world cup thread

[kandrathe]

Football can be won through luck and good defense. This is not really new.

So then, more like poker? Maybe in case of a tie at the end, the two sides could each roll a d6 to determine how many players their side gets for a 10 min tie breaker round?

[Jester]

Is it just me, or is this showing that the method of grouping and counting points for advancement is wrong? I would think the finals should have the best teams, right?

That's the intent of the system. Groups are a mix of the strongest and weakest teams, precisely so that the first round is not a meat grinder that kills half the best teams.

But there is no system that can save the "best" teams, when the "best" teams fail to beat New Zealand, or Switzerland. At that point, what needs re-evaluation is not the system, but our ideas about the teams.

The best thing to come of this World Cup, from my perspective, is that it ought to shut up snotty Euro fans, who insist that South American teams have inflated ratings because they play each other, whereas Europe faces strong internal competition. Didn't seem to turn out that way this time, now did it?

-Jester

[Kevin]

Is it just me, or is this showing that the method of grouping and counting points for advancement is wrong? I would think the finals should have the best teams, right?

Jester touches on this in another post, but some of the issue is that perceptions of teams were incorrect and need to be adjusted.

There were some controversy about which teams made the tourney, but the process to get to the tourney requires all the teams (other than the host country) to make it through qualifying tournaments. It's very likely that you have the 25 best teams in the field of 32 and the 7 or so other teams that are good, but not necessarily the best 32.

This is no different than say the NCAA basketball tourney. You don't get the best 64 teams in that tourney and the "Final Four" is generally not the 4 best teams either, because it's single elimination and the best team doesn't always win a basketball game either.

No format is perfect, but honestly the World Cup isn't really any worse than other set-ups from what I've seen. I have post that that shows the teams based on FIFA rankings, I just checked and yeah, only 7 teams are not in the top 32, only 5 aren't ranked in the top 40.

Based on that, though we don't know what will happen with Spain of the 8 groups, 5 of them have advanced their top ranked team, that could be 6 of them. Sure 3 of them advanced their lowest ranked team as well, but in the case of Ghana, they aren't rate that much worse than the teams the advanced ahead of (32 on the FIFA rankings) they played better than Serbia and Australia, but it was a close thing for them. South Korea is likely under rated and the top team in that group was in no danger of not advance. SK outplayed Greece and Nigeria to advance. France played poorly but I've talked about that group, I was not surprised that they didn't advance.

So yes as I've said in other posts there have been upsets, but mostly it was France, which is less surprising than it seems, they had the best #3 team and a very good #2 team in their group and the host country. But the way they played they might have finished last in any of the groups. Italy seems to have had other issues. Other than that the upsets are likely more about perception of teams than anything else.

I think South Korea, Japan, and Australia are showing the Asia grouping isn't as weak as thought.

Besides I like seeing underdogs/Cinderellas with a chance. I think FIFA has done a pretty good job.

[Taem]

Well... the US has been eliminated by Ghana. I'm disappointed; I thought they had this game in the bag and was looking forward to seeing them play Uruguay. No such luck. Looks like if we want our North American teams to take the cup, Mexico has to beat Argentina tomorrow. I don't want to get my hopes too high, because this game might be a slaughter - against Mexico . We will see. I'm also really looking forward to Germany vs England tomorrow.

[Nystul]

Well... the US has been eliminated by Ghana. I'm disappointed; I thought they had this game in the bag and was looking forward to seeing them play Uruguay. No such luck. Looks like if we want our North American teams to take the cup, Mexico has to beat Argentina tomorrow. I don't want to get my hopes too high, because this game might be a slaughter - against Mexico . We will see. I'm also really looking forward to Germany vs England tomorrow.

I was hoping the U.S. could sneak their way through to the semi-final round against Brazil or maybe the Netherlands, but these early defensive breakdowns finally have caught up with them. It seems like Argentina has been playing quite well, so I think Mexico really has their work cut out for them.

