Costa Rica has turned it on in the second half finally, and got a bunch of shots, a penalty which they proceeded to miss, and finally a goal. They might make the chase for fourth place, and even third, interesting after all.

The USMNT should use all their subs right now, up 3-0 with 20 minutes left. Yes it's good to have the starters play together, but I'm not sure how much experience they will gain in this frigid weather against an already defeated Honduras who at this point surely just wants to go home.

Honduras are and were bad but qualifying is all about survive and advance. Among other things the US has a nice lead on Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica in GD. Brutal conditions out there yet again but job done.

One of the craziest goals you will ever see in the Canada game. Great play and run by Canada, header off the post rebounds to the players lying on the ground and balances randomly off them high over the keeper, just creeping over the line.

It was a great play and attempt by Canada, but the actual rebound was pure, crazy luck.

I still don't think they tried to play in bad weather to gain a weather advantage or punish Honduras with bad weather,

Well that's exactly what the coach said they were trying to do, so I'm not sure why you'd think that.

Yes, go find the Canada goal on a reddit r/soccer stream immediately.

Canada wins yet again, this time in El Salvador. They haven't technically clinched a spot yet, but they will be in WC 2022. Congratulations. I hope they continue this fantastic play there.

I don't know... this article doesn't say making Honduras play in the cold was a primary factor:

U.S. Soccer chose this place on purpose after weighing variables that included the distance from Sunday’s venue in Hamilton, Ontario, as well as who would be buying tickets, the facilities and field conditions, and more.
...

The decision to play in Columbus and St. Paul was less about pursuing the cold for its own sake and more a response to Canada’s selection of Hamilton. When it appeared last fall that Canada might go with Vancouver for its match against the U.S., the USSF was ready to play its two home games in San Jose, Calif., and Portland, where conditions are significantly more mild.

But Berhalter is a big believer in reducing travel time, and he didn’t want to fly his players to and from the West Coast if he didn’t have to. That also was a factor in deciding not to play this week in Texas or Florida. Austin FC’s Q2 Stadium, where the U.S. beat Jamaica in October, was under discussion as a standby venue for Wednesday’s match in case of emergency, like an incoming blizzard. But after another look at the forecast and a discussion with Berhalter and chief medical officer George Chiampas, U.S. Soccer decided last week that Allianz would be ready.

Venue decisions are made with the input of multiple U.S. Soccer executives and departments. Berhalter and the technical people have the most influence, but commercial considerations, logistics and marketing play a role as well. At one point, for example, the federation considered returning to Columbus on Sunday and then playing Honduras there. But that would’ve been the third Octagonal match at Lower.com Field, and, despite the Americans’ comfort in central Ohio, that seemed like overkill. St. Paul is relatively nearby. Florida is much farther away and already was earmarked for the home game against Panama in March (it’ll be played at Orlando City’s Exploria Stadium).

Other articles from the last few days say that Berhalter thought the cold might give the team an advantage, but that's not a surprising thing to say, nor does it say anything about the motivation for putting the game in Minnesota.

The USMNT has been scheduling most of their meaningful games against Latin American teams in the midwest for the last few years, regardless of the season. The main motivation in the past has been to ensure a strong crowd advantage.

They have done it this time around as well:
October in Columbus, against Costa Rica.
November in Cincinnati, against Mexico.
January in Columbus, against El Salvador
February in St. Paul, against Honduras.

They do have Panama in Orlando in March, to buck the trend.

From the Athletic:

U.S. head coach Gregg Berhalter told reporters earlier this month that one of the reasons that U.S. Soccer placed this match in Minnesota was because the federation believed it would give the USMNT an advantage over Honduras, who would theoretically not be as used to playing in the cold as the Americans.

It sure sounds like gaining an advantage over Honduras was one of the reasons for scheduling the game in Minnesota in freaking February.

I mean the charitable interpretation is they're afraid too many opposing fans will show up if they're on a coast or in a warm weather state. Which is also an embarrassing, amateurish approach to scheduling.

Which is also an embarrassing, amateurish approach to scheduling.

Why is it amateurish? It seems pretty smart to me to make sure you have the best home field advantage possible.

Embrace the majesticism.

Why is it amateurish? It seems pretty smart to me to make sure you have the best home field advantage possible.

Being at all concerned about the impact of the HOME crowd against a team like Honduras is embarrassing, I think, and trying to game all that out is amateurish and embarrassing, to me.

Be confident, play, win, and ideally don't put your players and the opposing players at risk of hypothermia unnecessarily because you're worried the other team is going to bring in some fans.

Qualified: Qatar, Germany, Denmark, Brazil, France, Belgium, Croatia, Spain, Serbia, England, Switzerland, Netherlands, Argentina, Iran, South Korea

AFC
Group A has Iran and South Korea through. UAE (9), Lebanon (6), Iraq (5) fighting for the playoff spot. Iraq v UAE, Lebanon v Syria, Iran v Lebanon, UAE v South Korea, Syria v. Iraq
Group B has Saudi Arabia (19), Japan (18) and Australia (15). Australia v Japan, Australia v Saudi, Japan v Vietnam, Saudi v China remain.
Two third place teams will play a single game for the right to <strike>lose to</strike> play CONMEBOL fifth place team.

