Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, June 02, 2014

OT: The Soccer Thread June, 2014

It’s go time!

June 12th Brazil v Croatia

June 13th Mexico v Cameroon, Spain v Holland, Chile v Australia

June 14th Colombia v Greece, Ivory Coast v Japan, Uruguay v Costa Rica, England v Italy

June 15th Switzerland v Ecuador, France v Honduras, Argentina v Bosnia-Herzegovina

June 16th Iran v Nigeria, Germany v Portugal, Ghana v USA

June 17th Brazil v Mexico, Belgium v Algeria, Russia v South Korea

June 18th Cameroon v Croatia, Australia v Holland, Spain v Chile

June 19th Colombia v Ivory Coast, Japan v Greece, Uruguay v England

June 20th Italy v Costa Rica, Switzerland v France, Honduras v Ecuador

June 21st Argentina v Iran, Nigeria vs Bosnia-Herzegovina, Germany v Ghana

June 22nd USA v Portugal, Belgium v Russia, South Korea v Algeria

June 23rd Cameroon v Brazil, Croatia v Mexico, Australia v Spain, Holland v Chile

June 24th Greece v Ivory Coast, Japan v Colombia, Costa Rica v England, Italy v Uruguay

June 25th Ecuador v France, Honduras v Switzerland, Bosnia-Herzegovina v Iran, Nigeria v Argentina

June 26th Portugal v Ghana, USA v Germany, Algeria v Russia, South Korea v Belgium

June 28th Group A winner v Group B runner up, Group C winner v Group D runner up

June 29th Group B winner v Group A runner up, Group D winner v Group C runner up

June 30th Group E winner v Group F runner up, Group G winner v Group H runner up

 

Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 02, 2014 at 10:03 AM | 9133 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: soccer, u-s-a u-s-a, world cup

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 31 of 92 pages ‹ First  < 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 >  Last ›
   3001. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 07:51 PM (#4731105)
Flop
   3002. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 07:51 PM (#4731106)
Announcer: Another glimmer of an opportunity!

Yeah, I figure that probably sums the quality of this match up ...
   3003. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: June 19, 2014 at 07:51 PM (#4731107)
Good God, worst game of the tournament.
   3004. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: June 19, 2014 at 07:53 PM (#4731108)
How embarrassing.
   3005. Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant Posted: June 19, 2014 at 07:56 PM (#4731110)
The Iron Sheik sums it up on Twitter.
@the_ironsheik: The Japanese have raisin balls
   3006. AuntBea Posted: June 19, 2014 at 07:58 PM (#4731112)
Greece against Ivory Coast is probably now for the second spot, with a draw good enough for CIV. Of course, that assumes Japan doesn't beat Colombia.
   3007. ursus arctos Posted: June 19, 2014 at 08:13 PM (#4731114)
Does the Hot Topics counter stop at 3000 posts?
   3008. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: June 19, 2014 at 08:18 PM (#4731116)
Nope, OTP is up to 3627.

[edit] and now we're up to 3002!
   3009. Kurt Posted: June 19, 2014 at 09:01 PM (#4731128)
Good God, worst game of the tournament.


I only saw the first half of this one, but in all honesty the quality of play was better than US-Ghana, which was the worst game I've seen of this Cup.
   3010. Dale Sams Posted: June 19, 2014 at 09:12 PM (#4731135)
Question: Does momentary unconsciousness indicate 100% a concussion? Just wondering.

If the player in question is actually cognizant, then I don't think Uruguay should be held over the coals. The player IS an adult. But I do think a series of tests on the sideline is in order to determine if he's 'walking unconscious', if you all know what I mean.

Edit: Looking around I see it's a matter of definition and ,Assuming to err on the side of safety, any loss of consciousness is called a concussion.
   3011. AuntBea Posted: June 19, 2014 at 09:28 PM (#4731149)
If the player in question is actually cognizant... The player IS an adult


As has been discussed ad nauseum, a concussed person really is not necessarily competent to make decisions, and even in the occasion when they are, in the heat of the moment (virtually) every player always wants to go back in, and cannot soberly consider the consequences, which is why there need to be doctors there with absolute authority.

