world cup thread

[Vandiablo]

Whaaaat??? Dutch and Danes are different people??

Dutch is when you get 'her' to pay for 'her' own Danish.

And when USA scored, it was because the ball had some English. There could not have been a better example of a ball with English.

'tho I've only heard "English" applied to ping pong...

[--Pete]

Hi,

'tho I've only heard "English" applied to ping pong...

And pool.

--Pete

[Taelas]

I didn't watch the Dutch-Danish match, but apparently it was a disgrace on our part. A self-inflicted goal and a fumble ended the match two-nil to the Dutch.

We shall have to take our revenge in a rematch.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

@kylerean
Do you believe a bit more in germany now?

Not yet - yeah we won, but only against...Australia. Sorry to any Aussies here, but it's not that hard to win against Australia, and we should have made at least three more goals.

It gets interesting when we play Serbia, who will play against the ball much better most probably. We won't be able to let the ball circulate so easily in our own ranks against better teams like we did against Australia...

Was surprised how hard a time the Dutch offensive had against the Danes. And I'm glad Italy only played 1-1, boy is their team old...they don't deserve to win much!

-Kylearan

[eppie]

Hi,

@kylerean
Do you believe a bit more in germany now?

Not yet - yeah we won, but only against...Australia. Sorry to any Aussies here, but it's not that hard to win against Australia, and we should have made at least three more goals.

It gets interesting when we play Serbia, who will play against the ball much better most probably. We won't be able to let the ball circulate so easily in our own ranks against better teams like we did against Australia...

Was surprised how hard a time the Dutch offensive had against the Danes. And I'm glad Italy only played 1-1, boy is their team old...they don't deserve to win much!

-Kylearan

Serbia is not going to be a real problem for Germany and nor is Ghana. You have had luck with the draw (unlike the Brazil, Portugal, Ivory Coast, North Korea group) even though a tough group is no problem if you just pass....which Germany always does (so does Holland by the way....in 2006 we were with Argentina, Ivory Coast and Serbia (if I'm correct) and 2 years ago with Italy, France and Romania......and the group stage was no problem.....things went wrong after taht

About the Dutch; I am just happy we got 3 points even though we didn't play very good.
Let's see what Spain does today but for now teams like France and Italy just dissappointed, Argentina, Brazil and Portugal were not as strong as I expected. Germany made the best impression so far.
(really funny to hear how players from other teams say that Germany plays so good because Ballack isn't playing.....I would love to see the look on his face)

[Jester]

You have had luck with the draw (unlike the Brazil, Portugal, Ivory Coast, North Korea group)

I'm not sure I understand this, although I've heard it from others - they got the "group of death". But how can a group that includes the 2nd lowest ranked team (North Korea) be a hard draw? Brazil going 2-1 vs. NK was humiliating, but the result was never in question. So there's 3 decent teams competing for 2 places, I guess, but surely that's not so bad?

-Jester

[Kylearan]

Hi,

I'm not sure I understand this, although I've heard it from others - they got the "group of death". But how can a group that includes the 2nd lowest ranked team (North Korea) be a hard draw? Brazil going 2-1 vs. NK was humiliating, but the result was never in question. So there's 3 decent teams competing for 2 places, I guess, but surely that's not so bad?

3 decent teams competing for 2 places is worse than only 2 or even 1 team "competing" for 2 places, like in most other groups. Eppie is right: We Germans play in the same group as Australia, Ghana and Serbia - all teams that are considerably weaker than Portugal and the Ivory Coast Brazil has to compete with. Spain has Honduras, Chile and Switzerland in their group - again, a lot easier.

Personally, I think Portugal is overrated even though they have the world's currently best player in their ranks, and I don't know if the Ivory Coast can really be considered to be a secret contender for the championship. But they are stronger than the teams Argentina, England, Germany etc. have to compete with.

-Kylearan

[Kevin]

Personally, I think Portugal is overrated even though they have the world's currently best player in their ranks, and I don't know if the Ivory Coast can really be considered to be a secret contender for the championship. But they are stronger than the teams Argentina, England, Germany etc. have to compete with.