CONMEBOL
Brazil and Argentina are through. Ecuador (25), Uruguay (22), Peru (21), Chile (19) fighting for the last two automatics plus the playoff berth. Uruguay play Peru then Chile the last two match days. Ecuador get Paraguay and Brazil, Chile plays Brazil and Peru plays Paraguay.

CONCACAF
Canada (25) are effectively through. US (21), Mexico (21), Panama (17) and Costa Rica (16) fight for the remaining 2 1/2 spots. Mexico has the best schedule, home to the US then Honduras and El Salvador while Panama gets Honduras, US and Canada. Costa Rica have Canada, El Salvador, US. Fourth place plays Oceania winner.

UEFA
Ten teams have qualified (see above). Three group of four teams will play single elimination semi-finals followed by a final for the final three spots at the end of March.
Scotland-Ukraine/Wales-Austria
Russia-Poland/Sweden-Czechia
Italy-North Macedonia/Portugal/Turkey

CAF
Five spots, they will play home and away at the end of March; Egypt-Senegal, Cameroon-Algeria, Ghana-Nigeria, Congo-Morocco, Mali-Tunisia

OFC
Eight teams go to Qatar at the end of March for a quick tournament. Top two in each four team group then plays a semi-final and final for the right to play CONCACAF fourth place.

Antarctic Football Federation
Penguins v Great White for right to play Polar Bear FC representing the Arctic Circle.

Nice summary. Just some color on the above.

In AFC, third place in Group A is still wide open, with the winner likely to have a very hard road having to go through most likely Australia/Japan and then 5th in Conmebol. You can pretty much forget about it. Australia/Japan is likely to come down to the game in Australia, where Australia needs the win. Saudi Arabia still hasn't quite clinched a spot, but they probably will since they just need to beat China.

OFC is going to be New Zealand, let's not kid ourselves!

Uefa we've talked about ad nauseum. Portugal/Italy are favorites in their group, with the other two wide open. Russia and Austria are the favorites, but any of the 4 teams could win either path, and all would be decent competition in the WC.

In Concacaf I really don't see Panama taking one of the auto spots, but I guess you never know. One thing that makes it fun is the US plays Mexico next, with Panama at home against Honduras. That means Panama just needs to win an easy game to keep things very interesting when they play the US. Still don't think it will matter though. Costa Rica could still snag 4th (or even 3rd, technically) but Panama is far more likely.

CAF I wouldn't hazard to guess. If it's anything like AFCON any team could win on any day.

That leaves Conmebol. Chile probably needs a result in Brazil to have any chance, and I doubt they get it. Colombia (not mentioned above) has as much a shot as Chile, with two of the easiest games you could hope for: home to Bolivia and away to Venezuela. Win both, which is very doable, and it just comes down to whether they can get help elsewhere. Unfortunately it's not that likely, as Peru has Paraguay at home and Uruguay only needs 2 points out of their last 2 games. For their part, Uruguay has the inside track for 4th over Peru, but if Peru can manage a draw in Uruguay they will be just a point behind with the much easier final game.

Biggest games to watch? Obviously all the elimination ones in uefa and caf, but outside of that, put Mexico/USA, USA/Panama, Uruguay/Peru, and Australia/Japan on your schedules. 3 of those games, all the first round uefa games, and some of the caf games, are on March 24. Going to be an insane day for world cup qualifying.

Cameroon/Egypt went to penalties. With Egypt winning, they'll face Senegal for the trophy and then again for a spot in the WC. Lot of poor and mediocre penalties, two saved and one missed, and a couple by Egypt that were not super great either but scored. Salah never even needed to take a kick.

Regarding those CAF WC qualifiers, pretty much the 10 teams in it are the 10 best teams in CAF, except that Congo shouldn't be in there while Ivory Coast should. Ivory Coast lost out to Cameroon in the hardest qualifying group, while Congo advanced from the easiest one. Ivory Coast really only had themselves to blame, as somehow they let their FIFA ranking slip past Congo anyway prior to qualifying, so ended up in pot 2 while Congo got pot 1.

Aside from Morocco over Congo, the other 4 qualifying finals could easily go either way.

Russia and Austria are the favorites

Is Russia the favorite over Sweden? Feels like Sweden has been better for a while now. But mostly that group of four looks very even.

Colombia (not mentioned above) has as much a shot as Chile, with two of the easiest games you could hope for: home to Bolivia and away to Venezuela. Win both, which is very doable, and it just comes down to whether they can get help elsewhere. Unfortunately it's not that likely, as Peru has Paraguay at home and Uruguay only needs 2 points out of their last 2 games.

Also, Colombia probably needs to figure out how to score a goal at some point. Scoreless in seven qualifiers now.

Is Russia the favorite over Sweden? Feels like Sweden has been better for a while now. But mostly that group of four looks very even.

