You know soccer is growing in US popularity when even Teddy Roosevelt is getting in on the action.
[Soccer] World Cup 2014
- Thread starter bhamv3
- Start date
OK - so which of you smart guys out there wants to tell me how FIFA's tiebreaker system works?
Somehow - if USA loses & Ghana wins (thus both having 4 points), Ghana can get through on goal differential even though the US beat them in the head-to-head matchup.
How does that make any sense?
Somehow - if USA loses & Ghana wins (thus both having 4 points), Ghana can get through on goal differential even though the US beat them in the head-to-head matchup.
How does that make any sense?
I understand that's the way the rules are set - but how does that make any sense? I believe FIFA is the only one who does it this way.
If it comes down to me & you are tied, and I beat you the only time we played each other, how can anything else possibly come into play?
I guess I should expect nothing better from an organization that will have 2-game playoffs with something like "Goals scored on the road" as a tiebreaker
If it comes down to me & you are tied, and I beat you the only time we played each other, how can anything else possibly come into play?
I guess I should expect nothing better from an organization that will have 2-game playoffs with something like "Goals scored on the road" as a tiebreaker
Suppose you, me, and a third party (let's call him Joe) form a three-team mini-league, and we each play each other once.
For the first game, I beat you 1-0.
Then, for the next two games, Joe beats me 2-0, while you beat Joe 5-0.
Who's the best team and who's the worst team in this mini-league?
Possibly to encourage attacking football, yes you can sit back & defend that one goal lead but if you keep attacking and win by three or four then that can drastically help your chances of qualifying. And considering the occasional dull as dishwater periods football goes through where teams think defence is all is that really such a bad idea?
At this point - you have a 3-way tie where A>B, B>C & C>A. THIS is what things like differential & total goals scored are for. But when there are two teams involved in the tie, there is no excuse to not use H2H result as the first tie breaker.
The ONLY reasoning, as mroosc said above, is to discourage slow play - in order to make what many already consider a "boring" sport even more so. But at the expense of the team who "earned" the advantage of being able to "slow play" by winning the H2H matchup.
Of course, the obvious answer is - don't lose. Easier said than done.
I guess I'm deeply amused at the relative success that the USMNT is having. Why? Because most Americans don't give a shit about them or the World Cup. The National Teams from Ghana and Portugal? Those guys are stars in their home countries the same way that NASCAR drivers are in most of the southern United States. And our team is competing against these teams and having a very solid chance of advancing or eliminating others, without the country as a whole giving a fuck about it. I think that's really funny. "We'll crush your nation's football hopes and dreams, just as kind of a goof." You'd think, with as much love of soccer as the USA shows by and large, that our national team would be terrible. And that would be kind of appropriate, and a nice counterpoint to our generally arrogant world presence. "Yeah, you Americans have fucked up half the world over the last century, but at least you suck at football!" I mean, the UK loves football. They're passionate about it, they have leagues and dozens of professional teams and pubs dedicated to those teams, with songs and chants and assault charges to show their passion for their team. And they're already out. And the US Men's National Team is ready to advance. And that makes me smile.
Here's the thing though, advancement from the group stage is based on your performance overall in the group. When two teams are tied on points, they don't want to just look at how they did against each other, they also want to look at how they did overall.
Suppose in a four-team group, Team A beat Team B 1-0. Team A then loses its next two matches 10-0.
Team B, after losing that first match against Team A, wins its next match 5-0, then narrowly loses its third match 3-2.
The two teams are now equal on 3 points. Based on head-to-head results, it would appear that Team A is better than Team B. But based on overall results in the group, Team B performed better than Team A.
Except, you know, for that one time when Team A actually played & beat Team B.
In this scenario, not paying attention to anything else, both teams are 1-1-1 with 4 points. Things like differential & goals scored can't take into account things like the fact that Germany got to play a half a game up a man. Or that the US had to play Portugal in the jungle of Manaus, while Ghana will get them in Brasilia. Meanwhile what we DO know is that the one time that both teams played against one another, in the same stadium under the same conditions, the US beat Ghana.
Obviously FIFA wants to encourage attacking. But why even bother with worrying about who wins each game? Why not just keep ranking based to total goals scored. Just go out there & score as many goals as you can. No defense. Just play kickball back and forth & take target practice - just like the old days of indoor soccer.
Maybe Team A had a guy out injured, who only returned in the second and third games. Maybe Team A just tend to start slowly at tournaments. Maybe Team B's tactics are particularly effective against Team A, but aren't as useful against other teams.
My point is, the idea behind using goal difference and goals scored is that you can then look at the overall performance in the group or league.
Yes - your points all seem to lean toward the "what if" games.
What if -
Team B's best player got a red card in game 1 & couldn't play game 2 vs Team A?
Team A is better suited against the 4-3-3 that team C plays than the 4-4-2 of team B?
The referee gives a controversial PK to team B against team C that results in a goal?
You hear phrases in sports. A common one starts with "On paper,..." On paper, Spain is one of the top teams in the world & should have no problem advancing past the group stage. There's a followup to this phrase. "That's why the games aren't played on paper". If we played your "What if/Maybe" game - then why play the games at all since we should know how they'll turn out right?
The only way FIFAs tiebreaker system makes sense if that it artificially promotes exciting play by giving Team B a second chance.
What if -
Team B's best player got a red card in game 1 & couldn't play game 2 vs Team A?