So I don't really follow the sport closely (I don't follow most sports closely) but I do understand the game, I played a few years, and I've even coached a youth team (that was 0-4 when I took over and finished 7-4 I was proud of that).

So I went to the FIFA ranking page to get rankings but then realized that using the points they use might be a better indicator as there didn't seem to be a huge difference between team #16 and team #32 (a 99 point spread, and another 90+ point spread between #9 and #15) . Trying to pick the strongest group became interesting.

I've got the average numeric ranking and the average point rankings for each group.

Code:

A              31.25   807.5        E                26  891.75
France             9    1044        Netherlands       4    1231
Uruguay           16     899        Cameroon         19     887
Mexico            17     895        Denmark          36     767
South Africa      83     392        Japan            45     682

B                 22  888.75        F                37  797.75
Argentina          7    1076        Italy             5    1184
Greece            13     964        Paraguay         31     820
Nigeria           21     883        Slovakia         34     777
South Korea       47     632        New Zealand      78     410

C              19.25   926.5        G                34 1000.25
England            8    1068        Brazil            1    1611
United State      14     957        Portugal          3    1249
Slovenia          25     860        Ivory Coast      27     856
Algeria           30     821        North Korea     105     285

D              18.25  928.75        H              20.5 1013.25
Germany            6    1082        Spain             2    1565
Serbia            15     947        Chile            18     888
Australia         20     886        Switzerland      24     866
Ghana             32     800        Honduras         38     734

You can look at the average difference in teams (where Group C has the least variation) or you can look at power.

Based on those rankings it comes down to thresholds. If say you need to be at least an 875 rating to be considered a true threat to advance and at least an 800 to be a dark horse then you can clearly see some groups with 2 and some with 3 contenders. But if you can believe the numbers, Group G while very top heavy doesn't look at tough.

The "Group of Death" has Brazil and Portugal (even if over rated by a lot) actually looking like they have a clear path as they both have 2 other teams they should clearly beat, unless the Ivory Coast pulls off a huge upset.

But if you look at Group A with France, and then Uraguay and Mexico are basically the same team based on rankings. So you have 3 teams there that all look like it wouldn't be a surprise if they beat each other and you add in the host team (and based on the history of the event being the host does seem to be a legit bump) and that group starts to look hard to get one of those 2 spots. I think it would be considered an upset if Uraguay beat France, but not a huge upset.

The mention of Germany and England being in "easy" groups seems interesting as well as they are in the two best "top to bottom" groups. Now the Netherlands and Italy? They got easy groups, they are both in groups where the bottom team is quite weak and in the case of Italy, the #2 and #3 teams are worse than pretty much every team in the groups that England and Germany got. Based on differences in rating, England is the weakest favorite, being only 111 points better than the #2 team in their bracket, though if you consider being the favorite based on advancing they are 208 points better than the third team in their pool, based on that France is the weakest favorite, followed by Argentina, Germany, then England.

Match-ups play a part as well, but I don't have the knowledge to look at that. If this were American football I have the knowledge to say that a weak team like Detroit might have a legit chance vs a strong team like Green Bay because they have upgraded their receiving ability in the middle of the field where Green Bay is weakest at coverage and their new running back can potentially exploit the problems GB has in outside containment. Detroits new defensive line should be able to get some pass run on the GB quarterback and slow down the middle of the field running game that GB prefers. That being said, the extreme weakness in the secondary of Detroit will be easily exploited by the GB receivers, but I wouldn't be surprised by a close game even though GB might be a 12-4 team and Detroit a 4-12 team next year. I can't do that kind of analysis for World Cup teams.

But based on the rankings and if you are looking at chance to advance out of the group stage, Italy and Netherlands should be really excited at their easy draws. Spain looks like they won't have a lot of issues, and as I mentioned it would take a major upset to stop both Brazil and Portugal.

England, Germany, and Argentina look to be in the realm of only minor upsets stopping them. France has 2 other strong mid tier teams to contend with and either of them beating France is not out of the question. I would say based on the rankings, France has the toughest road to advancing to the next round, but England and Germany are in pools were the bottom team beating the top team would be the least shocking.

So my outsider view is opposite.