Ronaldo for Portugal reminds me of some American sports stars and definitely not in a good way.

[eppie]

Ronaldo for Portugal reminds me of some American sports stars and definitely not in a good way.

He reminds me of Johnny Depp in cry baby.

[eppie]

Ronaldo for Portugal reminds me of some American sports stars and definitely not in a good way.

He reminds me of Johnny Depp in cry baby.

A few more hours before the other little brat (Kaka) can pack his bags and fly home. Likely even earlier, because he might get himself a red card again.
I say 3-1 netherlands.

[Jester]

Well, this ought to spark a lot of debate. Congratulations to La Celeste for pulling it out of the fire, and Ghana v. Uruguay was a hell of a game, but ... Uruguay just lost their beloved underdog status, for sure.

Speaking of Suarez' already-infamous handball, what does it *mean* to break the rules, in sport? In the sense of an illegal play for which there is a known consequence? To accept the penalty in exchange for the advantage of "cheating" in a crucial moment? Is that a good play? Is it cheating? Both? It is certainly not sportsmanlike. But, I think with football, that ship sailed long ago, with headbutts and diving and all sorts of rules jockeying.

Is this just business as usual, with Ghana losing to an unfortunate, but well-known, aspect of the rules of the game? Or were they "cheated" out of something which was rightfully theirs, despite Suarez having suffered the full prescribed penalty of his action? Where are the boundaries of "the game"? Or is this a kind of meta-game activity?

It seems to have potential implications for all sorts of competitive games, including the ones we play here. Is this somehow similar to using an exploit in WoW, or Diablo? It seems like "Anyone would have done the same" is contrary to our mentality. (But, then, we don't have refs, or world cups.)

-Jester

[Lissa]

Well, this ought to spark a lot of debate. Congratulations to La Celeste for pulling it out of the fire, and Ghana v. Uruguay was a hell of a game, but ... Uruguay just lost their beloved underdog status, for sure.

Speaking of Suarez' already-infamous handball, what does it *mean* to break the rules, in sport? In the sense of an illegal play for which there is a known consequence? To accept the penalty in exchange for the advantage of "cheating" in a crucial moment? Is that a good play? Is it cheating? Both? It is certainly not sportsmanlike. But, I think with football, that ship sailed long ago, with headbutts and diving and all sorts of rules jockeying.

Is this just business as usual, with Ghana losing to an unfortunate, but well-known, aspect of the rules of the game? Or were they "cheated" out of something which was rightfully theirs, despite Suarez having suffered the full prescribed penalty of his action? Where are the boundaries of "the game"? Or is this a kind of meta-game activity?

It seems to have potential implications for all sorts of competitive games, including the ones we play here. Is this somehow similar to using an exploit in WoW, or Diablo? It seems like "Anyone would have done the same" is contrary to our mentality. (But, then, we don't have refs, or world cups.)

-Jester

One thing that I did notice in the game about Ghana's players, they're quite the actors. During overtime, one Ghana player tried to get one of the Uraguay players a yellow card, or possibly a red card, by acting as if he had been hit in the throat. The replay clearly showed that the Uragian player never touched him, just beat him by getting infront of him to stop the ball and they were close enough that the Ghanan player made a melodramic fall and acted like he'd been hit in the neck (which the replay clearly shows the Uragian not bring any part of his body near the Ghanan player). Later, another Ghanan player tackled a Uragian players, but tried his damdest G(and faked injury as well) to try and get the Uragian player carded (when replay again showed the Ghanan actually initiating the tackle).

So I don't know at this point which I should really think is the better team. Uraguay that outplayed Ghana most of the match with one player that only thought about protecting the goal and cheating or the other team that used constant melodrama to get members of the other team carded instead of trying to outplay them.

[Jester]

Nits: Ghanaian, Uruguayan.

-Jester

[Vandiablo]

I think every sport or game has its penalties, poor sportsmanship and cheating and some gray areas in between.

