BFS staff is still puzzling over exactly what to do with the blog during the World Cup. Predictions and analysis are available from so many sources so that may not be where we'll spend our time. The schedule is set up with very little overlap between matches so in theory you could watch up to 40 of the matches live. Show of hands, how many work in offices that will be closed for those two weeks? Nobody? Guess we're still in Kansas...Anyway, one thought we had was to highlight what we think are the more critical matches in determining who gets out of group stage so you can get the most out of your viewing time.
The other thing we thought of was explaining the tiebreaker rules. Sometimes advancing out of group play comes down to something as small as you beat the worst team in the group 4-1 while the other side only won by 3-1. You will hear much about goal differential and goals scored as group play progresses.
The Schedule
In chronological order, key matches:
Saturday 6/14 6 pm England v Italy
Saturday 6/14 9 pm Ivory Coast v Japan
Sunday 6/15 noon Switzerland v Ecuador
Monday 6/16 6 pm Ghana v USA (uh-oh, this conflicts with basketball)
Thursday 6/19 3 pm Uruguay v England
Thursday 6/19 6 pm Japan v Greece
Saturday 6/21 6 pm Nigeria v Bosnia-
Sunday 6/22 6 pm USA v Portugal
Monday 6/23 noon Chile v Netherlands
Monday 6/23 4 pm Croatia v Mexico
Tuesday 6/24 noon Italy v Uruguay
Tuesday 6/24 4 pm Greece v Ivory Coast
Thursday 6/26 noon Portugal v Ghana
Upsets will likely change the list. And other matches may be full of drama for reasons other than who wins. For example, Team A needs to beat Team B by at least 3 goals, which means the final minutes of a 2-0 match could be extremely intense.
Advancing Out of the Group Stage - A Guide to the Tie-breaking Procedures
The tournament starts with 32 teams divided into eight groups of four. Each team plays the other three teams in its group once. You get three points for a win, one point for a draw and nothing for a loss. At the end of group play, the two teams with the most points in each group advance to the knockout rounds.
But the three matches per team often don't create much separation in the group standings and frequently teams will be tied at the end of group play. The schedule does not allow for extra matches so they resort to a series of tie-breakers to determine which teams advance. The first tie-breaker is who had a better goal differential (the number of goals you scored minus the number you surrendered in group matches). The second is which team scored the most goals in the group matches. Usually this is enough to determine who is first and second in each group.
If it is not, the next three criteria are 1) the greatest number of points obtained in the matches involving just the teams that are tied, 2) the goal differential in just those matches and 3) the greater number of goals scored in just those matches. In point of fact, if there are only two teams tied on points, 2) and 3) don't come into play; it's a simple matter of whether the match was a draw or not.
Still tied after all that? The rules say ties are broken by "the drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee." What, no rock, paper, scissors? Needless to say, this would be a crappy way to be bounced from the tournament.
Let's run through a hypothetical example. Assume the Group G results are as follows:
USA 2 - Ghana 1
Germany 3 - Portugal 2
USA 1 - Portugal 1
Germany 3 - Ghana 0
Portugal 1 - Ghana 0
Germany 2 - USA 1
Germany would win the group with 9 points (3 wins). Ghana would be 4th with no points. US and Portugal would be tied with 4 points (a win and a draw). On goal differential they would still be tied (each scored 4 and surrendered 4). They would also be tied with four goals scored each. And since they drew against each other, the other tie breakers are of no use either and the matter goes to a coin flip. But let's say the US beat Ghana 3-2 instead of 2-1. Though the goal differential is unchanged, the US would have one more goal scored than Portugal and would advance. Conversely, what if the US lost to Germany 3-1 instead of 2-1? The US goal differential would be -1 and Portugal would advance. So you can see how one goal that might seem unimportant can turn out to be the difference between moving on and going home. And while this was a hypothetical exercise, stuff like this happens every WC tournament.
USMNT
After two matches against better opposition than Azerbaijan, the US team is looking somewhat better. Turkey frequently exposed the US back line in the first half but couldn't score. The US took the lead into the lockerroom because of a great play between Michael Bradley and Fabian Johnson. Such an un-USA goal - a combination of vision and technical skill - involving a great run by Johnson, Bradley recognizing the run and lobbing a soft pass that Johnson didn't even bother to settle before depositing into the side netting. A halftime adjustment closed up the defense, Dempsey got an easy goal off a misplay by a Turkish defender, and the US held on for a 2-1 win.