Now if you want to talk about the chances for the "2nd best" team in each group advancing or one of the non favorites then that changes. The "#3" with the best chance would certainly not be Ivory Coast, having Brazil and Portugal in that group really is brutal. Based on rankings I'm very curious as to how Group A will shake out. That looks like quite the potential 3 way battle there.

[--Pete]

Hi,

So I don't really follow the sport closely (I don't follow most sports closely) . . .

I don't really follow sports at all.

. . . but I do understand the game, . . .

I don't. Two teams, one goalie and ten players each, no hands. That's about all I know about it.

. . . I played a few years, . . .

When I first got to Boeing, there were some twenty-somethings I was working with. After I beat them at racket ball a few times, they invited me to join their soccer team. I asked them how long it took to get good at soccer. They said ten years. I asked them how many good fifty year old soccer players they knew (I was 40 at the time). They said none. I said screw it. And that's the full chapter on my soccer career in my autobiography.

--Pete

[Taelas]

I have no idea how long it takes to get good at football, but ten years... I doubt that.

If you look at how long it takes to get good at basketball, I'd say it's probably in the same range. Most of the basic rules are similar, I think. Of course the field is much larger, and you have twice the players plus a goalkeeper, but other than that...

Then again, I know nothing about the rules of basketball, really (despite having played it in the vast majority of recess periods from age 12 to 15).

[NuurAbSaal]

I have no idea how long it takes to get good at football, but ten years... I doubt that.

If you look at how long it takes to get good at basketball, I'd say it's probably in the same range. Most of the basic rules are similar, I think. Of course the field is much larger, and you have twice the players plus a goalkeeper, but other than that...

Then again, I know nothing about the rules of basketball, really (despite having played it in the vast majority of recess periods from age 12 to 15).

Well, it of course depends on how much time/effort you can or are willing to put into learning your sport of choice. Your age certainly also plays a role.

If you have a natural talent for, say, basketball, two years of training with a good coach in a good team can get you to a level much higher than any hobby player, obviously. If all you do is shoot some hoops with friends every other week, you'll become better no doubt, but you'll be stuck at the hobby level forever I imagine.

I played a lot of streetball (as it's called here, mostly 2vs2 or 3vs3 on one hoop) with a good buddy at age 19-22. During summer break we got to 30 or more hours time played per week, depending on the weather. And while we improved our personal and cooperative skills by a lot, the "pros", meaning guys who actively played in clubs in the oh-so-weak Austrian Basketball league, would still trash us 1vs1.

Now (with my bias against football ), I'd say basketball is harder to master than football. I've also known people that are well past 40 who are still great players, if you don't rush them around the field for 90 minutes.

And, getting to the point: I'm rather certain you can be good enough for a company team in less than two years, at age 40.

take care
Tarabulus

Afterthought: If by "good" you mean "good enough for the best league in the world", 10 years might be about right, if you start at an early age.

[Kevin]

So as I've mentioned I'm not the greatest at understanding this sport.

I've watched a few matches (US - UK, Japan - Cameroon (2nd half), Greece - Nigeria, South Africa - Uraguay, and US - Solvenia). I've been enjoying the multi-ball format. I've not really seen much officiating controversy, until today.

The none call early when Donovan elbowed I forget who on Slovenia, and then the phantom foul on the corner kick at the end that took away the goal, were both just bizarre to me. I'm wondering if I just missed something on either of those. I know the ESPN announcers, especially Alexi Lalas, were ripping on the ref most of the game, but I know Lalas is a homer so I could ignore him.

I'm not about to say that the call cost the US the game. The horrible execution in the first half cost the US the game. They screwed up defensively both times, and they had some good chances offensively that they just didn't do anything with. Had they played the way they could the whole game I'm thinking it would have been a 3 or 4 to 1 drubbing, but they got a 2-2 draw, which is how they played.

It's also interesting that it's basically a "win and your in" scenario for everyone but Alergia in Group C as they would need England to lose or draw, or if England wins, they would want it to be a big win to help them with the goal differential. The other 3 teams will move on with a win though. I understand that pool play can often end up like that with the last round of games, and having several ties just makes that even more likely.

