2022 FIFA World Cup

[Bruce]

I mean, I'd be interested in some of the reasons. I get that most 0-0 games are just matters of evenly matched defense and offense, but if a team is in the position that a tie is all they need to advance, what is the incentive to even field an offense, versus just loading the field with good defenders?

Keep in mind that I'm looking at this through the lens of a game designer, not someone interested in athletics. "Never incentivize not taking the game seriously" is generally sound advice when one is designing a set of game rules.

That first scenario is called "parking the bus" and is often deployed by a team that is a clear underdog and need to get out with whatever result they can. I don't think many would have faulted the USMNT for parking the bus, but they performed well above expectations and really deserved a goal or two (Pulisic's crossbar shot was painful).

And if two teams happen to meet and could collude to both advance, then it'd be a repeat of the Disgrace of Gijón. It's the reason why the last games in group stages are now played simultaneously (and why 3-team groups as proposed for 2026 are a disaster).

A scoreless draw can still be very exciting, especially if both teams are actively creating chances and are just off target or having their shots saved by an in-form goalkeeper. England's more creative players were being shut down by the U.S., while the U.S. doesn't have a big-game forward who can convert the half-chances they were creating. It's unfortunate that casual viewers might have been turned away by the result and ignored all of the tension that this match was played through.

[Scott5114]

It seems like the point system for the tournament is the cause of some of the more bizarre outcomes (collusion to advance, teams advancing without scoring). Is there any advantage this system has over a single- or double-elimination tournament of the type often used in US sports?

[hotdogPi]

Or when both teams realize they can both advance on a specific result and decide to do so: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijon)

EDIT: I posted this not knowing that Page 2 had started, so I didn't see Bruce's post or Scott5114's.

[NWI_Irish96]

It seems like the point system for the tournament is the cause of some of the more bizarre outcomes (collusion to advance, teams advancing without scoring). Is there any advantage this system has over a single- or double-elimination tournament of the type often used in US sports?

Playing in groups guarantees every team three meaningful games, with most teams not being guaranteed of advancement or elimination until after their third game.

The third games in each group are played simultaneously, which eliminates most of the opportunities for collusion. Even in the rare cases where two opponents can both be guaranteed advancement with a draw, regardless of the other game, there is still value in finishing first in the group over second with regards to your placement in the knockout bracket.

[thspfc]

I feel like a 0—0 tie should count as a loss for both teams. If you go out and play a hard game and the score ends up 1-1, then yeah, count it as a draw, because you played the game and tied. But a 0—0 score is exactly what you would end up if both teams went out onto the pitch and just stood there on their phones for an hour without touching the ball.

This is especially true since there are apparently situations where someone can advance by tying (I don't know the game mechanics that cause this, but that seems squirrelly to me). Making it so a team has to at least score 1 point to advance would at least limit how much tanking a team could do. (Get your 1 point, and then tank–hey, you might even win on accident!)

Yikes.

[jeffandnicole]

Or when both teams realize they can both advance on a specific result and decide to do so: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijon)

That scenario almost happened in the NFL just this year.  https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2022/1/10/22875988/raiders-chargers-playoffs-no-tie

[1995hoo]

While I don't know what the solution is, I don't like a point system in which some games are statistically worth less than other games. The system soccer uses suffers from that problem because a game won by one team is worth an aggregate three points (three to the winner, none to the loser), but a tie is worth an aggregate two points (one point to each team). One point mysteriously disappeared. The NHL's system suffers from the reverse version of that problem–a game won in regulation is worth an aggregate two points (two to the winner, none to the loser), but if it goes to overtime because they abolished ties, suddenly it's worth an aggregate three points (two to the winner, one to the loser). One point mysteriously appears out of thin air just because a game goes to overtime. We all know that some games matter more as an emotional or momentum matter (big rival, or breaking a losing streak) or simply through the luck of the draw (the US—Iran game Tuesday is a good example of a must-win as a result of how the other games ended). That's fine. What I don't think is right is for one game to be statistically more valuable in the standings than another game is, or at least when that fact cannot be known in advance. (That is, I believe some auto racing series have sometimes had "double points" races. I could see making the Indy 500 worth more due to the prestige factor, for example. If that's known in advance, I have no gripe with it.)