For the Nigeria match, Klinsmann trotted out a new formation (4-2-3-1) that tightened up the defense without sacrificing the attack. Not a fan of Jones or Beckerman but they seemed to do the job. And two goals from Altidore? Very encouraging.
Despite the label, Group G looks to me like only the third toughest group, behind Groups D (Italy, Uruguay and England) and B (Spain, Netherlands and Chile). Group of Malaria maybe but not Group of Death. Doesn't mean it will be easy to advance but the US chances are much better than if they'd been placed in D or B.
Better from the Union
Four points from two games. First, they were quite efficient in a 3-0 win over Chivas; sure it's a last place side but the Union made sure they got the three points on the road. I attended the 3-3 draw with Vancouver at PPL Park on Saturday. Seemingly it was a reversal of fortunes but in the end, maybe not.
In the first half, the Union used great wing play and were pumping crosses, corner kicks and Sheanon Williams' throw-ins into the Whitecaps box. But, despite having many more opportunities, the Union was down 2-0 at half because, as Jeff K pointed out, on every cross in the box Casey found himself sandwiched between defenders while the Vancouver attackers were unmarked on the few crosses into the Union box.
The Union came out strong in the second half and peppered the Vancouver net but through 62 minutes were still scoreless. Then Casey put away a tight Maidana cross. The crowd sensed that Vancouver was on the back heel and expected more. A scant five minutes later Le Toux buried a wonderful pass from Noguiera (who had been sprung by a great through ball from Maidana) to draw even. With Vancouver reeling, three points from zero seemed possible. And at 71 minutes, Casey put away another Maidana pass and the turnaround was complete. Alas, this was when the Union decided to return to form. A long ball freed Mattocks, and MacMath took him down in the box for a PK. The Union keeper protested vigorously, as did fans around us; real time I thought it was a foul and the stadium replay seemed to confirm that. Most annoyingly, MacMath had initially come out to win the loose ball but retreated back before challenging Mattocks in the box. A much better second half and a point from a losing position but in the end, they gave away two points from a winning position. Highly entertaining in any case.
Chester Blues
Little new to report. Going through coaches assessments and trying to identify player roles. Also, and I kid you not, looking into whether I need to worry that my new left back is the only player on the squad that speaks Portuguese.
PS - There is a problem with the email notification but our IT staff thinks it's a broader problem with Feedburner as opposed to an issue with this blog. Will continue to send emails out when new posts are up.
MacMath is a clown...clear foul. Could only argue Mattocks went down too easy/soon, but the attacker gets that call every time. Time for Blake.
ReplyDeleteIf Beckerman starts for the US in the World Cup, I don't know what I am going to do. People (including the commentators on TV and media) are looking waaaay too much at results instead of the actual play occurring on the field. This includes Jozy's "poor run of form". He was playing fine, and a tap in doesn't change anything. USA conceded way too many chances vs. a mediocre Nigeria and didn't get punished, yet scored one of their only chances. Yes, soccer is about taking your chances and finishing...but everyone is talking about how great they played, but these same people would be singing such a different tune if there were one or two touches that were different.
This is the worst way to be booted from the World cup: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/06/05/3220991/switzerland-exits-2006-world-cup.html
Every 4 years, we follow the WC with a different schedule.
ReplyDeleteRemember Korea-Japan in 2002, when matches during group play started at 2:30 am, 5:00 am, and 7:30 am? By the finish of the last match, you were ready for anything BUT work. A cat nap? Yes. Another cup of coffee? Maybe. But a spreadsheet or a meeting? Hardly.
When in Germany (2006) and South Africa (2010), you started watching in the morning & ended in the late afternoon. So much for getting much work done in those years.
So now we're faced with 12, 3, 6 pm matches (and some 9 pm). My goal is to start work early every morning, then spend the next 6 hours eating & drinking & eating some more. < burp >
At least we can do it from the comfort of our cable TV connections now. Some blokes squirrel away money for 4 years, so they can blow it all on flying to the host country. No thanks.