AS for your other point, I suppose it is possible that being knocked via a hit to the head out is not necessarily enough to create a concussion situation, but I would tend to doubt that.
   3012. Textbook Editor Posted: June 19, 2014 at 09:33 PM (#4731152)
Messi seems like a ####### asshat from what I've read.


I've not met the guy, so I can't say whether he is or not, but other than the tax thing, I've not read anything to indicate he's on a Ronaldo-level of asshattery. I'm genuinely curious about this; all I've ever read is that he's basically like some sort of soccer savant (though naturally I take this with a large grain of salt and consider that the press likely wants to just create a Messi v. Ronaldo dynamic where one is the devil and the other a saint, etc., etc., etc.).

So... Is my math right on this? To advance, England needs the following to happen:

1) Italy has to beat Costa Rica; preferably by as many goals as possible without Costa Rica scoring (a 3-0 scoreline would be best; 2-0 would also work).

2) Italy has to then beat Uruguay

3) England has to beat Costa Rica by something like 2-0 or 3-0

I have no idea what Costa Rica will show up tomorrow or for the game against Uruguay, but--at a surface level--this seems workable, even though I'm sure the odds for all 3 things happening must be fairly small. But at least they're not out yet; things could be worse--they could be Spain.

   3013. AuntBea Posted: June 19, 2014 at 09:39 PM (#4731157)
The NFL, as we all know a model for player safety considerations (sarcasm), now requires a process that takes at least 8 minutes for a concussion evaluation. Knowing what we know today about the long-term health effects of concussions, what happened today was absolutely sickening.
   3014. AuntBea Posted: June 19, 2014 at 09:47 PM (#4731164)
So... Is my math right on this? To advance, England needs the following to happen:

1) Italy has to beat Costa Rica; preferably by as many goals as possible without Costa Rica scoring (a 3-0 scoreline would be best; 2-0 would also work).
2) Italy has to then beat Uruguay
3) England has to beat Costa Rica by something like 2-0 or 3-0


My math has been suspect lately (Actually, my ability to remember the scorelines of previous games has been the actual culprit.). But, even if Italy only beats Costa Rica by 1, England will probably advance if they beat Costa Rica by 2 and Italy beat Uruguay by any score. Also, if Italy beats Costa Rica by 2 and Uruguay by any score, England need only beat Costa Rica by any score (probably). The reason for this is that England's worst GD is -1 if they beat Costa Rica, and Uruguay's best GD is -2 if they lose to Italy. If Italy beats Costa Rica by 1 and England beats Costa Rica by 1, Costa Rica's GD is 0 and CR would advance (assuming Uruguay loss). But if the two teams are level on GD it would go to goals scored, at which point England would have at least 3, so would have the advantage (or tie) unless CR scores against Italy. If England and CR are equal on GD and goals scored, it goes to head-to-head, which England would win.

Edit: Supposedly England still has about a 12% chance to advance, which is only slightly less than the product of the chances of a the 3 wins (outright, not considering goal margin) that need to happen for England to advance (Italy over CR = 62%, England over CR = 59%, Italy over Uruguay = 36%)
   3015. Baldrick Posted: June 19, 2014 at 09:57 PM (#4731168)
Yep. England are in serious trouble but there's a not particularly crazy path to them still advancing. In fact, I'd say Italian and English wins are the most likely result for each of the three remaining games. And there only needs to be one extra goal in either CR loss, which is certainly not unreasonable. But multiply three 50% chances and you get 12% odds. Which sounds about right.
   3016. Baldrick Posted: June 19, 2014 at 10:03 PM (#4731172)
If Italy absolutely hammers Costa Rica, and put their goal difference well out of reach, they might seriously rotate for the final game. But both Uruguay and Costa Rica will be able to get to 6 points, and they are not going to risk dropping to second in the group (likely setting up Colombia and then Brazil for the knockout rounds) or even theoretically being eliminated (if all three teams ended up on 6 points). They'll put out a strong team.
   3017. Howling John Shade Posted: June 19, 2014 at 10:06 PM (#4731173)