Yes, looked it up actually before posting but figured people weren't too interested in the exact odds. The main reason is that Sweden would be on the road in the second game. The favorite in each group is, not coincidentally, also a team that has a home game in the final if they advance. Away teams are given about 45% in each group

Russia             30
Sweden             26
Poland             26
Czech Republic     18

Austria            28
Wales              27
Scotland           23
Ukraine            22

Portugal           46
Italy              42
Turkey              9
North Macedonia     3

Fair point on Colombia, but playing Bolivia where Bolivia doesn't have their home altitude is just what you want. No team has gone scoreless against Bolivia this time around playing at home. Playing Venezuela anywhere is the best a team could hope for in tough conmebol, and Venezuela has only shut out 1 team in the 16 games they've played so far.

The weird thing about Colombia is they were scoring well in the first 9 games: 16 goals. Then none in their last 7! To be fair, some of those were the hardest games on the schedule: Brazil twice, away to Argentina, away to Uruguay. But then also 3 home games they really should have scored in: Ecuador (who to be fair has a stingy defense) but especially Peru, and Paraguay.

I'd be shocked if they didn't score at least once in the two games, and pretty surprised if they didn't score at least once in each game. Bolivia has given up 25 goals on the road in 8 games! If they can't score in that one then forget it. They should be banned from the WC for a decade on principle. Venezuela has given up 12 at home in 8 games, so you'd expect Colombia to get one there too but of course not necessarily.

It sure sounds like gaining an advantage over Honduras was one of the reasons for scheduling the game in Minnesota in freaking February.

And when you take into account that the travel reasons that he gave are basically bull crap, what is really left over?

If the main concern was travel then places like Columbus (OK, I get why you wouldn't go back there again so soon), Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, New York, DC, Philly, Washington, Baltimore, Charlotte, heck, they could even play in Pittsburgh and make me happy are all shorter travel than St. Paul. Atlanta is about the same distance from Hamilton that St. Paul is. If shortening travel were so important there were lots of places closer to Hamilton that they could have played that game that would have been likely to have better weather.

Yes, looked it up actually before posting but figured people weren't too interested in the exact odds. The main reason is that Sweden would be on the road in the second game. The favorite in each group is, not coincidentally, also a team that has a home game in the final if they advance. Away teams are given about 45% in each group

Ah, I forgot about the home/away piece of it. By those odds the Austria group is even tighter, I didn't think Scotland would rate so highly but they have a home game as well.

The teams were evenly matched enough that the team with two home games has the best odds in each group, and the team with two road games has the worst odds in each group. Ukraine might be the best team in its group on a neutral field, but comes in last by odds due to playing twice on the road. Both Sweden and Poland would probably be slightly above Russia.

Just saw that United went out to Middlesbrough in the FA Cup. Seems they dominated but Ronaldo missed a penalty in the 90 and their GK couldn't save any of the 8 penalty kicks after extra time.

We can't blame de Gea in this one though, as Henderson was in goal.

Watching the extended highlights this was a crazy game. United had so, so many big chances and couldn't score except the one. It wasn't a close game except for the scoreline.

Henderson didn;t stop any, but most of the kicks by Middlesbrough were very good. United's kicks too were mostly very good, with the notable exception of the one skied by Elanga to lose it.

edit: most misses of "clear-cut chances" by a United team in a single game since Opta started keeping track. xG around 4.0 supposedly.

Some crazy excitement by Kidderminster, but at the end of the day only minor upsets in the FA cup.

Least fancied team that has advanced is Championship's Peterborough. They could end up being the only team in the bottom half of the Championship to advance.

It's very unlikely that both Watford and Burnley stay up, so a draw is going to hurt both teams. Hopefully someone will score.

2nd big upset of the weekend. Unlike the United loss, this one of Leicester is fully earned. Forest has soundly outplayed Leicester and are deservedly winning, though the margin is larger then you would expect.

FA cup draw has the 4 teams with the best chance all facing relatively weak opposition. It wouldn't be at all surprising if all 4 win. West Ham faces Southampton in Southampton, which is a bit of a toss-up. Everton and Palace are both at home against Championship sides so will be pretty big favorites. It's likely we will end up with just one or two Championship teams in the final 8.

59 completed passes by Boreham in 70 minutes. Under 50% pass completion, and under 20% time of possession. Leading 1-0 though.

Boreham Wood hang on for the 1-0 win!

Egypt-Senegal about to start extra time. I’ve been in and out a bit but no real big chances that I saw. One good header for Egypt on about 65 minutes. Before I tuned in though Sadie Mane missed a 7th minute penalty (missed or was saved I don’t know).

I didn't see much of the Afcon final either. 4th straight extra time game for Egypt, and if they win on pens for the third time in four games it might be some kind of record.

A non-league team only makes the 5th round once out of close to every 10 years, apparently! So, well done Boreham. Haven't given up a goal yet. Everton next up.

Big chance for Senegal! Cross comes in and the header is parried away at the far post.101st minute.

118th minute, couple of half chances each way but nothing yet. Penalties looming.

Croatia won 3 in a row in extra time (first two on Pens) in the 2018 World Cup before losing the final.

Egypt has scored 4 goals in 7 games, including 120 extra minutes (so over 8 90s). Only gave up 2 goals.

