2018 World Cup

[Moxley]

No, it is better to play Brazil later. Firstly , they might slip up and get knocked out, and secondly the chance of progressing further in the tournament is worthwhile in itself. 

Of course Southgate will claim he wants to win the game, he cannot say otherwise. I can understand him wanting him to be positive, but at least he should realise that there's no extra value in winning and use the game to rest players and experiment.

[Moxley]

here's a link that explains the above better. 

Basically, England's  chance of reaching the final is 50% better if they finish second in the group according to the statisticians. I realise some people will say it's against the spirit of the game to try and lose (or get more bookings) in order to finish second, but if you're out there to win the tournament, I don't think you can ignore that there's a route which is 50% more likely to get you to the final. As a fan, i'd rather win the world cup rather than beat Belgium in a meaningless group stage match. 

It will be very interesting to see what happens. 

[dennyjones]

I'm looking forward to the England vs Belgium game..

[Zeph]

Me too, but I don't expect fireworks. It's an interesting situation. Same numbers of points, same number of goals scored and conceded, and the last match is between them. A tie means we go further down the list of tiebreak rules. Belgium has three yellow cards, England two and neither red. 

Should they end up with a tie in the match and England recieve one more yellow card than Belgium in the match, and no red cards, the placements will be decided by drawing of lots. 

If you asked either team which side of the bracket they would rather be in, I think they'd say the one without Brazil, but I understand that they can't go out and say it publicly. The strategies employed and how they play will be interesting. One thing is for sure, that they don't want to get injuries or anything that damages their chances in the next stage. Maybe we'll see a yellow card late if it's a tie to get that favorable second spot.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Zeph

[Groucho Valentine]

2 hours ago, dennyjones said:

I'm looking forward to the England vs Belgium game..

Im not expecting to see much. Both teams will likely play down in an attempt to avoid the Brazil/Uruguay/France bracket. Nobody with a card is playing in that game. 

[mcanadiens]

4 hours ago, Moxley said:

I realise some people will say it's against the spirit of the game

Some of the cynical so-and-so's that I know would say it is very much in the spirit of the game.

England isn't running out Kane any how.

 

[Big_in_Belgium]

24 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Im not expecting to see much. Both teams will likely play down in an attempt to avoid the Brazil/Uruguay/France bracket. Nobody with a card is playing in that game. 

This. 
Both teams are using this game to rest their best players.
And despite what both managers said, I think they won't mind losing tonight to get in the 'right' bracket.

 

[Vinsk]

 Brazil/Mexico....I expect this to be a fast paced beauty of a match! I’m torn though ...I’ve enjoyed Brazil for years but I’m glad to see Mexico making a run at it...

[Golfingdad]

17 hours ago, Moxley said:

No, it is better to play Brazil later. Firstly , they might slip up and get knocked out, and secondly the chance of progressing further in the tournament is worthwhile in itself. 

Of course Southgate will claim he wants to win the game, he cannot say otherwise. I can understand him wanting him to be positive, but at least he should realise that there's no extra value in winning and use the game to rest players and experiment.

 

14 hours ago, Moxley said:

here's a link that explains the above better. 

Basically, England's  chance of reaching the final is 50% better if they finish second in the group according to the statisticians. I realise some people will say it's against the spirit of the game to try and lose (or get more bookings) in order to finish second, but if you're out there to win the tournament, I don't think you can ignore that there's a route which is 50% more likely to get you to the final. As a fan, i'd rather win the world cup rather than beat Belgium in a meaningless group stage match. 

It will be very interesting to see what happens. 

Sure, their chances of reaching the final are lower if they play Brazil in the quarters, but that is a different goal than winning the tournament.  If you make the assumption that they’d play Brazil in said final, I wonder if the odds are better the other way around. :)

[alleztom]

On 6/28/2018 at 3:53 AM, mcanadiens said:

Yep.

It's getting globalized just like everything else. Just look at the top-flight club level. EPL and Bundesliga are full of non-native players. Even La Liga has some 43% of its players from outside Spain and that's on the lower end of it.. 

