Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:So World Cup tiebreakers prioritize goal differential over head to head, is that correct? If so, that's a stupid rule.

No I think it's the head to head thing that is stupid. I like that a team can still try to qualify by scoring a ton of goals in the last game, instead of being already out no matter what because they lost to one particular team.

Heathen wrote:

Green Habit wrote:So World Cup tiebreakers prioritize goal differential over head to head, is that correct? If so, that's a stupid rule.

No I think it's the head to head thing that is stupid. I like that a team can still try to qualify by scoring a ton of goals in the last game, instead of being already out no matter what because they lost to one particular team.

So...encouraging running up the score? Now this rule sounds even more stupid.

Green Habit wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Green Habit wrote:So World Cup tiebreakers prioritize goal differential over head to head, is that correct? If so, that's a stupid rule.

No I think it's the head to head thing that is stupid. I like that a team can still try to qualify by scoring a ton of goals in the last game, instead of being already out no matter what because they lost to one particular team.

So...encouraging running up the score? Now this rule sounds even more stupid.

I had to look that expression up. See, the thing is, football isn't basketball. Scoring is not something that happens every 30 seconds. Scoring can be very hard. If you need to win by a 3 goal difference or more to qualify that is not running up the score, that means you have to attack a lot and play very well both in attack and in defense and most of the time the team will fail to qualify because it is a tough challenge to do so. Plus it's a group phase so it makes sense that you would qualify or not based on how you perfom overall, instead of having one particular game matter more than the others. The European Champion's League has the head to head rule and it takes away a lot of pleasure because some teams are out before playing their final game when they could have had one final attempt at qualifying, even if it would have been very unlikely. Hoping for crazy things that magically happen once in a blue moon is a big part of football's appeal.

Heathen wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Green Habit wrote:So World Cup tiebreakers prioritize goal differential over head to head, is that correct? If so, that's a stupid rule.

No I think it's the head to head thing that is stupid. I like that a team can still try to qualify by scoring a ton of goals in the last game, instead of being already out no matter what because they lost to one particular team.

So...encouraging running up the score? Now this rule sounds even more stupid.

I had to look that expression up. See, the thing is, football isn't basketball. Scoring is not something that happens every 30 seconds. Scoring can be very hard. If you need to win by a 3 goal difference or more to qualify that is not running up the score, that means you have to attack a lot and play very well both in attack and in defense and most of the time the team will fail to qualify because it is a tough challenge to do so.

To me, for the very reason that scoring is difficult to do, it strikes me as instilling a sense of false hope that their previous losses can be overcome by pulling off a really difficult task. "So you're telling me there's a chance..." if we humiliate a team beyond the point of deciding the win!

Heathen wrote:Plus it's a group phase so it makes sense that you would qualify or not based on how you perfom overall, instead of having one particular game matter more than the others. The European Champion's League has the head to head rule and it takes away a lot of pleasure because some teams are out before playing their final game when they could have had one final attempt at qualifying, even if it would have been very unlikely. Hoping for crazy things that magically happen once in a blue moon is a big part of football's appeal.

The primary criteria in judging your overall performance in a group phase is to win your games, as it should be. I don't see why it shouldn't also be the second criteria. To me, if you beat a team (or recorded the most wins over a team), you've proven that you're better than that team, period. Concocting some sort of scenario where the losing side can overcome that strikes me as utterly wrong, no matter what added appeal may come from that.

Green Habit wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Green Habit wrote:So World Cup tiebreakers prioritize goal differential over head to head, is that correct? If so, that's a stupid rule.

No I think it's the head to head thing that is stupid. I like that a team can still try to qualify by scoring a ton of goals in the last game, instead of being already out no matter what because they lost to one particular team.

So...encouraging running up the score? Now this rule sounds even more stupid.

I had to look that expression up. See, the thing is, football isn't basketball. Scoring is not something that happens every 30 seconds. Scoring can be very hard. If you need to win by a 3 goal difference or more to qualify that is not running up the score, that means you have to attack a lot and play very well both in attack and in defense and most of the time the team will fail to qualify because it is a tough challenge to do so.