Haven't missed a penalty yet here at Afcon, though 2 of the 3 they made against Cameroon weren't actually very good.

Portugal 3 out of 4 in extra time (one on pens) for 2016 Euro.

Penalties about to start!

Senegal also gave up only 2 goals all tournament. They had scores of 1-0, 0-0, and 0-0 in the group stage!

Egypt has gone second in all three shoot-outs.

Advantage Senegal! Adbal Monem hits the bar. The first missed penalty by Egypt in the tournament!

Save by Abu Gabal and Egypt can equalize with their next kick!!! Egyptian keeper has gone the right way on all three so far!

Save! Senegal can win with this kick!!!

Senegal!!!

Congratulations to Senegal. By the way the announcers were talking, they were the better team on the night anyway. Sad that Salah didn't get his kick. Incidentally, if you kick second like Egypt here, would you put your best kicker last? There's a good chance he never kicks. If it's important to put pressure on the opponent, you'd think you'd want your best kickers to go earlier, especially if you are kicking second, but either side really.

Rematch in a few weeks for a spot at the WC!

I think the generally accepted strategy is that your best penalty takers should go first.

I'd like to see a study or analysis that shows it matters. Because I'm skeptical order matters.

FURTHER! I think player quality and PK quality are not closely or necessarily related (though Salah is a good PK taker).

I'd like to see a study or analysis that shows it matters. Because I'm skeptical order matters.

As long as your best kickers go in the first 3.

I'd like to see a study or analysis that shows it matters. Because I'm skeptical order matters.

FURTHER! I think player quality and PK quality are not closely or necessarily related (though Salah is a good PK taker).

My guess is that order doesn't matter generally but making sure you're best penalty takers get their chance is more important than anything else. They noted in the broadcast that Egypt hadn't missed a penalty yet in the tournament (8 for 8) coming in so it's not like they weren't succeeding.

What was interesting about the PKs in this one is that the Egyptian keeper was all over it. He guessed right the first three kicks and while you hate to say anyone "should" save a penalty he really should have saved the first one. He got a hand to it and it looked to these amateur eyes that he should have kept it out.

Why does your best kicker have to go in the first 3? I'm not sure that passes the smell test to me. It's best of 5.

If Salah went earlier and the rest of the kickers had the same result, they'd still have lost. We know this because they would have lost even if Salah took his PK and made it, when his turn came up.

So what this "strategy" is saying is that by having your best guys go first, you think it either decreases the opponent's PK odds or increases your weaker taker's odds. Again, I need to see the data on that before I just accept it. And see the data that shows why the same thing wouldn't essentially happen regardless of order, and that it's statistically meaningful.

I did some investigation. There is an NIH publication here that evaluates first team vs. second team order. The team that goes first wins 55% of the time. This evaluates club and international tournaments. That's statistically relevant given the sample (~1600 shootouts). What's interesting is the analysis finds a significant advantage for the first team only starting in round 3 of the shootout. They don't try to draw a conclusion of what order to send individuals, but ways to make PKs more fair. That's an interesting and short read that I recommend (which ultimately involves not using ABAB ordering).

Here is a blog post about some researchers who tried to do this analysis. The blog writer's own math I don't think is worthwhile, but it does reference math from those research publications including break downs of PK success rate for each kick. Some of this data is also in the NIH post. The researcher's conclusion is that you would not send your best kicker first, but rather 5th.

I think it is difficult to draw too many conclusions from the research I've seen, because it's hard to isolate variables (teams don't send players up randomly today so you can't evaluate the round %'s as unbiased, so how to isolate pressure vs. taker quality, also have very small sample sizes on how actually good takers are, and is something that can likely change over time). But, knowing that the first team's taker is ~4% more likely to convert rounds 3-6 is significant. I don't know that you can necessarily say, though, that it makes sense to change your order and have your best PK last. Presumably they may also have the pressure affect them, and see a decrease in PK quality. But maybe it affects them less, but if Salah goes from, say 86% taking the first PK to 75% taking the fifth, and your 5th best taker goes from, say 75% taking the first to 64% taking the fifth, I don't see how the order matters.

It seems inconclusive to me. Though I'll accept arguments from people who aren't Jamie Carragher.

Why does your best kicker have to go in the first 3? I'm not sure that passes the smell test to me. It's best of 5.

It's best of 5 but a fair amount of the time (don't know the percentage, I'm sure it's out there) you don't get to that 5th kicker. It seems to me that if you start with your best kicker you presumably are going to make more of those earlier kicks and that of course is what you want. You don't want to get left with bullets in the gun.

I'll give a baseball example;

tie game, bottom of the 9th do you bring in Zach Britton or Ubaldo Jimenez? To your point, the road team in that situation needs to get 6 outs either way so it doesn't matter. But I think many of us would argue that you bring in Britton to get three outs first and stay alive as long as possible.

I agree with spivey, and don't think the O's example is a good one.

The difference between a shootout and the extra innings example is soccer Ubaldo is allowed to a) kick in both rounds, b) can make more than one goal for every turn and b) you can keep putting off using Britton under the same excuse, since extra innings isn't best result after three innings, and then go sudden death.

