2010 World Cup Thread

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Drawing with the team that was most likely to beat us dramatically increases our odds.

 

Losing to England, 4 points out of Slovenia and Algeria probably gets it done, just nervously watching goal differential.

 

Ting with England, same formula, except we don't have to worry about GD.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Hairyducked Idiot

[wolf stansson]

I really don't understand how group play works.

 

Yes because starting off with one point is the same as starting off with none?

[dougdescenzo]

Stop showing the damn T-Storm warning. I've lived in Chicago most of my life and I've never heard of Newton county, so shut up about a T-storm down there.

 

The 4 other residents of Newton County and I conferred and we have decided NOT to take offense to that.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I really don't understand how group play works.

 

I'm going to say something snarky because I don't have a good counterargument.

[wolf stansson]

I really don't understand how group play works.

 

I'm going to say something snarky because I don't have a good counterargument.

I'm not sure why you need a counterargument. I learned to count when I was a toddler and ever since then, I've known that one of the certainties in the universe is that having one of something is more than having zero of it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I really don't understand how group play works.

 

I'm going to say something snarky because I don't have a good counterargument.

I'm not sure why you need a counterargument. I learned to count when I was a toddler and ever since then, I've known that one of the certainties in the universe is that having one of something is more than having zero of it.

 

Well, since I clearly posted "1 and 0 are the same number," you've made a brilliant point. Kudos.

[wolf stansson]

I really don't understand how group play works.

 

I'm going to say something snarky because I don't have a good counterargument.

I'm not sure why you need a counterargument. I learned to count when I was a toddler and ever since then, I've known that one of the certainties in the universe is that having one of something is more than having zero of it.

 

Well, since I clearly posted "1 and 0 are the same number," you've made a brilliant point. Kudos.

Hahaha...you don't have to grasp at straws, you can just stop posting. If being one of the two teams with the most points means you advance, it's pretty apparent how having one point (especially against the favorite in the group) instead of none is beneficial to your odds of moving on. No one else in the group will get points off England.

 

While I admire your dedication to belligerence, you might want to stop talking for a while, Champ.

[USSoccer]

Drawing with the team that was most likely to beat us dramatically increases our odds.

 

Losing to England, 4 points out of Slovenia and Algeria probably gets it done, just nervously watching goal differential.

 

Ting with England, same formula, except we don't have to worry about GD.

 

This is completely wrong. If you think the odds didn't change after a draw as opposed to a loss, I don't know what to tell you.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Hahaha...you don't have to grasp at straws, you can just stop posting. If being one of the two teams with the most points means you advance, it's pretty apparent how having one point (especially against the favorite in the group) instead of none is beneficial to your odds of moving on. No one else in the group will get points off England.

 

While I admire your dedication to belligerence, you might want to stop talking for a while, Champ.

 

Keep hammering overly simplistic explanations that miss important nuances with heavyhanded sarcasm. It's apparently the only club in your bag, so I can see why you feel the need to use it every shot.

 

The only realistic scenario in which the point against England makes the difference between advancing and not advancing is if the U.S. draws with either Slovenia and Algeria, defeats the other one by a narrow margin, the one that we draw against beats the one that we lost against by a large margin, and the one that we draw against manages to lose to England narrowly.

 

That exact scenario has a slim chance of happening. In the World Cup system, the marginal value of "points" is not nearly as absolute as you want to pretend it is. Some points are huge, some are relatively unimportant.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This is completely wrong. If you think the odds didn't change after a draw as opposed to a loss, I don't know what to tell you.

 

I'm not saying they didn't change. I'm saying they didn't significantly change, i.e. a swing of 15-20 percentage points or more.

 

What scenarios are plausibly left in which we advance, but wouldn't have if we'd lost 2-1 to England instead?

[wolf stansson]

Hahaha...you don't have to grasp at straws, you can just stop posting. If being one of the two teams with the most points means you advance, it's pretty apparent how having one point (especially against the favorite in the group) instead of none is beneficial to your odds of moving on. No one else in the group will get points off England.

 

While I admire your dedication to belligerence, you might want to stop talking for a while, Champ.

 

Keep hammering overly simplistic explanations that miss important nuances with heavyhanded sarcasm. It's apparently the only club in your bag, so I can see why you feel the need to use it every shot.

 

The only realistic scenario in which the point against England makes the difference between advancing and not advancing is if the U.S. draws with either Slovenia and Algeria, defeats the other one by a narrow margin, the one that we draw against beats the one that we lost against by a large margin, and the one that we draw against manages to lose to England narrowly.

 

That exact scenario has a slim chance of happening. In the World Cup system, the marginal value of "points" is not nearly as absolute as you want to pretend it is. Some points are huge, some are relatively unimportant.

You just made my argument for me. Thank you, Kyle.

 

In a tournament when there is so little margin for error, leaving points on the table is unacceptable. As unrealistic as your proposed scenario is, it could still happen and if it does, you spend the next 4 years kicking yourself for it. Last year at the Confed's Cup we lost two terrible games and had to beat Egypt, the two-time reigning African Champions 3-0 and had to have Italy lose to Brazil 3-0. That was the only scenario where we would advance. I think if you went to some Italian message board, there'd probably be some misguided, under-informed poster arguing like you, that leaving points on the table against Egypt in the second game wasn't a bad thing because it didn't effect their odds of advancing due to the unlikelihood of the confluence of events that happened to happen.