Ah well just some thoughts and a question, as the officiating in that US-Slovenia match did seem pretty poor.

[Taem]

The call did cost US the game! It was just bad officiating for both the calls, but the foul was the worst offense when the guys supposedly committing the foul was not touching anybody! I'm wondering if these refs are paid off or their families held hostage to make this none-call and bogus call like they did. Everyone makes mistakes, but that was just... disappointing. Oh well.

[kandrathe]

The call did cost US the game! It was just bad officiating for both the calls, but the foul was the worst offense when the guys supposedly committing the foul was not touching anybody! I'm wondering if these refs are paid off or their families held hostage to make this none-call and bogus call like they did. Everyone makes mistakes, but that was just... disappointing. Oh well.

I'm with GG. I don't understand it. And... What's with arresting those Dutch girls for wearing orange mini-skirts? Is that some kind of gangsta colors thing?

[Taelas]

The referee is judge, jury and executioner on the field. He can't watch everything, however, so he uses his judgement. If he makes a bad call, such as believing a foul where none was committed, it's just poor luck for the offending team. Arguing with the ref is a fast-track to a red card.

If we included things like video replays, the game would grind to a screeching halt every time a ref has to make a call. Better to keep the game rolling and suffer the occasional mistake.

[Kevin]

The referee is judge, jury and executioner on the field. He can't watch everything, however, so he uses his judgement. If he makes a bad call, such as believing a foul where none was committed, it's just poor luck for the offending team. Arguing with the ref is a fast-track to a red card.

If we included things like video replays, the game would grind to a screeching halt every time a ref has to make a call. Better to keep the game rolling and suffer the occasional mistake.

I'm not disagreeing with the ref's power. I just wanted to know from someone who watches the sport more if the officiating in that game really was as bad as I thought it was. I pointed out the two biggest mistakes, but there were also smaller things, a foul on a high steal where only the ball was touched, a no call on a tackle that was clearly not on the ball, etc. The other games I've seen have not really seen this kind of officiating inconsistency, but perhaps I'm, not savvy enough to see the other things that are missed.

I also would like to know if there are rules for inadvertent whistle in soccer. Most American sports the ref can call back a whistle/flag that they know shouldn't have been called and by throwing them didn't affect play.

As I mentioned the Americans played so poorly in the first half that they should live with the results easily. Had they played like they should have, that call would have taken away their 4th or maybe 5th goal in what was already a drubbing, and oh well.

I'm also not convinced that replay will grind the game to a halt. There are ways to limit the impact. The challenge system that football has, doesn't take that much time. Coaches get 2 challenges a game and if they lose the challenge they lose one of their time outs. So basically it's like using a time out as far as game flow. Of course football doesn't have time outs and the flow of the game is more important but I would think there are a few situations where a limited challenge system could be allowed.

Fans appreciate results where the ref is less of a factor more than they are bothered by breaks in flow or slightly longer games. At least that has almost always been the result in US sports, even with some of the clumsier implementations of replay in college sports. It's not perfect, but I think it's better.

But again, it's easy for me to not be bitter in this case because well you play like crap for a whole half...

[Jester]

If we included things like video replays, the game would grind to a screeching halt every time a ref has to make a call. Better to keep the game rolling and suffer the occasional mistake.

Hockey has used replays for a long time. If you have clear processes for reviewing objectionable goals, things go quickly. It doesn't noticeably slow things down. What it does do is solve arguments, which in turn improves the refereeing. Replays are a good thing.

This is doubly true when you have down-to-the-wire qualifications for the world tournament held only once every four years. I'm sure Ireland is more than a little pissed about the "occasional mistake" right now - it doesn't seem so small when it happens at a crucial time, and there are a lot of crucial times.

-Jester

[Lissa]

The referee is judge, jury and executioner on the field. He can't watch everything, however, so he uses his judgement. If he makes a bad call, such as believing a foul where none was committed, it's just poor luck for the offending team. Arguing with the ref is a fast-track to a red card.

If we included things like video replays, the game would grind to a screeching halt every time a ref has to make a call. Better to keep the game rolling and suffer the occasional mistake.