If the player in question is actually cognizant, then I don't think Uruguay should be held over the coals. The player IS an adult. But I do think a series of tests on the sideline is in order to determine if he's 'walking unconscious', if you all know what I mean.
The physio who examined him clearly signaled for a substitution. He was overruled by the player (and presumably by the coach). Since it's the physio's job to determine how impaired the player is, that seems like a flawed process. There have been a couple of similar incidents where the players have gone back on and then after the game admitted to having no memory of what happened.
   3018. CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo Posted: June 19, 2014 at 10:20 PM (#4731175)
Kaka coming to MLS? Sweet. I care not that he's well past his prime. This is way cool.
   3019. AuntBea Posted: June 19, 2014 at 10:51 PM (#4731188)
Here's the "partially unbroken tie" scenario:

Italy beats Costa Rica 3-1
Uruguay beats Italy 2-0
Costa Rica beats England 1-0

All 3 teams (except England) finish with 5 goals for and 4 against (on 6 points), so the next tiebreaking rules are:
1) greatest number of points in the games only among the 3 teams (each would have 3 points, for 1 win and 1 loss)
2) GD in games played among the 3 teams in question (all will have a GD of 0, because each will have beaten England by exactly 1 goal).
3) goals scored in games played among the 3. This would mean CR would advance, with 4 goals, whereas the other 2 teams only had 3.

But the problem is, what do you do next, to determine who finishes 2nd in the group? According to the letter of FIFA's rules, the next step is to draw lots! (and not go back to step 1 above). So Italy and Uruguay would draw lots, despite the fact that in this scenario Uruguay had actually beaten Italy 2-0

If this happens to FIFA, I will be so happy.
   3020. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: June 19, 2014 at 10:59 PM (#4731193)
I can't help but feel like Greece will somehow sneak past Ivory Coast 1-0 and snooze their way into the knockout rounds. And then that would most likely be Greece-Italy, wouldn't it? Blergh. Please Ivory Coast, prevent this from happening.
   3021. Sunday silence Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:02 AM (#4731221)
If this happens to FIFA, I will be so happy.


what is your real point here? There really is no perfect system for determining tie breaks in a sport where ties are so common. The same thing is true of round robin format in chess.

you seem to suggest that it somehow fundamentally unfair to URU; but it really amounts to putting more emphasis on head to head. But why do you think that should be paramount? is there any really fundamental reason for that?

If not, then what is your pt?
   3022. AuntBea Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:15 AM (#4731229)
what is your real point here? There really is no perfect system for determining tie breaks in a sport where ties are so common.


I made my point in a much earlier post which I can't seem to find. It's not an issue of fairness, but one of clarity. FIFA could easily resolve the situation with a rule like they used in the Euro 2012 competition:

See rule (e) below

f two or more teams are equal on points on completion of the group matches, the
following criteria are applied, in the order given, to determine the rankings:
a) higher number of points obtained in the group matches played among the
teams in question;
b) superior goal difference from the group matches played among the teams in
question;
c) higher number of goals scored in the group matches played among the teams
in question;
d) higher number of goals scored away from home in the group matches played
among the teams in question;
e) if, after applying criteria a) to d) to
several teams, two or more teams still have
an equal ranking, the criteria a) to d) will be reapplied to determine the ranking
of these teams. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria f) to j)
apply;
f) superior goal difference in all group matches;
g) higher number of goals scored in all group matches;
h) higher number of goals scored away from home in all group matches;
i) fair play ranking in all group matches;
j) drawing of lots.


If they had this rule, then Uruguay would advance, rather than drawing lots.

Edit: in other scenarios, the ambiguity would not lead to drawing of lots, but would actually choose the team that lost head-to-head over the other team outright. Like Euro 2012, the NFL has a similar rule to avoid the ambiguity.
   3023. Sunday silence Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:26 AM (#4731243)
yes I remember the point you made that the FIFA tie breaker is an ambiguous rule because it's not clear that if you break the first tie, then you re start the process, if say 2 or 3 other teams remain tied.

Technically, reading the rules as is, you have a point. However, as you yourself quoted the response from FIFA, FIFA does not believe the rule is ambiguous and have stated that they do not restart the tie breaking process if a tie break is "partially broken" (a useful term here).

So in effect, if not by law, they have already clarified the rule, so that it is effective unambiguous.

Agreed? So it seems to me you are arguing an academic point. The rule as written is ambiguous to you, but effectively FIFA have ruled it one way and so it is not really ambiguous.

