I Believe That We Will Lose! I Believe That We Will Lose!
- Thread starter DerHntr
- Start date
It's OK to not like a sport, but just don't be disingenuous and act like it's weird to have tie-breaking rules for advancement. My kids have played in some baseball/softball tourneys that would require an advanced math degree to determine who would advance...I do think that it is stupid to have head2head be anything other than the 1st tie breaker. As a wise man once said "People can find any reason to not like something that they don't want to like."...
I agree with you on that. I also hate the fact that you can tie. Have a winner or loser
It's like people can't figure out any system
Other than straight knockout. Are people really that dumb? Any round robin tournament operates the same way with tiebreaker situations. In fact it's probably easier to figure out World Cup group stage because all you have to do is count up points and goals scored. We advanced out of the group ahead of the #4 ranked team in the world. Be happy.
Other than straight knockout. Are people really that dumb? Any round robin tournament operates the same way with tiebreaker situations. In fact it's probably easier to figure out World Cup group stage because all you have to do is count up points and goals scored. We advanced out of the group ahead of the #4 ranked team in the world. Be happy.
It sucks having a system where you can easily figure out based on game scores and a list of tiebreakers. They should use several polls, strength of schedule (actually, let's not), and computers to determine who advances.
I think it's just so different from what people are used to. It's definitely easier than what we used for soccer tournaments when I was growing up (which was still pretty easy,just more arbitrary rules). I don't even remember how we did it in baseball because we didn't play as many round robin tournaments, but I'm pretty sure the first tie breaker after record was more complicated than run differential.
I still think 1st tiebreaker between 2 teams should be head to head. That part doesn't make sense.
Apparently, you quickly forgot the 'infamous' ...
Badmintongate from the 2012 London Summer Olympics where four teams were disqualified for ... trying to lose.
Fanswatching the women's doubles at Wembley Arena yesterday booed and jeered as twoKorean teams, a Chinese pair and an Indonesian couple tried to avoid winning inan apparent attempt to get a favourable draw in the next round.
That worked out well
Badmintongate from the 2012 London Summer Olympics where four teams were disqualified for ... trying to lose.
Fanswatching the women's doubles at Wembley Arena yesterday booed and jeered as twoKorean teams, a Chinese pair and an Indonesian couple tried to avoid winning inan apparent attempt to get a favourable draw in the next round.
That worked out well
If you let head-to-head be the first tiebreaker, you're essentially counting that game twice. So you're not really advancing the team that did the best over the entire group play as a whole. However, with the current system, it can come down to who beat the last place team worse and in some cases the last place team has already been eliminated when one team plays them. There's just not a perfect answer either way.
I don't really care about the entire group. If you are tied with only one other team - it should be head to head to see who is the better team.
I think the storyline was that we started 2 scrubs (1 shined) and another decent American substitute in place of an injured EPL player and only lost by 1 to Germany...... After playing in the most unplayable conditions at this year's World Cup.... After traveling 9000 miles... And after one day less rest than what is arguably the #1 team in the world.
A lot of positives to take away from today. Namely how good Howard, Johnson, Beckerman, Jones, and Dempsey are playing. Zero people in America thought Omar could do what he did today too.
... But I'm sure the people hell bent on hating soccer will look at the stat line and say something like "People are excited about a loss! There was only one goal!"
Well if they did that it would go -
usa vs Portugal who's is a tie (no advance)
we both beat Ghana 2-1 (no advance)
we both lose to Germany, but us by 3 less goals. (USA advance). So it essentially comes down to goal differential anyway.
I realize this wouldn't be every group.
usa vs Portugal who's is a tie (no advance)
we both beat Ghana 2-1 (no advance)
we both lose to Germany, but us by 3 less goals. (USA advance). So it essentially comes down to goal differential anyway.
I realize this wouldn't be every group.
The heartburn was that a team with equal points to a team that beat them should not advance(could have been Ghana). If all things are equal, as in US tied with Portugal, then the other tie breakers are fine...
It's all designed to promote scoring, and retain viewer interest in the games. Don't let anyone fool you with this talk of an equitable round robin tournament, or the teams that play the best over 270 minutes or whatever. Its all about TV ratings and maintaining interest and, of course, money.
"Back in the day", a 1-0 lead was pretty safe in World Cup play, and after a team scored they would just try to maintain their 1 goal lead. It sucked, and FIFA knew it. The tiebreak system gives teams an incentive to keep scoring. And it keeps more teams eligible for a longer period of time. If head to head had been the first tie breaker, then Ghana would have already been eliminated, and Portugal's only chance would have been to beat Ghana by at least 4 goals and hope the US lost. That doesn't generate fan interest. Under the current system, everyone still had a shot (although Portugal still needed to win by 4), so both games were still relevant.
I hope no one really thought that Germany was going to play for a draw. And I don't think many did. There were a lot of comments along the lines that if it was tied after 75 minutes both sides would probably settle into a very defensive posture and basically play for a draw, but there wasn't any real question that Germany was going for the win.
The same reason people are always sure to jump in a NBA thread....
....to remind them the NBA sucks and they hate it
....to remind them the NBA sucks and they hate it
Great reference.
But seriously. I thought we played great today, especially at our weakest links (minus Davis).
If Altidore is out Tuesday we need to start the Portugal lineup minus Zusi plus Mix up front opposite of Dempsey. Zusi is 1000% deserving to start in this World Cup, but Bedoya has been struggling with playing 90+ minutes and Beckerman is playing with a yellow. Zusi is a 2 way player who would be a VALUABLE 2nd half sub for either.
a few were convinced there was collusion. how many times did we hear about them being friends and how a draw was mutually beneficial as part of their rationalization? i guess it could have been a vocal minority that was the draw voice, but i dont care...its out there on the interweb for all to see, but i dont really care. i recall posting comments from klinsmann and being quickly dismissed as an idiot...which is fine for people to have that opinion of me.
human beings are funny creatures. they often believe things that make life convenient and invent new realities to fit their circumstances. my comment was more directed at that. i agree on all your points as the conditions werent exactly ideal. i thought the US did a fine job under the circumstances. soccer will get its hold in the US soon enough as long as we continue to improve the talent. this is my 3rd world cup that I have really been interested in and US soccer support is growing by leaps and bounds. if people in mississippi are talking (and arguing at times) about USMNT soccer, that illustrates the growth and potential.
Not any more. Now they're wiped out after the quarterfinals. The last thing we need to be concerned about is someone picking up a 2nd yellow in the round of 16 and having to miss the round of 8. If that happens, this World Cup will have been an incredible achievement for US soccer.
which makes those that stated that both were playing for a draw that much more unbelievable. it made zero sense for germany not to try and win it. their argument wasnt very informed. i could understand them being on the conservative side of personnel decisions, but that is not conceding a draw. it turns out, they didnt even do that starting muller, schweinstiger, ozil, podolski, etc. pretty much their most aggressive (offensive) starting lineup thus far in the world cup (considering schweinstiger has been coming in as a sub later in games) and starting muller days after he had a gash on his head requiring 5 stitches. those thinking that germany wanted to play for a draw were completely off base....i think you would agree with that. at the time, it just didnt make sense for them to not step on the gas.