As long as you use your best five kickers in the first five slots, I don't see how it makes a difference other than "it just feels right." And if you lose a shootout 3-1 through four kicks, with your best guy never getting a shot, no arrangement of PK takers was going to change that outcome.

The only way it can make a difference is if announcer cliches such as "putting pressure on the other team" really is at work in PK shootouts.

Well assuming going first really does give an advantage, which many people seem to think, then there may be something to putting pressure on the other team's kickers by getting ahead. If so, superficially at least you'd think you'd want your best kickers to go earlier. This might be counterbalanced by increasing pressure as you go through the rounds. I honestly have no idea.

The only way it can make a difference is if announcer cliches such as "putting pressure on the other team" really is at work in PK shootouts.

SoSH coming in hard with the 1998 Baseball Prospectus style "there is no such thing as pressure" is not something I expected!

SoSH coming in hard with the 1998 Baseball Prospectus style "there is no such thing as pressure" is not something I expected!

Maybe it is. Maybe that does account for the 55-45 difference. If so, I think that's rather unique to football, because I don't believe this concept is evident in other sports where the idea is routinely touted.

But if each kick is an independent event, then there would be no difference in how you order your lineup of PK takers.

Serious question: other than pressure, is there any other explanation that has been floated for the apparent advantage of going first?

Serious question: other than pressure, is there any other explanation that has been floated for the apparent advantage of going first?


No. Who goes first is determined by coin flip (though technically the coin flipper can decide the end of the field, which may matter in some matches). So you can't say there's going to be an inherent quality bias in the first team going first.

I think it has to be pressure.

I think you can absolutely come up with non-pressure reasons for PK success to get worse over rounds, though, even ones unrelated to PK taker quality. Game theory/pattern recognition, goal keeper warmed up, etc.

We know pressure matters in these moments. There are many cases in high profile penalty shootouts where very good players refuse to take them. I believe in Bayern's loss to Chelsea in the CL final about 10 years back Robben (missed a PK earlier in the game) and Kroos both refused.

Maybe it is. Maybe that does account for the 55-45 difference. If so, I think that's rather unique to football, because I don't believe this concept is evident in other sports where the idea is routinely touted.

But if each kick is an independent event, then there would be no difference in how you order your lineup of PK takers.

Any one here a hockey fan? Does the 55-45 edge hold up there?

If pressure and getting ahead are both important, as people seem to think, then you would want your highest percentage kickers to go early, especially if they are prone to pressure (the sensitive geniuses). Those least sensitive to pressure should go later, especially if they are lower percentage takers overall (the carefree donkeys).

edit: if you have a mix of players, send the carefree geniuses up in the middle, and let's hope you never get to the sensitive donkeys.

Small sample size, but an analysis of 3 years of NHL shootout stats here shows that home ice advantage didn't matter in NHL shootouts, and going first also doesn't appear to have had an advantage.

If pressure and getting ahead are both important, as people seem to think, then you would want your highest percentage kickers to go early, especially if they are prone to pressure (the sensitive geniuses). Those least sensitive to pressure should go later, especially if they are lower percentage takers overall (the carefree donkeys).


I don't think that follows. I think there's a lot of drawing conclusions that the data doesn't support.

What you want, ultimately, is to maximize your team's overall PK success rate/xG. If the 5 players are constant, what you need to do then, is to limit how much "true" success rate will be lost across the 5 rounds. For the purpose of argument, let's say "true" success rate is the rate of the first PK, since that is the highest rate of conversion. But we don't have a sense for how everyone will be affected.

I am not sure we can come up with an optimal lineup unless we have a sense what the "true success rate" was for kickers in each of these aggregated rounds for the NIH study. If we have that, it could help inform better how much success is lost. Even without it, I think there can be analyses to see if the round 3 taker's success is worse or better based on the situation (up, down, tied). If we had a database of the data, you could probably do that analysis which may help inform if there is an advantage from a pressure perspective in getting out to an early lead. Pressure is still highly individualized, but I think it'd give us more of an idea of what generally the correct order is. Again, the NIH study shows that success rate for the two teams is roughly the same for the first 2 rounds.

Unrelated.

Ajax fires DoF Overmars for crossing the line with women in the organization. Some rumors that he may have sent a dick pic. He was very good at his job, but obviously this is more than deserved.

Brendan Rodgers absolutely threw his team under the bus after the Forest game, saying "We had a really good second half but this is why we are not top players, they can't sustain it. A lot of players have to improve and prove they are worthy of being here. Some players may have achieved everything they can here, It's something we have to look at". It's a tough situation for the club - barely missed CL twice, have some players who look on the way out (Tielemans), a lot of injuries. But these are the kind of words of a manager who has lost the team.

What you want, ultimately, is to maximize your team's overall PK success rate/xG. If the 5 players are constant, what you need to do then, is to limit how much "true" success rate will be lost across the 5 rounds. For the purpose of argument, let's say "true" success rate is the rate of the first PK, since that is the highest rate of conversion. But we don't have a sense for how everyone will be affected.