Is that correct? I thought you were arguing here about the basic fairness of the current tie break procedure, but you seem to be pursuing an academic point. Unless I am missing something, which is entirely possible.

Another way to do it, would be to count yellow cards. That would be a really interesting way to do it.
   3024. AuntBea Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:35 AM (#4731244)
as you yourself quoted the response from FIFA


I never quoted a FIFA response (at least I don't think I did). So far as I know, they have never made one. I guarantee you if/when it happens #### will hit the fan, regardless of whether it seems unambiguous to some people or not. The team on the short end of the stick will raise hell and they will have a lot of sympathy. The rule will be changed immediately afterwards, of course. They could avoid all that by changing the rule now.

Euro 2012 specifically addressed the ambiguity because the issue was brought to their attention. As far as I know, FIFA has not done so. As you can see by the Euro 2012 rules posted above, they do use fair play as a last criterion immediately before drawing of lots.

Here again are the FIFA rules:

The ranking of each team in each group shall be determined as follows:
a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;
b) goal difference in all group matches;
c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.
If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their
rankings shall be determined as follows:
d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the
teams concerned;
e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams
concerned;
f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams
concerned;
g) drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee.
   3025. Sunday silence Posted: June 20, 2014 at 02:33 AM (#4731249)
you or someone else linked to a story, or if I recall, to a blog site, where FIFA was directly asked how they would rule on that issue. They said they would not re-do the tie breaker algorithm, they would only do it once.

DId you not read that part? It was in the story. I really dont think this is an issue because FIFA seems to be quite clear in their statement. I will try to find that story again....
   3026. Sunday silence Posted: June 20, 2014 at 02:40 AM (#4731250)
here is the website that you linked to, it has a good exposition of what you are talking about:

http://webhome.csc.uvic.ca/~haron/FIFA/

Now scroll down about 75% of the way down:

"Which one of these two interpretations is correct? When reached via email, the FIFA Media Department replied that There's a three-way tie to break. You do it as a one operation and not in different stages. The teams concerned are always all the teams involved in the tie-break. In other words, the FIFA Media Department interpreted the teams concerned to be all three teams. However, when Canadian Soccer Association's Director of Referees Joe Guest was presented with this scenario by the Times-Colonist, he interpreted the teams concerned to be USA and England. Thus, the two parites differed on whether USA or England would advance. "


So what's the issue? FIFA seems to have already taken a stand on this issue. As they are the governing body I would think their interpretation stands.

I would also think that every entity in the tournament is already aware of this, although that maybe wishful thinking on my part given how crazy int'l soccer is.

That bit about the Canadian Soccer referee, I dont understand at all. Surely he's not some sort of authority on this, is he? THe site seems to be making a molehill out of nothing, but am willing to listen to your response ...

   3027. Sunday silence Posted: June 20, 2014 at 03:09 AM (#4731254)
well now I am not so sure, the closest scenario in real life seems to be 1994 group e, see this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_FIFA_World_Cup

there was a four way tie on pts, as well as goal differential. That left it up to total goals with Mexico winning the group based on total goals. That also left Norway in fourth on the same criterion. Italy and Irel. remained tied, however because Ire. won the head to head, they were awarded second place (Italy did go onto the knock out stage, because that tourney started with 24 teams and took 4 more teams from among 3rd place finishers)

So it appears as if once the tie breaker was partially broken, then they revisted the criterion with respect to IT/IRE two teams remaining tied, and re applied it.

But then this guy Mark Switzer brought up the original pt on this website

http://worldsoccertalk.com/2014/05/15/ambiguous-rules-could-lead-to-world-cup-controversy-involving-usmnt-portugal-and-ghana/

and it was pointed out in the comments to him that the 94 situation is precedent, but he seems to think it is not on point, "too simple" he says. Not sure why; that situation seems to be directly on point. see May 16, 1.24 am comment from SanFranciscan.

But going by that example, then it would still appear there is no controversy because they simply re apply the criterion to break the remaining tie. So no controversy then???