To me, for the very reason that scoring is difficult to do, it strikes me as instilling a sense of false hope that their previous losses can be overcome by pulling off a really difficult task. "So you're telling me there's a chance..." if we humiliate a team beyond the point of deciding the win!

Heathen wrote:Plus it's a group phase so it makes sense that you would qualify or not based on how you perfom overall, instead of having one particular game matter more than the others. The European Champion's League has the head to head rule and it takes away a lot of pleasure because some teams are out before playing their final game when they could have had one final attempt at qualifying, even if it would have been very unlikely. Hoping for crazy things that magically happen once in a blue moon is a big part of football's appeal.

The primary criteria in judging your overall performance in a group phase is to win your games, as it should be. I don't see why it shouldn't also be the second criteria. To me, if you beat a team (or recorded the most wins over a team), you've proven that you're better than that team, period. Concocting some sort of scenario where the losing side can overcome that strikes me as utterly wrong, no matter what added appeal may come from that.

Well it's not a false hope, it's a real hope since it's possible and it happens. And scoring 3 goals is absolutely not going beyond the point of deciding the win, since you can never be sure that 1-0 or 2-0 is enough to secure the win. Comebacks are always possible in a football game, even with very little time remaining. Crazy things happen. Should teams just stop attacking at 1-0 because anything more would be going beyond the win and humiliating? In football, not trying to score more goals is what is seen as humiliating the other team. Doing so is seen as condescending and arrogant. It is like not giving it all when playing against a kid so they don't feel too bad. You respect your opponent by bringing your A game, not by trying to not hurt their feelings.

And the thing about if you beat a team you're the better team, that's just not true. You just won one game, but you still need to perform well in all the other games of the group. If A beats B and B beats C and C beats A, who's the better team?

i got bugs wrote:Soccer counting the clock upwards.. not stopping the clock during stoppage of play

Ties

And the arbitrary amount of stoppage time awarded from an organization fighting its most current corruption scandal.

Green Habit wrote:

Heathen wrote:

Green Habit wrote:So World Cup tiebreakers prioritize goal differential over head to head, is that correct? If so, that's a stupid rule.

No I think it's the head to head thing that is stupid. I like that a team can still try to qualify by scoring a ton of goals in the last game, instead of being already out no matter what because they lost to one particular team.

So...encouraging running up the score? Now this rule sounds even more stupid.

Anti-running up the score policies are the most retarded thing in sports. The goal is to score as much as you possibly can.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Anti-running up the score policies are the most retarded thing in sports. The goal is to score as much as you possibly can.

I'm not someone who thinks running up the score is unsportsmanlike. Many players/teams/sports have too thin skins in that regard. Stop the other team from scoring if you don't want to get blown out, and all that. I just think it's rather pointless in determining a winner, or at least it should be. Whether it's 0-1 or 0-6, a loss is still a loss.

Heathen wrote:And the thing about if you beat a team you're the better team, that's just not true. You just won one game, but you still need to perform well in all the other games of the group. If A beats B and B beats C and C beats A, who's the better team?

If there's a circular tie (or two teams draw against each other), I have no problem proceeding past head-to-head and using goal differential or whatever secondary tiebreaker you want to use.

Green Habit wrote:I'm not someone who thinks running up the score is unsportsmanlike. Many players/teams/sports have too thin skins in that regard. Stop the other team from scoring if you don't want to get blown out, and all that. I just think it's rather pointless in determining a winner, or at least it should be. Whether it's 0-1 or 0-6, a loss is still a loss.

Heathen wrote:And the thing about if you beat a team you're the better team, that's just not true. You just won one game, but you still need to perform well in all the other games of the group. If A beats B and B beats C and C beats A, who's the better team?

If there's a circular tie (or two teams draw against each other), I have no problem proceeding past head-to-head and using goal differential or whatever secondary tiebreaker you want to use.

I just don't see much relevance in head-to-head comparisons when taking part in a group event. Being able to make up for your losses is kind of the point of leagues or group phases, otherwise we might just as well go straight to knockout.