Yes, but this is only half the story! Going first is supposedly advantageous because you get ahead and put the other team under pressure. If so, then you don't want low percentage guys going first even if it minimizes your overall loss in a vacuum, because getting ahead "creates" loss for the other side.

Anyway, regardless of what the actual story is, it would be easy to create a model using factors like: no/low pressure penalty percentage for each kicker, loss of percentage as a function of pressure, and pressure as a function of penalty score and round. It would be relatively trivial to create a model that comes out with 55% side that kicks first wins. Whether the model is connected to reality at all is a different issue.

Going first is supposedly advantageous because you get ahead and put the other team under pressure. If so, then you don't want low percentage guys going first even if it minimizes your overall loss in a vacuum, because getting ahead "creates" loss for the other side.

It sounds like what you really want is to make sure you send out your best coin flip taker.

Yes, but this is only half the story! Going first is supposedly advantageous because you get ahead and put the other team under pressure. If so, then you don't want low percentage guys going first even if it minimizes your overall loss in a vacuum, because getting ahead "creates" loss for the other side.


Yes, I meant to mention this. Perhaps. But again, if it is just that, why doesn't it affect the first two rounds? It seems like there may be something inherent in the later rounds, which have higher pressure. I think it is ok to say we don't fully understand this, and aren't confident in the optimal order. Of course, a pundit would never say something like that.

Everton are awful.

Fulham has 77 goals in 29 matches. That's 32!! more than 2nd place. It's more than Norwich got in 46 matches last year, and only Brentford had more (79). Their GD is 51 already. This is a larger GD that any team had in a full Championship season since Bournemouth in 14-15. Their point total is relatively modest - it doesn't look like they're too likely to break 100 points or even have an outlier in point totals for previous years. But it looks like it could be the best Championship team in a long, long time.

Everton are awful.

You have no idea. Honestly I'm kind of rooting for relegation, it feels like the only way the team is going to get serious about making changes.

With both Manchester United and Tottenham dropping points, it's pretty much neck and neck and neck again in the Top 4 race between those two and Arsenal. A win tomorrow at Wolves (won't be easy) and Arsenal will pull slightly ahead.

Top 4 odds:

Liverpool       99
Chelsea         94

United          32.5
Arsenal         30
Tottenham       29.5

West Ham         9

Wolves           3
Leicester        1
Brighton         1
Villa            0.5
Field            0.5

The team that finishes 4th in the EPL is getting a Champions League spot they don't deserve. I think that spot is going to say more about the quality of the teams that missed out than it will about the quality of the team that gets in.

Going into the season, on paper, it seemed like a great team was inevitably going to get screwed out of a CL spot in the EPL. I figured Man City and Liverpool were locks, with Chelsea and Man U almost guaranteed to finish with a bunch of points. There should have been a very small margin of error for Arsenal and Tottenham and *other* to work within in order to sneak into top 4.

Turns out the margin is much bigger, but they're all still messing up

Martinelli got two yellows on the same sequence, neither for dissent! Never seen that before. (edit: except in a rec-league highlight or something. edit2: apparently Chris Baird did it in a Euro qualifier too). Arsenal are down to 10 in the 70th minute after having played very well and leading away to Wolves.

The first yellow was for a petulant push on the throw-in taker to slow down Wolves after Martinelli thought he had been fouled. Then he chased the play down the field and intentionally barged into the Wolves player in the back for a clear yellow.

Both were very fair yellows, as both were intentional fouls that were designed to break up the play (which, imho, should be a caution every time). I missed the first one live as it was a dead ball foul and I wasn't paying close attention. Good for the ref for giving both as separate fouls and cards, though it was very harsh on Martinelli not knowing that he had already earned a caution before chasing down the play.

Arsenal unfortunately held on, but as a Spurs fan I do find it amusing how many red cards Arsenal manage to pick up.

Fulham's been excellent, no doubt. By 538's system they haven't really been above the norm for a top team in the Championship in the last few years. Brentford for the two years running before they were promoted, Leeds for the two years running before they were promoted, and Norwich last year reached similar ratings heights. By pure ELO only Brentford last year was similarly high, but pure ELO is more sensitive to EPL quality--dominating Europe the last few years, that os. Fulham probably should get more credit for the English system now being stronger overall that it has been in a long time, so it's possible they really are the best Championship team in years, taking that into account. Realtive to the English system it's not so clear.

United will probably score as I type this but Southampton look like the much better team in the second half.

The second half ended up being much more even than the first half, but United still had the best chances in the second half too, and more xG. In particular Maguire had a big one. xG overall was very lopsided in the game--maybe matched the most lopsided in favor of United in any game of the year. That probably flatters United a bit, but it was a game they would have won easily most days. (Not the most lopsided xG game of the year in any game United played in, as they got walloped by Liverpool 0-5.)

After the games today it's the first time all year the top 6 are also top 6 in non-pen xG. There's a huge gap between City/Liverpool and Chelsea, and another huge gap to the rest, and basically no gap after Arsenal/United and the 7th placed team (West Ham or Palace). By expected points the top 6 also just miss being top 6 on a per game basis. West Ham squeaks in above United for the 6th spot, mostly on the strength of their extra penalties.

