World Cup 2010 - discussions & random thoughts

Remove all ads!

Faith has a cruel touch. When a dream it is within your grasp, it gets taken away.

If it is New Zealand instead of Italy, no-one will complain.

BTW I have two weeks off now, so I can see all the third poule matches and the second round. (Just as I did today)

 

That kind of scoreline is quite common in world cups, it's actualy unusual how close the games have been so far. You don't have the 32 best teams in the world, there's a set amount from each region. And as some regions are weak there's always a few minnows who make their way through. Asia and the third North American team are typical culprits. It wouldn't be a 'world' cup without them though.

I've just read what the effect of Keita getting Kaka sent off at the very end of their match will be. Kaka will miss the game against Portugal, which Ivory Coast will need Brazil to win.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 15 seconds later... ----------

It's to encourage attacking play. You're better off winning one match and losing the other than drawing two. It makes sense because with the low scoring in football it's easy to set out to get a draw by playing defensively. A basketball team could hardly expect to hold the other team scoreless.

 

In almost every game I can think of, a win is worth 3 and a tie is worth 1. I can't think of any tournament where a tie is worth 2.

 

Yes, that seems to be a common refrain - it was also the explanation given for why head-to-head is not the first tie breaker.

(Although to be honest, the explanation works better for wins being worth more than two ties than it is for why total goals is the tie breaker in the case of identical records in the group stage. At least by giving three points for a win, you eliminate the possibility of two of the top three teams with non-identical records finishing in a points tie (which would be possible if wins were worth two).

I still don't understand why head-to-head isn't the first tie breaker. If two teams have identical records, and you're trying to determine which team is more worth to advance, why wouldn't head-to-head be the most logical metric to determine the better team? Goals is an adequate second tie breaker if the head-to-head ended in a draw.)

I know this is going ot sound like a dumb question, but if it is so easy to play defensively, that seems like something that can be exploited badly past the group stage. It would seem like if you know you don't have one of the best teams, it would be smart to build a team where you had some shootout specialists. The cheesy tactic would be to deliberately play for a nil-nil draw, and count on winning the shootout.

 

Yes - Aldeth - hence why knockout games of soccer can often be very boring, giving weight to all the criticisms that you Americans level at the sport. There's nothing worse than a tedious defensive 0-0 semi final going to extra time and penalties.

 

Some do, but the snag is that you have to remain lucky for 120 minutes if you want to reach that stage. One error, and if you are to weak to compete it stays 1-0.

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 43 seconds later... ----------

Stupid ball. it really is to blame for all those shots high over the goal.

Why do they have to create a newer type of ball for every tournament. Just repaint a good ball for merchandise. The champions league ball is perfect.

Penalties during regular time are great. The players congratulate each other, and miss.....

 

They do. If you watch a game between sides where one is much stronger than the other than you'll probably see the strong side attacking the whole time whilst the other team has 10 men camped in their box trying to defend. It's not pretty but it's their best hope.

I'm probably making it sound easier than it is. You're generally best off being the one doing the attacking for obvious reasons (though some strong teams such as Italy do favour a defensive style). If a defensive team does concede a goal at any stage then they're in real trouble. It's relatively a better tactic for weak teams.

In your example, is beating Team B really any better than beating Team A? Team A was probably the top seed. Deciding between teams who finish level is always going to be arbitrary. Goal difference is the most common but other countries use different systems. The Spanish and Italian leagues use head to head (Italy used to use playoffs until four years ago).

 

I heard that the North Korea - Portugal game was the first ever football match broadcasted live in NK. I wonder what the ramifications are going to be for the players. I heard that one of the previous WC teams were detained for their performance and knowing Kim Il-Sungs rule that deals with "subversive elements": detainment of close family members, I predict the worst for the current NK team and their family members

 

I knew I missed something. What would you think if Team C beat Team B because the ref made a terrible call in the second minute sending off one of B's players and giving C a penalty? One single head to head can hinge on one stroke of luck, at least goal difference spreads it over the three matches.

 

Actually, no... :s I don't watch Premier League or Champions League, so I only get to see him when he's playing for IC. I heard there was some fuss about Didier Drogba, but I never knew why and I didn't care that much. Other than Drogba and Keita, are there more African players that sneaky? Sneakier than Southern Europe or South America?

 

Go the All Whites!

 

Hmmm. I missed the possibility of one team winning all three of its matches and everyone else having draws. However it is odd that evidently 5 points is as good as 6. I did the possible permutations with a team finishing 1-0-2, and saw that there was no way two other teams could get to 6. So I figured that the only way you could get to 5 and not advance would be if there were two teams that got to 5 (which is also possible).

That's why I said 5 was the magic number. I didn't do the possible permutations with 6 points, because I incorrectly assumed that if 5 points meant you could only lose in a tie breaker, then certainly 6 points would allow you to advance!

Yeah, that's a problem IMO. And it can even happen in the group stage. If you look at the Group C that the US is in (sorry, but that's the only one I'm following closely enough that I know all the possibilities entering Wednesday's games), there is a case in point.

Slovenia has 4 points, with the US and England each having two. Slovenia plays England and the US plays Algeria. Slovenia had little hope of getting out of the group stage, but it seems like it is in their best interest to play a very defensive game and settle for a 0-0 tie with England. In such a case, even if the US won their match with Algeria, Slovenia could finish no worse than second in the group (and possibly first if the US wins by a 1-0 score to Algeria). It seems odd that it may be much less risky for Slovenia to play for a tie rather than trying to win.

(Of course, in such a case, England would fail to advance beyond the group stage - something that would have been considered unthinkable a week ago.)

I'd say it was a tough break - but I'd feel that way regardless of what the tie breaker ramifications would be. My point is simple - IMO, in the case of a tie, the three games taken as a whole have failed to produce a clear winner. In such a scenario, I feel that the head-to-head game IS the next most important factor. You can always come up with permutations of how and where it wouldn't be ideal.

How would you feel if Team A was a lot better than Team B, so Team B played ultra-defensively and ended up losing 1-0. Then, when Team B plays Team C, Team B thinks they can win, so they don't play as defensively, but end up losing 3-1. Then in the tie breaker, Team C gets to advance. Team A got "unlucky" in that Team B erroneously thought they could beat Team C and ended up allowing more goals.

Or take the ridiculous Portugal-North Korea matchup yesterday, where Portugal won 7-0. Everyone is going to beat North Korea, so the three points you earn in that game don't mean much on their own, but Portugal pretty much guaranteed that they hold all the tie breakers with that one single win.

 

Come onnnnn, South Africa!!!

With Uruguay leading with 1-0 against Mexico, you can make it if you score some more!

*BuzzzZZZzzzZZZzz*

 

2:1 now. Damn.


Good luck tomorrow, Slovenia! (Zmajčiki )

 

Here's a question which I'm sure someone will be able to answer. Yoann Gourcuff was sent off with a red card in today's match. Since France was eliminated does his one game suspension carryforward to anything else or does it just disappear?

 

Pretty sure it carries over into the next qualification whether it is the next EC qualifiers or the next WC qualifiers I cant say. I know that players have entered the World Cup with bans that had to be served.

 

Man - how useless have France been?

 

It carries into the team's next official match.

From FIFA's Disciplinary Code 2009:

(official match being one that FIFA arranges and the score of which is counted against something - not a friendly, for example)

 

Totally useless. The time for reckoning has come, some people are going to be very sorry, mark my words.

In any case a bunch of shameless *******s don't make a team especially when you consider we had a sorry excuse for a coach.

I'm glad it's over.

I hope Brazil is going to win. They are very regular in their games and have some very good players.