 

 

Hi @mcanadiens Club football is definitely globalised (100% with you), many resources being placed in the hands of a few super clubs, rules being re-written to help them; but international football is globalising in a very different way. What we see is that the best players are increasingly exhausted at these tournaments, the quality of football is much lower, and we see a lot more 'professionalism' from smaller countries means the gap between big and small is shrinking. Much more likely now than ever to see smaller nations come up big. Iceland is the best example. It's plainly ridiculous that they are doing so well, but a bit of organisation, team cohesion and some good fortune means they gave the 2nd round a shake.

[mcanadiens]

10 hours ago, alleztom said:

What we see is that the best players are increasingly exhausted at these tournaments, the quality of football is much lower, and we see a lot more 'professionalism' from smaller countries means the gap between big and small is shrinking.

Points taken.

I suppose a guy like Ronaldo has been beating feet since last August. It almost makes the hockey schedule over here seem reasonable.

[nevets88]

Any podcast recommendations for the WC? Overcast gave me The Totally Football Show and The Football Ramble. Men in Blazers limited episodes. 

[Vinsk]

This talk of expanding to 48 teams with a 16-3 team group?  12 groups of four would work better. The top two in each group would qualify, making 24, but the eight group winners with the best record would get a second-round bye, while the remainder battled it out for the final spots in the round of 16.
That would guarantee that not only do teams have every incentive to win the group but would be trying to do so with the greatest numbers of points possible. I get that there’s strategy involved ...but ‘trying to lose’ or not caring about winning, resting players, seems a bit of a waste to me.

[Golfingdad]

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

This talk of expanding to 48 teams with a 16-3 team group?  12 groups of four would work better. The top two in each group would qualify, making 24, but the eight group winners with the best record would get a second-round bye, while the remainder battled it out for the final spots in the round of 16.
That would guarantee that not only do teams have every incentive to win the group but would be trying to do so with the greatest numbers of points possible. I get that there’s strategy involved ...but ‘trying to lose’ or not caring about winning, resting players, seems a bit of a waste to me.

I'll give them the benefit and assume that they thought it through, but I agree that it seems like groups of 3 is less desirable than groups of 4.  Not only would teams be more cautious and play not to lose instead of playing to win like you mentioned, I have to think that tiebreakers will be more prevalent too when there is only two games for each team in the group.  It will definitely make the group stage a little less exciting and also eliminate the simultaneous final matches.

[Vinsk]

25 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I'll give them the benefit and assume that they thought it through, but I agree that it seems like groups of 3 is less desirable than groups of 4.  Not only would teams be more cautious and play not to lose instead of playing to win like you mentioned, I have to think that tiebreakers will be more prevalent too when there is only two games for each team in the group.  It will definitely make the group stage a little less exciting and also eliminate the simultaneous final matches.

Sometimes FIFA seems to bungle things like the USGA..lol. I just can’t see how the 16 groups of 3 is better than the 12/4. I guess it’s hard to really know how something will play out until it plays out.

[Golfingdad]

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Sometimes FIFA seems to bungle things like the USGA..lol. I just can’t see how the 16 groups of 3 is better than the 12/4. I guess it’s hard to really know how something will play out until it plays out.

Either you are a Yahoo writer, or somebody saw your post and they wrote a story: https://www.yahoo.com/sports/2018-world-cup-group-stage-magical-pretty-soon-fifa-going-ruin-042949220.html

[Vinsk]

7 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Either you are a Yahoo writer, or somebody saw your post and they wrote a story: https://www.yahoo.com/sports/2018-world-cup-group-stage-magical-pretty-soon-fifa-going-ruin-042949220.html

Lol...well I heard talk about it on XM radio...can’t remember but I think it was just Fox Sports...so......maybe! Maybe!!!?? Could it happen!?

My biggest issue is what you said...about the grouping being less interesting...and to avoid the lack luster matches where teams have no benefit to win or worse, an advantage by losing.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Vinsk

[nevets88]

When the goalkeeper has been drawn away and regular players try and defend have they ever stopped a goal? Just seems ripe for a handball if contact is made. If they manage to block seems like easy rebound goal.