 

But it did.

 

So please stop being dumb, it's ruining my favorite thread.

[USSoccer]

This is completely wrong. If you think the odds didn't change after a draw as opposed to a loss, I don't know what to tell you.

 

I'm not saying they didn't change. I'm saying they didn't significantly change, i.e. a swing of 15-20 percentage points or more.

 

What scenarios are plausibly left in which we advance, but wouldn't have if we'd lost 2-1 to England instead?

 

A 15-20% change is significant. Also, it might be wiser to revisit this after tomorrow's game. If one of those teams win by multiple goals, this point will loom large.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You just made my argument for me. Thank you, Kyle.

 

In a tournament when there is so little margin for error, leaving points on the table is unacceptable. As unrealistic as your proposed scenario is, it could still happen and if it does, you spend the next 4 years kicking yourself for it. Last year at the Confed's Cup we lost two terrible games and had to beat Egypt, the two-time reigning African Champions 3-0 and had to have Italy lose to Brazil 3-0. That was the only scenario where we would advance. I think if you went to some Italian message board, there'd probably be some misguided, under-informed poster arguing like you, that leaving points on the table against Egypt in the second game wasn't a bad thing because it didn't effect their odds of advancing due to the unlikelihood of the confluence of events that happened to happen.

 

But it did.

 

The fact that something unlikely happened doesn't disprove that it was unlikely.

 

Nate Silver estimates that the draw increased the U.S. team's odds of advancement from about 56% to about 65%. That sounds about right to me. Want to tell me that Nate Silver doesn't know the difference between 1 and 0?

 

So please stop being dumb, it's ruining my favorite thread.

 

Since you've pretty much done nothing but act like a condescending jerk for the last page, I take joy in that.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Hairyducked Idiot

[SpongeWorthy]

Hahaha...you don't have to grasp at straws, you can just stop posting. If being one of the two teams with the most points means you advance, it's pretty apparent how having one point (especially against the favorite in the group) instead of none is beneficial to your odds of moving on. No one else in the group will get points off England.

 

While I admire your dedication to belligerence, you might want to stop talking for a while, Champ.

 

Keep hammering overly simplistic explanations that miss important nuances with heavyhanded sarcasm. It's apparently the only club in your bag, so I can see why you feel the need to use it every shot.

 

The only realistic scenario in which the point against England makes the difference between advancing and not advancing is if the U.S. draws with either Slovenia and Algeria, defeats the other one by a narrow margin, the one that we draw against beats the one that we lost against by a large margin, and the one that we draw against manages to lose to England narrowly.

 

That exact scenario has a slim chance of happening. In the World Cup system, the marginal value of "points" is not nearly as absolute as you want to pretend it is. Some points are huge, some are relatively unimportant.

You just made my argument for me. Thank you, Kyle.

 

In a tournament when there is so little margin for error, leaving points on the table is unacceptable. As unrealistic as your proposed scenario is, it could still happen and if it does, you spend the next 4 years kicking yourself for it. Last year at the Confed's Cup we lost two terrible games and had to beat Egypt, the two-time reigning African Champions 3-0 and had to have Italy lose to Brazil 3-0. That was the only scenario where we would advance. I think if you went to some Italian message board, there'd probably be some misguided, under-informed poster arguing like you, that leaving points on the table against Egypt in the second game wasn't a bad thing because it didn't effect their odds of advancing due to the unlikelihood of the confluence of events that happened to happen.

 

But it did.

 

So please stop being dumb, it's ruining my favorite thread.

 

So some weird crap happened in the Confederations Cup so Kyle's point is moot? If that's the counter argument you would've made if Kyle hadn't made it for you then I would say he is basically right--there isn't much of a difference between a loss and a tie.

[ScrubMD]

You just made my argument for me. Thank you, Kyle.

 

In a tournament when there is so little margin for error, leaving points on the table is unacceptable. As unrealistic as your proposed scenario is, it could still happen and if it does, you spend the next 4 years kicking yourself for it. Last year at the Confed's Cup we lost two terrible games and had to beat Egypt, the two-time reigning African Champions 3-0 and had to have Italy lose to Brazil 3-0. That was the only scenario where we would advance. I think if you went to some Italian message board, there'd probably be some misguided, under-informed poster arguing like you, that leaving points on the table against Egypt in the second game wasn't a bad thing because it didn't effect their odds of advancing due to the unlikelihood of the confluence of events that happened to happen.

 

But it did.

 

The fact that something unlikely happened doesn't disprove that it was unlikely.

 

Nate Silver estimates that the draw increased the U.S. team's odds of advancement from about 56% to about 65%. That sounds about right to me. Want to tell me that Nate Silver doesn't know the difference between 1 and 0?

 

So please stop being dumb, it's ruining my favorite thread.

 

Since you've pretty much done nothing but act like a condescending jerk for the last page, I take joy in that.

 

9% isn't exactly nothing.