I think most games, if they have an established consequence for a certain penalty, it's part of the game if one side wants to accept the consequence in order to win.

But it depends. In ice hockey, sometimes a player will "run" the opposing goalie in order to upset the goalie, and be willing to take the risk of getting a penalty for it. This is poor sportsmanship IMO. That is why members of the goalie's team will start smacking the culprit and soon it's penalties all around. The game's penalty is not enough disincentive to running the goalie, so the players have to answer poor sportsmanship with a higher price to pay.

Is running a goalie cheating? Hmm. I say no, but it's poor sportsmanship.

And the goalie, if his pads are too big, and he knows it, and no one checks, is that cheating? If he gets caught, theres a penalty and the pads are removed from the game, so it's not really cheating is it? I think it is, but not as egregious as something like using drugs or wrapping your fists in foil.*

I was surprised as a kid that some kids viewed cheating at cards as part of the game if they didn't get caught. (Good thing I had my trusty six-shooter.)

One of the reasons I dislike basketball is the intentional foul. If there's 3 minutes left in the game, you still have 30 or 40 minutes to go and it's just a big free-throw contest. Bah.

-V

*movie reference

[DeeBye]

But it depends. In ice hockey, sometimes a player will "run" the opposing goalie in order to upset the goalie, and be willing to take the risk of getting a penalty for it. This is poor sportsmanship IMO. That is why members of the goalie's team will start smacking the culprit and soon it's penalties all around. The game's penalty is not enough disincentive to running the goalie, so the players have to answer poor sportsmanship with a higher price to pay.

This is why I love fighting in hockey. The players oftentimes do a better job at policing the game than the refs. I dislike the way players sometimes beat the crap out of an opposing player for making a devastating but legal check, but this type of thing seems to be something recent and is being looked at quite closely by the league.

You do that, you go to the box, you know. Two minutes, by yourself, you know and you feel shame, you know. And then you get free.

Edit: I am wearing my orange T-shirt today.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think every sport or game has its penalties, poor sportsmanship and cheating and some gray areas in between.

I think most games, if they have an established consequence for a certain penalty, it's part of the game if one side wants to accept the consequence in order to win.

So, the only penalty that would always be a deterrent would be forfeiture of the game. Once the Vince Lombardi religion has been accepted and the Dark Side embraced, the only sin is losing. Anything that brings victory, sportsman like or not, against the rules or not, is fair game. The question is not whether to cheat, it is the risk-reward payoff for cheating. And the rules no longer define the game, they become part of the game.

Perhaps every sport should have an annual poll for unsportsmanlike behavior. The winners get banned from professional sports for life. Basketball would probably be decimated, but men's tennis would be eradicated. And NASCAR drivers would actually have to get jobs.

Ah, well.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

1. Glad the Dutch won that game, saw it all, it was a bit rough around the edges for both teams, and #11 on Netherlands team was diving all game. Should have been carded.

2. Didn't get to see Uruguay/Ghana. Saw both goals on replay later.

Penalty kicks ... a hell of a way to end a match, ask Roberto Baggio, Italy, a few years back. (1994?)

Go Germany!

[Jester]

So, the only penalty that would always be a deterrent would be forfeiture of the game.

Soccer is actually a great example of why even that wouldn't work to end the unsportsmanlike behaviour. The harsher the penalties for breaking the rules, the more incentive to frame the other team. Diving is endemic to the game now, to the point where it's comical. If a yellow card was an instant game loss, then it'd be even worse.

You could give losses for diving too, but there's always the arms race, trying to push what you can get away with to win. It's the sports equivalent of Duverger's Law: no matter how it starts, it ends with two sides pulling out all the stops to win.

-Jester

[DeeBye]

I don't understand the ruling in the Ghana-Uraguay match. Something like this in hockey would be ruled an automatic goal. Why is a penalty kick awarded instead of just awarding a goal?

