have not only been restricted to football. For instance, both nations have been dominant forces in water polo, while Serbia have been silver medallists in basketball at recent Olympics and World Cups.

One wonders whether these countries benefit from having well-trodden paths in front of them? If top youngsters and coaches are all gravitating towards a central point, it makes sense that the higher concentration of quality would ultimately deliver top players.

Flipping this on its head, are the likes of China, Russia and the United States suffering by having less established structures when it comes to football, despite their obvious advantage of having dramatically bigger populations?

Given the vastness of these countries, it would make sense that top young players could slip through the cracks or find themselves training with poorer team-mates and coaches.

With a football culture only really starting to emerge in China and the US in recent years, could the lack of a clear route for young players be a hurdle that needs to be overcome?

Take North America's Major League Soccer for example, where the clubs are essentially start-up businesses. While they might in time provide the right conditions, coaches and competitions to develop players capable of delivering World Cup success to the US, they would appear to be a long way behind some of the established systems of smaller nations.

It seems likely that in time the likes of China and the US will really emerge as key players in international football, when improved youth development and population inevitably delivers, as it does in the likes of Germany.

Perhaps, rather than somewhat patronisingly pointing to the population of nations like Croatia, we should consider that there is more to success then just the number of people you have.

-----

Just as the World Cup is coming to an end today, so too is Wimbledon. Well, just as long as the men's singles final does not produce an extremely long final set…

The discussion over whether Wimbledon should introduce a fifth set tiebreak has re-emerged this week following the marathon semi-final between American John Isner and Kevin Anderson of South Africa.

Their match took six hours and 35 minutes and ultimately saw Anderson secure a 7-6, 6-7, 6-7, 6-4, 4-6, 26-24 victory.

Anderson stated afterwards that he hoped Grand Slams would change, given the physical strain the match placed upon him, which left him even more of an underdog for the final against Novak Djokovic.

There was also criticism for organisers with the match ultimately forcing Djokovic and Rafael Nadal's semi-final across two days. Thia had the knock-on effect of pushing back the women's singles final.

Comparisons were drawn to the 2010 match between Isner and France's Nicholas Mahut, which ended 6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 70-68, spread over three days of play.

BBC Sport commentator and three-time Wimbledon champion John McEnroe claimed after that match that it was the "greatest advertisement we've ever had for our sport", but stated the rules should have been changed following the tie.

There is a certainly a case for changing the rules, whether to protect players or to ensure that tournament schedules cannot be as heavily impacted in future.

I would suggest there is a good argument for introducing a tie-break in the final set should it reach a certain point, perhaps say 10-10.

However, I would have the exception that a tie-break would not be held in the fifth set of the final. Schedules are unlikely to be impacted and the sport could enjoy the attention garnered by an epic confrontation for the title, such as the match between Roger Federer and Andy Roddick in 2009.

Another possible suggestion, perhaps a controversial one, surrounds the topic of women's singles matches being held over a best of five sets at Grand Slams.

While I would not go the full distance and introduce five sets across the whole tournament, I think there is a case for introducing it for the women's singles semi-finals and final.

The argument for doing so would not be one surrounding pay or gender equality, it would be for the benefit of the paying fans and I would argue the players themselves.

Women's singles players seem in a precarious position, as if they lose the opening set they are immediately on the brink of defeat in the final. In contrast men's players have an opportunity to work their way back into the game.

Given the pressure and tension of a Grand Slam final, the chance of a player's nerves seeing them make early mistakes and lose the opening set as a result seem quite likely in my view. The opportunity to play at least three sets would provide a safety net, which could allow a player to settle into the occasion.

After all, only five of the last 20 women's singles finals at Wimbledon have not been decided in straight sets. It is similar at the other three Grand Slams, with three at the US Open, six at the French Open and a high of nine at the Australian Open.

In some cases, like yesterday's final won by Angelique Kerber against Serena Williams, a potentially classic contest can often come to an end just as you feel it is coming to the boil.

In the interest of fans, both those paying large sums to watch the final and those watching on television, I am sure there are many in favour of watching extended women's matches at the latter stages of tournaments.