[wolf stansson]

So some weird crap happened in the Confederations Cup so Kyle's point is moot? If that's the counter argument you would've made if Kyle hadn't made it for you then I would say he is basically right--there isn't much of a difference between a loss and a tie.

Kyle's point isn't necessarily moot, just misguided.

 

It's been fun arguing with people who spend much less energy following and understanding the subtleties of a sport than USSoccer and I, but since it's clear you're happy in your obstinacy, I'll leave it at this. A 65% chance is better than a 55% chance. Beyond that, more than any other sport, soccer is difficult to quantify. Unlike baseball, abstract things like confidence and momentum matter. With all the importance stressed on this game both among fans/media and the teams themselves, getting a point is very important. What's more important is the confidence and momentum it imparts to the US team. The US and England will advance. They probably would have advanced even if England won, but to say you're not sure how this helps just shows your ignorance of the sport.

Edited June 12, 2010 by wolf stansson

[Hairyducked Idiot]

9% isn't exactly nothing.

 

Sure. But 9 times out of 10, it won't be the difference, so I guess we can sit here and squabble about whether it's "significant" or not.

 

But the result of the next game will have several times the impact that this draw did, no matter the result.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Blah blah blah I watch some Euro club leagues on my satellite package so I get to say mystical stuff about momentum that would be laughed out of any other sports thread and act like I'm above it all.

[USSoccer]

If SVN beats ALG tomorrow 3-0 (not an unlikely result, mind you), this is the table:

 

SLV 3

ENG 1

USA 1

ALG 1

 

We play SLV next. If we drop points to them (for argument's sake we'll say we draw 1-1 again, and ENG beats ALG (almost a certainty):

 

SLV-4

ENG-4

USA-2

ALG-0

 

Match 3 then becomes the need for us to win, which would bring us to 5. If ENG beat SLV (likely), we go through on 5 points by virtue of the draw. There's one scenario where it matters.

 

Also, ENG dropping 2 points today means that they will more than likely have to play for a result in match 3. Don't discount this, as we will probably need them to beat SLV for us to advance.

 

So, there's one direct way it matter, and one (massive) indirect way it matters.

[wolf stansson]

9% isn't exactly nothing.

 

Sure. But 9 times out of 10, it won't be the difference, so I guess we can sit here and squabble about whether it's "significant" or not.

 

But the result of the next game will have several times the impact that this draw did, no matter the result.

I agree that the Slovenia game has always been the most significant, but this tie could have a huge impact in the knockout round. If Slovenia or Algeria can tie England and we win the next two winnable games, the difference in ease of advancing to the final 8 is much different vs Germany or Serbia. Serbia are talented but much more beatable that Germany.

[brinoch]

Jesus Christ. We just frickin' tied England and we're arguing here?

 

Kyle, I'm sorry. I'm not being condescending here, but you're just plain wrong. This increases our chances of advancing significantly. Not only do we have a point (and are tied with the best team in the group after 1/3 of games), but in order to assure that they advance, England need to win out. They will have to go balls to the wall against Slovenia. Had England won today, they could have rested somewhat against Slovenia in their third match -- a match we probably would have needed England to win.

 

It also means that we control our own destiny. If the US win the next two, they are through.

 

Let's root for a 0-0 tie tomorrow morning -- or, failing that, an Algeria win.

[USSoccer]

Blah blah blah I watch some Euro club leagues on my satellite package so I get to say mystical stuff about momentum that would be laughed out of any other sports thread and act like I'm above it all.

 

That's not what he said at all.

 

And in any case, you watching justintv on your computer gives you more access to soccer than the Eurosnob satellite that Wolf and I steal signals from.

[wolf stansson]

Blah blah blah I watch some Euro club leagues on my satellite package so I get to say mystical stuff about momentum that would be laughed out of any other sports thread and act like I'm above it all.

The fact that you don't understand fundamental differences between sports and what is quantifiable, what isn't and how that is different in soccer just further shows your lack of understanding of what's going on here.

 

I don't begrudge you the right to only pay attention to a sport when it matters, but it's pretty typical you to come in and act like an expert with no reason to do so. I don't wear the fact that I spend a ton of time watching and following soccer as some sort of badge of honor or to establish my territorial bona fides. I bring it up because it's pretty obvious that if one intelligent sports fan spends a lot more time evaluating a sport than another intelligent sports fan, he's going to understand it better.

[Magnetic Curses]

Jesus Christ. We just frickin' tied England and we're arguing here?

 

Kyle, I'm sorry. I'm not being condescending here, but you're just plain wrong. This increases our chances of advancing significantly. Not only do we have a point (and are tied with the best team in the group after 1/3 of games), but in order to assure that they advance, England need to win out. They will have to go balls to the wall against Slovenia. Had England won today, they could have rested somewhat against Slovenia in their third match -- a match we probably would have needed England to win.

 

It also means that we control our own destiny. If the US win the next two, they are through.

 

Let's root for a 0-0 tie tomorrow morning -- or, failing that, an Algeria win.

 

he's obviously busy jinx-busting.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Sorry guys. When Nate Silver's on my side, I feel pretty darn comfortable that I'm correct.