Still, it's enuf to go hmmmm.....
   3028. Sunday silence Posted: June 20, 2014 at 03:32 AM (#4731256)
OK so Mr. Switzer seems to be saying the '94 situation is different because they got down to two teams after the first set of tie breakers, then they use d-g set, and they stopped at d.

So he's saying what if you have 3 teams get to the second set of tie breakers, drop out one, then what? STop there and toss a coin or do the tie breakers again?
   3029. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 04:47 AM (#4731261)
I've not met the guy, so I can't say whether he is or not, but other than the tax thing, I've not read anything to indicate he's on a Ronaldo-level of asshattery.

Ronaldo may be a cartoon, but I like him way better. Messi has this saintly thing going, but Messi is very much looking out for Messi, in a convoluted passive-aggresive way. Zlatan's hasty exit from Barcelona was largely due to Messi. Now Zlatan deserves to get a bit of push back, just an exaple that Messi can be a backstabbing bastard.

The Ronaldo Show stars a narcissistic hero that's supernaturally good at football. In the last few seasons the producers have tried to humanize his character and flesh out his background by making him a single dad with an alcoholic brother. I don't know if that was worthwhile, I liked the early seasons just fine.
   3030. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 07:02 AM (#4731271)
Looking at the fallout of that second Uruguay goal, the English media seem to want to give the blame to Cahill/Jagielka instead of Gerrard. Is that right? My impression is that since Suarez was well offside, Cahill and Jagielka were probably correct to stay where they were and maintain their line. If Gerrard just stays away from the ball they're fine there. Am I misinterpreting this?
   3031. ursus arctos Posted: June 20, 2014 at 08:06 AM (#4731287)
They were high, and likely to be done by Suarez for pace if the ball had bounced differently, so no, they are not blameless. They also could have done more on the first goal.

But of course St. Stephen is beyond reproach until the red tops decide to eviscerate him.
   3032. Richard Posted: June 20, 2014 at 08:11 AM (#4731291)
I blame Jagielka for both goals. You have to watch Suarez a lot more closely in those situations. Cahill was similarly at fault in the Italy game.

I first saw Jagielka play when he was 19, and I saw him a lot before his transfer to Everton. He is a good EPL player but not quite good enough for the highest level.

As for Gerrard, doesn't he have to try to cut out the long ball in that situation? That's bad luck to me.
   3033. ursus arctos Posted: June 20, 2014 at 08:21 AM (#4731293)
It is worth noting that no team has ever lost its first two matches and then qualified.
   3034. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 08:22 AM (#4731294)
Thanks for the thoughts, guys.

Joleon Lesoctt signed with West Brom which seems like a pretty good signing for them.
   3035. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 08:24 AM (#4731295)
It is worth noting that no team has ever lost its first two matches and then qualified.

Assuming Italy beat Costa Rica today, wouldn't you bet every penny you own and possibly the lives of one or more of your parents that Italy and Uruguay play to a draw? Surely they know what a biscotti is in Uruguay?
   3036. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 08:26 AM (#4731297)
Assuming Italy beat Costa Rica today, wouldn't you bet every penny you own and possibly the lives of one or more of your parents that Italy and Uruguay play to a draw? Surely they know what a biscotti is in Uruguay?

Like Uruguay would trust England to beat Costa Rica.
   3037. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 08:35 AM (#4731302)
Like Uruguay would trust England to beat Costa Rica.

A very cogent point, sir.
   3038. AuntBea Posted: June 20, 2014 at 09:30 AM (#4731328)
FIFA Media Department


The guy called FIFA 6 years ago, and got a response from someone in their media department. I feel pretty confident that this would not be binding authority for the team on the short end of the stick, even if it were somehow an official position of FIFA (which I also doubt). Anyway, as I have stated many times, the issue is not one of fairness but of clarity. If this is FIFA's official position it should be specifically indicated, so that when the situation happens everyone knows what the result will be. I can guarantee you Uruguay's complaints will not be assuaged by the fact that someone says they called FIFA's media department many years ago, and FIFA gave a certain response. The rules are written out and published for a reason.
   3039. jmurph Posted: June 20, 2014 at 09:31 AM (#4731329)
Listening to the Guardian podcast, and Jonathan Wilson is using a lot of words to explain why England lost when "they don't have very many good players" would probably do the trick.
   3040. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 09:48 AM (#4731341)
Listening to the Guardian podcast, and Jonathan Wilson is using a lot of words to explain why England lost when "they don't have very many good players" would probably do the trick.