The top 2 teams by all measures are playing right now in Serie A. Inter has been the favorite to win the scudetto all year, but if they continue on and lose this game today, after losing to the other close chaser Milan last week, it's going to be pretty tight.

United has had better results and better xG in the 11 games since Rangnick came on. Massive caveat though. In that span they've played 7 against the consensus bottom 9 teams in the league (5 plus Burnley twice), and none of the top 3. Of the other 4 games, 2 were Wolves and Villa, so purely midtable. The best teams they've played are West Ham and Arsenal.

edit: it's actually a somewhat similar story with Tottenham. Better results and mxG over the 11 games since Conte came on (spread over a longer time, due to all the cancellations). 8 of the games against the consensus bottom 9 (Southampton twice, the only missed Newcastle and Burnley). Leicester as their purely midtable opponent. Unlike United, they did play two of the top 3 in that stretch: Chelsea and Liverpool.

538 agrees with the consensus take though: Spurs have performed much better under Conte while United appears to be treading water. A part of that is just how bad Spurs were before the manager change, so it was easier for them to get better, and a part of it is that Spurs have had more games where they looked (and by xG, performed) very well in their last 11 than United did.

Napoli/Inter drew after a pretty strong Inter second half. Inter will remain pretty big favorites to win Serie A. Another huge game tomorrow that may end up deciding 4th/5th: Atlanta hosts Juve.

Against Middlesborough and Burnley, United had over 50 shots to their opponents roughly 15 or so. They are just not putting the ball in the net.

The story of the day of course is Everton’s great 3-0 win over Leeds in a critical relegation battle! Joking aside it was the kind of game that was both wonderful and frustrating. Wonderful because they needed it, frustrating because it felt like they just decided to play for once and if they’d play with that kind of energy more often they wouldn’t be in this mess.

Also while it won’t matter in the standings Vfl Bochum absolutely dismantled Bayern 4-2 today. Can’t imagine Bayern lose too often when Lewandowski has a brace. Hell if I told you Bayern would score first and Lewa would have the brace you probably wouldn’t have bothered with the score and just assumed Bayern won handily. Instead they were down 4-1 at the half.

Everton cut their relegation odds by 2: from a getting dangerous 18% to a long odds 9%. With Newcastle also playing better of late and having decent upside, the bottom 3 are now very much on for relegation.

538 loves Arsenal and Brighton right now: 4th and 5th in the EPL, and 9th and 17th in their global rankings. By pure ELO Arsenal is 10th overall, right behind United for 5th in the EPL. Brighton doesn't fare as well in pure ELO, still outside the top 25 overall and just 10th in the EPL.

Betting odds has Arsenal neck-and-neck with Spurs in expected quality going forward as 5th in the EPL, with Brighton in 8th behind the top 6 and just behind West Ham. Both are clearly being recognized as good teams now, just not quite as good as 538 believes they are.

Ah, this is one of those games that Lloris has every so often.

Spurs attacked pretty well but just couldn't put the ball in the net. The defending was a complete joke though.

With Manchester United and Tottenham dropping points the last two games, a win by West Ham today would put them back into the conversation.

EPL latest betting odds

winner
city          87.5
liverpool     12
chelsea        0.5

relegation
norwich       83
watford       82
burnley       68

newcastle     19.5
brentford     16.5
leeds         16
everton       10

palace         3
field          2

top 4
liverpool    99
chelsea      96

arsenal      37
united       30
tottenham    22

west ham     10

Wolves        3.5
brighton      1.5
leicester     0.5
field         0.5


top 6
arsenal      80
united       75
tottenham    62
  
west ham     44.5

wolves       22

brighton      6.5
leicester     5
villa         3
field         2

EPL expected team quality for rest of the season, ​by betting odds

team       pts. exp.  games   /game  yet to play          played twice
city           30.25    13    2.33   --                   chelsea, arsenal, leicester, southampton, brentford, norwich
liverpool      30.25    14    2.16   --                   chelsea, leicester, palace, brentford, burnley   
chelsea        30.25    14    2.16   --                   city, liverpool, spurs, brighton, villa

united         22.75    14    1.62   brighton             west ham, wolves, villa, newcastle, southampton, burnley
tottenham      26.25    16    1.64   brighton, burnley    chelsea, wolves, palace, southampton, watford      
arsenal        25.25    16    1.58   --                   city, burnley, norwich

west ham       18.75    13    1.44   --                   united, leicester, palace, southampton, leeds, watford
villa          22.25    15    1.48   burnley              chelsea, united, everton, newcastle, brentford   
brighton       19.75    15    1.32   united, spurs        chelsea, leicester, everton, palace, brentford, watford   
leicester      22.25    16    1.39   everton              city, liverpool, west ham, brighton

wolves         18.75    15    1.25   --                   united, spurs, southampton, brentford
everton        19.25    16    1.20   leicester            brighton, villa, leeds, norwich
palace         17.75    14    1.27   watford              liverpool, spurs, west ham, brighton, brentford, norwich 
newcastle      16.75    15    1.12   --                   united, villa, leeds, watford       
southampton    17.75    14    1.27   --                   city, united, spurs, west ham, wolves      

leeds          16.25    15    1.08   --                   west ham, everton, newcastle, burnley
brentford      14.25    13    1.10   --                   city, liverpool, brighton, villa, wolves, palace  
    
burnley        16.25    17    0.96   spurs, villa         liverpool, united arsenal, leeds
watford        13.75    15    0.92   palace               tottenham, west ham, brighton, newcastle, norwich

norwich        10.75    14    0.77   --                   city, arsenal, everton, palace, watford

Europa league about to start up again. As usual, there are essentially no teams that have a better shot at getting into the CL via Europa than via their domestic league. This year right now maybe Frankfurt and Lazio is close. Even West Ham has a better shot domestically.