Team A is better suited against the 4-3-3 that team C plays than the 4-4-2 of team B?
The referee gives a controversial PK to team B against team C that results in a goal?
You hear phrases in sports. A common one starts with "On paper,..." On paper, Spain is one of the top teams in the world & should have no problem advancing past the group stage. There's a followup to this phrase. "That's why the games aren't played on paper". If we played your "What if/Maybe" game - then why play the games at all since we should know how they'll turn out right?
The only way FIFAs tiebreaker system makes sense if that it artificially promotes exciting play by giving Team B a second chance.
Hmm, I feel like I'm not articulating my point very well.
Okay, let me phrase it this way: The current FIFA system gives a bigger sample size of events and accomplishments, to produce a more accurate gauge of which team is better. So yes, there may be situations that happen in individual games (injuries, bans, tactical quirks), but the idea is that over the course of three games, or more if you're playing in a league, these issue will be mitigated, and the bumps in the statistics will be smoothed out.
So, for example, Team A may fluke a win over Team B, but it's less likely Team A will be able to fluke three straight wins.
Okay, let me phrase it this way: The current FIFA system gives a bigger sample size of events and accomplishments, to produce a more accurate gauge of which team is better. So yes, there may be situations that happen in individual games (injuries, bans, tactical quirks), but the idea is that over the course of three games, or more if you're playing in a league, these issue will be mitigated, and the bumps in the statistics will be smoothed out.
So, for example, Team A may fluke a win over Team B, but it's less likely Team A will be able to fluke three straight wins.
Obviously we disagree here bhamv. 
I get the point you're making. But if they want to use a bigger sample size, then get a bigger sample size. The WC format allows for 3 group games. Flukes happen, but in a 3 game format you can't just wash it away as a fluke. All teams come in with the same 3 chances to prove themselves, and if you take a loss, fluke or not, you shouldn't be given 2nd chances to wash it away. Club seasons are designed to give a large enough sample size with more teams & more games to balance out. 3 games over 12 days does not.
I get the point you're making. But if they want to use a bigger sample size, then get a bigger sample size. The WC format allows for 3 group games. Flukes happen, but in a 3 game format you can't just wash it away as a fluke. All teams come in with the same 3 chances to prove themselves, and if you take a loss, fluke or not, you shouldn't be given 2nd chances to wash it away. Club seasons are designed to give a large enough sample size with more teams & more games to balance out. 3 games over 12 days does not.
Eh, oh well.
On a completely unrelated note, there's a really hot girl I know who's taunting me mercilessly, because she's from Ecuador and they're doing pretty well this World Cup, while my team England are out. She's never forgiven me for all the gloating I did when England beat Ecuador in the 2006 World Cup.
But she's hot, so it's all okay.
On a completely unrelated note, there's a really hot girl I know who's taunting me mercilessly, because she's from Ecuador and they're doing pretty well this World Cup, while my team England are out. She's never forgiven me for all the gloating I did when England beat Ecuador in the 2006 World Cup.
But she's hot, so it's all okay.
Well, this girl's from my university days. In the year below me, but we took a few classes together. Being from Ecuador, she speaks English with a strong South American accent.
Now, have you guys ever noticed a phenomenon where when you're talking to someone with an accent, you start to subconsciously mimic their pronunciations? That's what happened whenever she talked to me. I'd start responding in a heavy Latin accent, and she'd assume I'm making fun of her, and she'd kick me in the shins.
Now, these South Americans, they take their soccer seriously. They start playing it at a very young age. A lot of them can kick a ball really hard and really far from their pre-teens onwards. My point is that, when this girl kicked me in the shins, it hurt. A lot.
Anyway, we haven't seen each other since graduation, but right now I'm getting quite a few Facebook messages along the lines of "Ha ha, bye bye England!"
Now, have you guys ever noticed a phenomenon where when you're talking to someone with an accent, you start to subconsciously mimic their pronunciations? That's what happened whenever she talked to me. I'd start responding in a heavy Latin accent, and she'd assume I'm making fun of her, and she'd kick me in the shins.
Now, these South Americans, they take their soccer seriously. They start playing it at a very young age. A lot of them can kick a ball really hard and really far from their pre-teens onwards. My point is that, when this girl kicked me in the shins, it hurt. A lot.
Anyway, we haven't seen each other since graduation, but right now I'm getting quite a few Facebook messages along the lines of "Ha ha, bye bye England!"
An embarrassment of a game between Uruguay/Italy.
Italy... like idiots they ARE... played for the tie. Why? Because Italy is Italy.
Red card for a bad tackle... harsh but whatever... however a player gets BITTEN and no officials saw that? Even in this day and age... with all the technology where EVERYONE not wearing a zebra shirt can see this but THEY can't? Time to change how Refs work. Should have been a Red card.
Italy got jobbed but they didn't deserve to move on.
Italy... like idiots they ARE... played for the tie. Why? Because Italy is Italy.
Red card for a bad tackle... harsh but whatever... however a player gets BITTEN and no officials saw that? Even in this day and age... with all the technology where EVERYONE not wearing a zebra shirt can see this but THEY can't? Time to change how Refs work. Should have been a Red card.
Italy got jobbed but they didn't deserve to move on.
B
BErt
*closes eyes*
*holds breath*
*holds breath*
B
BErt
*opens eyes*
*breathes*
WOOOOOOOOOOOOO
*dies anyway*
*breathes*
WOOOOOOOOOOOOO
*dies anyway*
country.