See, I think they do have a lot of good players and that might be their problem in a way. The England manager always feels pressured to put together an all star team instead of a functional squad with a specific style of play to suit that squad. This team was crying out for a holding midfielder to break up play, shield the very average back 4 and do the dirty work but a guy like Jake Livermore isn't sexy enough to make an England squad. England needed a Kyle Beckerman or two but that doesn't seem possible in that environment now. Can you imagine the howls if Jake Livermore (or someone of his ilk) of Hull ####### City started over Stevie G of the mighty Liverpool? But I think that's what they needed.
   3041. bunyon Posted: June 20, 2014 at 09:56 AM (#4731350)
So he's saying what if you have 3 teams get to the second set of tie breakers, drop out one, then what? STop there and toss a coin or do the tie breakers again?

My feeling, in any sport, is that drawing lots and flipping coins should NEVER be an option in deciding who advances/wins. Put in as many tie-breaks as you can find:

number of cards
time of possession
shots on target
saves
fouls
fewest subs

etc etc

Those may well be, probably are, bogus ways to determine the winner but they beat a random draw. You could at least know going in what the criteria are and play accordingly (not that it would be a wise strategy).

I just don't like random draws.
   3042. jmurph Posted: June 20, 2014 at 09:56 AM (#4731352)
Yeah that's interesting. I think that's a fair point, the squad construction is never ideal, and the commitment to Gerrard is just crazypants at this point. Although I do commend Roy for moving on from Lampard, at least. But focusing just on elite talent for a minute, which is obviously oversimplifying, how many teams of players from this World Cup can you put together before you get to a single England player? Three? More?

I think I posted some version of this yesterday, but yes, in a vacuum, I'd have England in the top 16 teams in the world. But in this specific World Cup, in that specific group? It's not a major upset that they're probably not going through. Italy is better, has more talent, and Uruguay has enough talent and then the one transcendent Suarez to get it done.
   3043. I am going to be Frank Posted: June 20, 2014 at 10:19 AM (#4731374)
Going into the World Cup, I think going all-in on the "Liverpool method" of scoring three and letting in two was a reasonable way to set up the team to at least get out of the group. The problem was Hodgson didn't go all-in. He should have given Gerrard another central midfielder and Rooney isn't nearly as good as Suarez and had no chemistry with the other front players.

   3044. Sunday silence Posted: June 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM (#4731386)

The guy called FIFA 6 years ago, and got a response from someone in their media department. I feel pretty confident that this would not be binding authority for the team on the short end of the stick...


yes, I see that now. There's definitely some ambiguity there, its funny that it has only been pointed out on a couple of websites.
   3045. CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo Posted: June 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM (#4731393)
Italy is better, has more talent

I don't think this is at all self-evident, and I say that as an azzurri fanboy. Italy started both Matteo Darmian and Gabriel Paletta against England in their back four, both of whom came in as big question marks. Midfield, admittedly, Italy are more settled, but even Italy's attackers don't strike me as being *obviously* better than England's bunch.

I do agree with your larger point that it isn't shocking that England (edit) aren't going through. Betting lines all had Uruguay, England and Italy as roughly equal to win the whole thing, so one of them had to go.

Unrelated, but for fellow Serie A geeks, Zeman is back. This time with Cagliari.
   3046. ursus arctos Posted: June 20, 2014 at 11:02 AM (#4731414)
Very interesting interactive from The Economist on the time in the match when goals have been scored.

Our interactive chart depicts every goal in previous World Cup games by minute, whether from open play, a penalty or an own goal (including extra time). Filters let you drill down by country, year and stage; rolling over a “goal dot” reveals the game and final score. More than 2,200 goals have been scored since 1930 (Brazil netted a tenth of them) with an average of 2.9 goals per game, including no-score draws not shown in the chart. One can expect a rush of goals in the last ten minutes of normal time, but the 18th and 75th minutes have proved fertile. As for how the 2014 tournament compares, we will update the chart daily to keep you onside and in the goals—even if your team isn’t.
   3047. DA Baracus Posted: June 20, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4731459)
The assistant ref who screwed up the two Mexico goals has been replaced.
   3048. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4731476)
Buffon conveniently moves out of the way on that header.
   3049. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4731477)
Except for marking Marchisio, Costa Rica look comfortable so far.
   3050. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4731482)
Costa Rica look comfortable so far.