The CL betting odds for the head-to-head matchups have changed only a little since December:

PSG       55% (-1%)
United    58% (same)
Juve      64% (-2%)
Ajax      75% (same)
Liverpool 77% (-1%)
Chelsea   78% (-3%)
Bayern    92% (+6%)
City      92% (+3%)

EL betting odds haven't changed much either:

Lazio       52% (-1%)
Betis       56% (same)
Barcelona   57% (-1%)
Leipzig     57% (-1%)
Braga       77% (+6%)
Atalanta    72% (same)
Dortmund    77% (same)
Sevilla     77% (same)

Juve got an injury time goal off a corner to save their top 4 hopes.

I didn't realize until this very moment that Tottenham was given a 0-3 loss for the game that was cancelled for covid, and so are out of the ECL. They would have been favorites had they advanced.

As you can see by the odds above, they aren't a lock for the EL even next year via top 6, based on table position. They could also still win the FA cup, but it's not particularly likely (11%).

Brighton came into Old Trafford rated higher than Manchester United by 538's methodology, and for a half played like the better team despite being on the road. Then a giveaway in the defensive third and a really nice finish by Ronaldo and Brighton spent the rest of the game chasing and mostly getting overpowered, especially after they went down a man on a DOGSO. The final stats really flatter United.

Real Madrid was so lucky to escape with a 1-0 loss on the road. 538 still thinks they are better than PSG, but nobody else does. The biggest disagreement 538 has with betting odds though are United/Atleti and Juve/Villarreal. I think a couple things are going on here--538 is overrating La Liga, in part because they don't have very good in season adjustments. Every La Liga team in Europe this year except Barca gets less respect from the betting odds than from 538. On the other side of the coin, Juve and United have also over the last few years underperformed so are higher rated by betting odds (which is based a little more on expectation) than 538 (which is based a little more on past performance).

MCoA has the xG at 1.3-0.4 in favor of Liverpool, but I thought Inter looked really good for long stretches yesterday and just couldn't get a great shot off (they did hit the crossbar once, however). Good defending from Liverpool, and ultimately plenty of good attacking, too.

Most systems had the xG line at around 1.3-0.4 (infogol had it at 1.46-0.5), but FBref had it much closer, at 0.7-0.3. Not sure how something that low is possible unless all shots the whole game were considered to be low quality chances.

The recent Spurs loss to Wolves had wildly different xG on FBref compared to most other systems. Most systems had Wolves with the higher xG by a significant margin, some by more than a goal. FBRef had Spurs with the edge 1.6-1.3.

edit: for example, Mane's free header from close in the 14th minute off the free kick was worth 0.41 by infogol. That seems too high, but it was a big chance, and would be scored some significant percentage of the time. Should be worth at least 0.2, maybe more.

edit2: Mane's bicycle attempt was worth 0.19 by infogol. That's definitely too high. It was a good chance though, and considering how close it was it's probably comfortably worth 0.1 or so.

edit3: the one I saw live was Luis Diaz's chance. Infogol has it at 0.33. Again maybe that's a little high, but it was a big chance and was worth at least 0.2 again.

I just don't think there's any way to get Liverpool down to 0.7, considering all their other shots as well. As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in bewtween.

I had to work so couldn't see too much of the game. In the parts I saw Liverpool seemed better but not by a ton. The real issue to me is that Liverpool was better despite being the away side, which bodes very poorly for Inter overall. (the 0-2 hole for Inter doesn't help either...) Both 538 and betting odds have Liverpool as 96% to advance.

In the parts I saw Liverpool seemed better but not by a ton.

Oh yeah, at no point was it unclear which team was better. Which is why I was pretty impressed with Inter at various times for actually getting into pretty good spots.

One possible reason for the disparity between FBref's xG and everyone else is that they use Statsbomb data, which I believe includes more info on the location of defenders and the keeper. That could account for downgrades to all the chances you describe, AuntBea.

As an interested observer, I though Liverpool were better, but not by enough that I wasn't nervous. Inter pressed well for long periods, and were able to get into transition more than I liked. Some very good CB play kept those moments from turning into shots, but as a fan it felt more fraught than the xG would suggest. On the other hand, holding the Serie A leaders to mostly bad shots at home is pretty good!

I am so out of the loop. It seems that I forgot that Barca was in Europa League. Also, I didn't realize Aubameyang is now on Barca.

Rangers up 1-4 at Dortmund?

flip