If it was Denmark instead of the US, I bet you'd have a different attitude towards it. And like Jester said, using replays the right way (such as Hockey and the NFL, and soon Baseball) will make the situation better.

[Nystul]

I don't think instant replay would be of too much help in this sport. Controversial foul calls like the one at the end of the U.S. match wouldn't be subject to review. The only place I can see that it would help pretty frequently would be offside calls, but then what? If the play was stopped and the player actually was level with the defense, it's too late to fix it. If you give a free kick to the team at the position, it will be a much better or much worse scoring chance than the original play. And with the never stopping game clock, a minute or two of delay would be something you have to account for.

The really annoying thing to me about the call against the U.S. is that the referee doesn't tell the players what the nature of the call was. He blows the whistle, gives the ball to the other team, and when they ask what was the foul he won't answer. I don't know if that's a language barrier issue, but it's important in sports that the participants know why they are being penalized.

I guess the French are now spitting in a lot of people's general direction. Only one point in two matches and on the brink of elimination. ESPN a little bit ago had a phone conference with a French reporter, and asked why this player was being sent off the team. The reporter responded with a direct quote of what the player said to his coach. You can't say that on live television in the U.S.! The ESPN anchor had to apologize at the end of the segment. Somehow the fact that it is the French makes the whole incident really funny.

[Taelas]

I'm not disagreeing with the ref's power. I just wanted to know from someone who watches the sport more if the officiating in that game really was as bad as I thought it was. I pointed out the two biggest mistakes, but there were also smaller things, a foul on a high steal where only the ball was touched, a no call on a tackle that was clearly not on the ball, etc. The other games I've seen have not really seen this kind of officiating inconsistency, but perhaps I'm, not savvy enough to see the other things that are missed.

I also would like to know if there are rules for inadvertent whistle in soccer. Most American sports the ref can call back a whistle/flag that they know shouldn't have been called and by throwing them didn't affect play.

I'm far from an expert (or even an enthusiast), so I don't know. I've never seen it if the rule exists, at least not that I've noticed.

As I mentioned the Americans played so poorly in the first half that they should live with the results easily. Had they played like they should have, that call would have taken away their 4th or maybe 5th goal in what was already a drubbing, and oh well.

I'm also not convinced that replay will grind the game to a halt. There are ways to limit the impact. The challenge system that football has, doesn't take that much time. Coaches get 2 challenges a game and if they lose the challenge they lose one of their time outs. So basically it's like using a time out as far as game flow. Of course football doesn't have time outs and the flow of the game is more important but I would think there are a few situations where a limited challenge system could be allowed.

Fans appreciate results where the ref is less of a factor more than they are bothered by breaks in flow or slightly longer games. At least that has almost always been the result in US sports, even with some of the clumsier implementations of replay in college sports. It's not perfect, but I think it's better.

But again, it's easy for me to not be bitter in this case because well you play like crap for a whole half...

Perhaps you're right. But players argue with the referee all the time even though they risk getting a card for it, and if the possibility of a video replay existed, they would argue all the more.

It removes absolute authority from the referee and places it on a video recorder. That doesn't feel like football to me.

If we included things like video replays, the game would grind to a screeching halt every time a ref has to make a call. Better to keep the game rolling and suffer the occasional mistake.

Hockey has used replays for a long time. If you have clear processes for reviewing objectionable goals, things go quickly. It doesn't noticeably slow things down. What it does do is solve arguments, which in turn improves the refereeing. Replays are a good thing.

This is doubly true when you have down-to-the-wire qualifications for the world tournament held only once every four years. I'm sure Ireland is more than a little pissed about the "occasional mistake" right now - it doesn't seem so small when it happens at a crucial time, and there are a lot of crucial times.

-Jester

Perhaps it'd work. I honestly don't know. But the FIFA World Cup is the biggest sport tournament in the world, and they have refused to do so so far. I prefer to think they know what they're doing.

If it was Denmark instead of the US, I bet you'd have a different attitude towards it. And like Jester said, using replays the right way (such as Hockey and the NFL, and soon Baseball) will make the situation better.

I'd be upset that we were the subjects of the mistake, but it wouldn't change my opinion on the matter otherwise.