Yeah, but Italy is just like a junkie, they may seem languid and passive, but they can cut you when you least expect it.
   3051. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4731485)
Unlike England, CR is not giving Italy any obvious spaces to play into.
   3052. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4731486)
Italy really are on drugs!
   3053. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4731487)
Buffon not looking strong on corners.
   3054. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4731488)
Yeah, but Italy is just like a junkie, they may seem languid and passive, but they can cut you when you least expect it.

But Ticos are like Bruce Lee in that movie where he just licks his own blood after you cut him.
   3055. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:21 PM (#4731492)
Chiellini's face, his beautiful face!
   3056. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:32 PM (#4731497)
So close to 1-0!
   3057. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:32 PM (#4731498)
Balotelli should have scored there
   3058. zack Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4731499)
Fortunately for my rooting interests, but unfortunately for the quality of this game, a draw is a big result for Costa Rica.

What a pass, and almost what a lob.
   3059. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4731500)
Pirlo served that on a freakin plate.
   3060. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM (#4731501)
CR are majorly failing at the offside trap now.
   3061. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:35 PM (#4731504)
This is starting to remind me of that scene in Breaking Away when the Italian cyclist puts a rod in the spokes of the chipper upstart.

Stay firm, Ticos!
   3062. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:37 PM (#4731508)
Candreva seems to fail at everything.
   3063. Baldrick Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4731513)
Man, if Rob Green was in goal for Italy, Costa Rica would be up like 5-0 right now.
   3064. zack Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4731514)
Wow. Campbell was always looking to go down, but I'm amazed that wasn't given.
   3065. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4731515)
Want a replay. Looked like a penalty to me.
   3066. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM (#4731516)
I need a replay of that.
   3067. Baldrick Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM (#4731517)
Looked like a penalty, but could see the argument against. Would like to see a replay.
   3068. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM (#4731518)
Now Italy has to worry about their place in the group.
   3069. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4731519)
I thought it was a pen, too, but Campbell can be a douche.
   3070. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4731520)
Jeez, what a cross.
   3071. AuntBea Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4731521)
Wow.
   3072. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4731522)
IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
   3073. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4731523)
Goal line tech is useful!
   3074. Baldrick Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4731524)
Goal-line technology!
   3075. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:47 PM (#4731526)
There's the replay. Campbell was clearly looking for it but that's still a penalty. Chiellini just barged him over.
   3076. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4731527)
And now a foul called against Costa Rica after a fair tackle. Ref not covering himself in glory.
   3077. jmurph Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4731528)
Ball don't lie, as they say on the streets of Costa Rica.
   3078. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4731529)
Yeah, that was a pen.
   3079. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4731530)
Bad trick-freekick.
   3080. AuntBea Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4731531)

Even a draw is not at all a good result for Italy today. A draw will make it very likely that Uruguay needs to win the game against Italy next week to advance (rather than just draw, which might be enough for Uruguay if Italy win today), and a draw today and a loss to Uruguay could very easily result in Italy going out of the group.

Likewise, a draw is a fantastic result for Costa Rica, making it extremely likely they advance (they would have to lose by at least 2 to England and have Uruguay and Italy draw as well next week).
   3081. Textbook Editor Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4731533)
Hmmm...

I made a bet with TE Jr. before the game: I'd give him $500 if Costa Rica won the World Cup.

I feel pretty confident I'll win the bet (I'd get $1 if I win), but man it would be something for them to beat all of Uruguay, Italy, and England in the group stage.
   3082. jmurph Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4731535)
There's the replay. Campbell was clearly looking for it but that's still a penalty. Chiellini just barged him over.


Nothing against you Biff (or zack above) but I HATE this sentiment. A foul is a foul, what's the point of qualifying it?
   3083. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4731536)
What's really shocking is Costa Rica have been the better team. Italy had about a 10 minute stretch of superiority, but other than that...
   3084. zack Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4731538)
Nothing against you Biff (or zack above) but I HATE this sentiment. A foul is a foul, what's the point of qualifying it?