[Nystul]

Every sport has its own ethos. My brother used to play defensive back in American football in high school and college. He got beaten on a play in the end zone, and tackled the receiver to prevent any chance of him catching a touchdown pass. The other team gets the ball near the goal with 4 chances to score, but they don't get an automatic touchdown. This is a blatant penalty, but it would not be considered unsportsmanlike in the least. But many things (which have in effect the same penalty) would be considered dirty in that sport, particularly in cases where penalties have been developed to protect players from injury like leg whips and chop blocks.

Basketball players will routinely foul players who are driving to the basket to prevent them from scoring and make them execute free throws instead. This is not considered a big deal at all, but then there a *lot* of baskets scored in a basketball game compared to these other sports.

I don't know how real soccer fans feel about a handball to prevent a goal in soccer. It is a desperate play with a very harsh penalty. The opponent really ought to make their penalty kick, and then your team is short a man for the rest of the match and you are out that match and possibly future matches. Personally if a player is willing to accept that penalty in order to make a play on the ball and possibly prevent a goal, I don't see a problem with that. Diving and faking or exaggerating injuries in an attempt to get an opposing player booked, on the other hand, just seems like a complete and utter disgrace to the family and friends of anyone who would do it. But, that's an outsider's perspective.

[eppie]

So I don't know at this point which I should really think is the better team. Uraguay that outplayed Ghana most of the match with one player that only thought about protecting the goal and cheating or the other team that used constant melodrama to get members of the other team carded instead of trying to outplay them.

I don't think you should feel sorry for Uruguay when it comes to theater from the other teams players. One of their stars (suarez) is known for lying half of every match on the ground when playing for his team Ajax.
South Americans (and south Europeans) have invented theater in football......other countries have picked up as well.
However you can still see the south Americans are the masters.
Eg the Holland-Brazil match.
A kick in the balls from Luis Fabiano to van Bommel (while lying on the ground) and a hit-in-the-face-move from Kaka, again were not punished.

In general I agree. A very sad development in the sport. The seriously need to consider punishing players after matches for these unsportsmanlike actions when the referee didn't see it during the game.

---

and #11 on Netherlands team was diving all game. Should have been carded.

Robben, the number 11 is known for diving once in a while. To my opinion this game was not an example of that.
He got attacked continuously and should have been protected by the referee much earlier. (something that will never happen when you play against Brazil because of the natural fear of all referee's for Brazil (remember 1974, 1994 and 1998?).
Bastos should have gotten his second yellow for a charge on him long before Melo was sent off.

My only fear before this match was a 'bad' referee......the dutch will always loose in such a fighting match....simply because the are too stupid to convincingly dive.
And although this Japanese guy missed 2 red cards (probably these were very difficult to see) and a second yellow for Brazil, I think we could have had a much worse referee.

[eppie]

I don't know how real soccer fans feel about a handball to prevent a goal in soccer. It is a desperate play with a very harsh penalty. The opponent really ought to make their penalty kick, and then your team is short a man for the rest of the match and you are out that match and possibly future matches. Personally if a player is willing to accept that penalty in order to make a play on the ball and possibly prevent a goal, I don't see a problem with that. Diving and faking or exaggerating injuries in an attempt to get an opposing player booked, on the other hand, just seems like a complete and utter disgrace to the family and friends of anyone who would do it. But, that's an outsider's perspective.

The sad thing for Ghana was that this happened in the last second of the game. Normally a penalty and an expulsion are enough punishment (but hardly an automatic win), however here not hitting the ball would have meant a direct exit for Uruguay, and playing 1 second with 10 men wouldn't be that much of a problem.

Of course automatic goals don't exist, and making a special rule for this circumstance would probably not get much support.

Luckily a case like this doesn't happen too often.

[Vandiablo]

You do that, you go to the box, you know. Two minutes, by yourself, you know and you feel shame, you know. And then you get free.

Heh. You are the one person here about whom I was pretty sure I didn't need to say "movie reference".

-V