Heathen wrote:

Green Habit wrote:I'm not someone who thinks running up the score is unsportsmanlike. Many players/teams/sports have too thin skins in that regard. Stop the other team from scoring if you don't want to get blown out, and all that. I just think it's rather pointless in determining a winner, or at least it should be. Whether it's 0-1 or 0-6, a loss is still a loss.

Heathen wrote:And the thing about if you beat a team you're the better team, that's just not true. You just won one game, but you still need to perform well in all the other games of the group. If A beats B and B beats C and C beats A, who's the better team?

If there's a circular tie (or two teams draw against each other), I have no problem proceeding past head-to-head and using goal differential or whatever secondary tiebreaker you want to use.

I just don't see much relevance in head-to-head comparisons when taking part in a group event. Being able to make up for your losses is kind of the point of leagues or group phases, otherwise we might just as well go straight to knockout.

But there does come a point where you simply can't make up for your losses, even with whatever tiebreakers are in place. And whenever that point comes, somehow I don't see teams in the World Cup just giving up because they can't move on...because, well, it's the World Cup.

Heathen wrote:

Green Habit wrote:I'm not someone who thinks running up the score is unsportsmanlike. Many players/teams/sports have too thin skins in that regard. Stop the other team from scoring if you don't want to get blown out, and all that. I just think it's rather pointless in determining a winner, or at least it should be. Whether it's 0-1 or 0-6, a loss is still a loss.

Heathen wrote:And the thing about if you beat a team you're the better team, that's just not true. You just won one game, but you still need to perform well in all the other games of the group. If A beats B and B beats C and C beats A, who's the better team?

If there's a circular tie (or two teams draw against each other), I have no problem proceeding past head-to-head and using goal differential or whatever secondary tiebreaker you want to use.

I just don't see much relevance in head-to-head comparisons when taking part in a group event. Being able to make up for your losses is kind of the point of leagues or group phases, otherwise we might just as well go straight to knockout.

Then why even play teams within your same group when you can just play random teams from others and then just add up the goal differentials after W's and L's?

Chris_H_2 wrote:Then why even play teams within your same group when you can just play random teams from others and then just add up the goal differentials after W's and L's?

Well a group is just random teams to begin with. Groups just rank teams based on how well they performed within the group so everyone is on the same playing field. I'm not saying that head-to-head has no value at all as the choice of a tiebreaker is pretty much arbitrary but for me how well you performed against that particular team that happens to have the same amount of point is less relevant, in a GROUP phase, than how well you did against the GROUP as a whole.

But there does come a point where you simply can't make up for your losses, even with whatever tiebreakers are in place. And whenever that point comes, somehow I don't see teams in the World Cup just giving up because they can't move on...because, well, it's the World Cup.

Do you watch a lot of football? Because really, a game with absolutely nothing at stake will never be the same than a game where the players' "life" in the tournament is at stake. Sure, they might want to not be completely ridiculous and show something decent before leaving the WC for good, and it could very well be an entertaining game to watch, but this is nothing more than a friendly and there is a reason people wake up in the middle of the night or bring a TV at work to watch a death-or-life type of World Cup game whereas they won't do it for a friendly. For instance, was anyone excited for Spain-Australia today? (not that these teams being out has anything to do with whichever tie-breaker is in use)

I don't deny that a game like Spain/Australia means less than a game with qualification on the line. That's doesn't necessarily mean that it's completely worthless, though.

You guys that dont like goal differential will absolutely love the away goals rule if you get into soccer.

Ties in soccer.

Bammer wrote:Ties in soccer.

They're far more forgivable than ties in the NFL.

Green Habit wrote:

Bammer wrote:Ties in soccer.

They're far more forgivable than ties in the NFL.

If the NFL weren't so violent and injuries so prevalent, I'd agree.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Bammer wrote:Ties in soccer.

They're far more forgivable than ties in the NFL.

If the NFL weren't so violent and injuries so prevalent, I'd agree.

I doubt it would add to injuries in a real significant way.