Well, for one, I think the obviousness of his intent may have influenced the ref not to give the penalty. Before the replay, I wasn't sure that it was a penalty because of this, though I thought it would be.
   3085. Adward Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:55 PM (#4731542)
The new Joel Campbell acting figure play set comes complete with play on arm action FIFA ref. Get yours on loan today.
   3086. Baldrick Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:55 PM (#4731543)
Nothing against you Biff (or zack above) but I HATE this sentiment. A foul is a foul, what's the point of qualifying it?

Huh?

The point of qualifying it is to identify the relevant factors. It can be true that something is a foul and it can also be true that the player was looking for it.
   3087. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:56 PM (#4731545)
At this point we have to concede Costa Rica are for real. Don't think they'll win the cup or anything but they are a legitimately good team.

Putting the cart before the horse here but there is a real chance as things stand of three CONCACAF teams through to the knockout stage. Near as I can tell that's never happened and my natural inclination is too root against the local rivals (particularly Mexico) that I think has to be seen as a real positive both in terms of present skill level and the future of the game here.
   3088. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4731547)
A foul is a foul, what's the point of qualifying it?

And miss out on the poetry of the infinite variety of fouls? There are dirty fouls, excusable fouls, fouls committed on a Wednesday, fouls done in northern Norway etc...

Only a person with the soul of an accountant would want to make a foul a binary proposition.
   3089. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4731548)
I wonder if Italy will bring on Cerci now and try get something going down the wing.
   3090. jmurph Posted: June 20, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4731549)
The point of qualifying it is to identify the relevant factors. It can be true that something is a foul and it can also be true that the player was looking for it.


Sure, but what I'm saying is that it's a clear penalty, regardless. And the qualifying of it "oh he was looking for it" lets the refs off the hook for making terrible calls.

Anyway, not to trying to pick a fight, it just bugs me. Justice was served fairly quickly in this case.
   3091. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:01 PM (#4731551)
I'm about 50% sure I went to Hebrew school with a kid named Joel Campbell.
   3092. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4731555)
Cassano, eh?
   3093. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4731557)
The Wild Card himself!
   3094. Baldrick Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:07 PM (#4731558)
Sure, but what I'm saying is that it's a clear penalty, regardless. And the qualifying of it "oh he was looking for it" lets the refs off the hook for making terrible calls.

Well, I don't think that's the only implication. You can simply be trying to EXPLAIN what happened, not necessarily be making a moral judgment about it.

But also: I do think there's something to the argument that looking for a penalty, if that actually discourages the ref from awarding it on a close call, is hardly an example of injustice. At the bare minimum, I like the idea of encouraging people to try and actually score goals in live play so defaulting against penalties in situations like that would not be a terrible way to approach things. And, there is a VERY fine line between 'looking for it' and 'looking for an opportunity to convince the ref that it happened.'
   3095. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4731559)
God damn it. The CBC feed was clear as a bell during halftime, and is now once again herky jerky and blurry.
   3096. Fat Al Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4731563)
How was that a foul on the Costa Rican?
   3097. Swedish Chef Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4731568)
Bye, bye, Cantdreva.
   3098. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4731570)
I guess I qualified it because at the point the foul happened (and it was a foul) I don't think Campbell had any chance of scoring anymore.
   3099. madvillain Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4731572)
I wonder if Italy will bring on Cerci now and try get something going down the wing.


She's too busy drinking wine and ####### her brother.
   3100. AuntBea Posted: June 20, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4731573)
This game seems to have had many offside calls.
Page 31 of 92 pages ‹ First  < 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(81 - 2:03am, Oct 25)
Last: Dan

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(16 - 1:35am, Oct 25)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(12 - 1:31am, Oct 25)
Last: Into the Void

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(916 - 1:29am, Oct 25)
Last: J. Sosa

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(515 - 1:26am, Oct 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(385 - 1:05am, Oct 25)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(21 - 12:44am, Oct 25)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3736 - 12:23am, Oct 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(14 - 11:59pm, Oct 24)
Last: Zach

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Page rendered in 0.8849 seconds
53 querie(s) executed