But I don't know what the solution is. In the NHL, assuming for discussion purposes that they will never return to allowing ties, the solution is seemingly easy: Make a regulation win worth three points and an overtime win worth two. That way every game would be worth an aggregate three. Some owners have objected to this because it would "distort point totals compared to historic records," but that's already happened under the current system.

But I don't know what the solution would be in soccer's system where you have tie games. Having an incentive to play to win isn't necessarily a bad thing, but making the game worth more than some other game doesn't strike me as the right way to do it as a matter of statistical principle.

(Then there was that bizarre point system the NASL used: Six for a win, three for a tie, plus up to three bonus points for goals scored regardless of whether you won, lost, or tied. Of course they abolished ties in favor of the shootout at some point. I understand wanting to encourage teams to score goals, but the NASL system suffered from the same flaw of the number of total available standings points being unknown–indeed, unknowable–in advance.)

[NWI_Irish96]

The concept behind three points for a win is that it's harder to win one game out of two than to tie both. Plus, a game where teams are trying to win is far more entertaining than when one or both teams is playing to not lose.

I've seen suggestions that in draws other than 0-0, the team that was last ahead gets 2 points and the other team 1 point, and I rather like that idea. Scoreless draws would still be one point each.

[JayhawkCO]

I mean, I'd be interested in some of the reasons. I get that most 0-0 games are just matters of evenly matched defense and offense, but if a team is in the position that a tie is all they need to advance, what is the incentive to even field an offense, versus just loading the field with good defenders?

Keep in mind that I'm looking at this through the lens of a game designer, not someone interested in athletics. "Never incentivize not taking the game seriously" is generally sound advice when one is designing a set of game rules.

Soccer is the most random major sport. A lot of analysis has been done (see the book Net Gains) that shows that the highest correlation to winning is the amount of shots on goal, but even those don't have anywhere close to a 100% confidence interval. So, you could have a team that absolutely peppers the other team with shots, dominates possession, and doesn't let the other team even get a shot off much less a shot on goal and still never score. A team that dominates in this case doesn't deserve to lose as they clearly "went for it".

If you were the manager of a team that knew they only needed a tie to advance, how would you play? Would you keep all 11 men in the box and "park the bus"? That would mean you're going to have nearly all of the possession in the game be in your defensive end, which could very well allow a goal that then puts you on the attack to get your tie back. If you want to be cautiously aggressive instead, you're still susceptible to the counter attack and could allow a goal making your whole plan moot. Playing for a tie for an entire match is much harder than one would think. This is why soccer is brilliant and sometimes the best defense is having an opportunistic offense that prevents the other team from throwing too many men forward.

The only way to play to a tie and have it be the truly optimal strategy is to have the other team also want to play for a tie. As Bruce referenced above, the Disgrace of Gijon was an example of this, and was rightfully condemned in the football world. That's why they now play the final match of the group stage simultaneous to the other game in the group, so no one can do this with a guarantee of success. In the case of this year's Group B, England and Iran can both advance with a tie. The problem is Wales and the U.S. have the incentive not to allow that to happen, so, while they might change strategy late in game if the scores are in their favor (subbing in more defensemen, using stalling tactics, keeping men from going forward, etc.), as I said above, this is a really risky strategy to pursue for an entire game when a loss can knock you out. England is obviously in the driver's seat as they'd have to lose by 4 goals to Wales to have any chance of elimination, but Iran specifically can't play for a draw until maybe the 80th minute of a tie game.

While I don't know what the solution is, I don't like a point system in which some games are statistically worth less than other games. The system soccer uses suffers from that problem because a game won by one team is worth an aggregate three points (three to the winner, none to the loser), but a tie is worth an aggregate two points (one point to each team). One point mysteriously disappeared. The NHL's system suffers from the reverse version of that problem–a game won in regulation is worth an aggregate two points (two to the winner, none to the loser), but if it goes to overtime because they abolished ties, suddenly it's worth an aggregate three points (two to the winner, one to the loser). One point mysteriously appears out of thin air just because a game goes to overtime. We all know that some games matter more as an emotional or momentum matter (big rival, or breaking a losing streak) or simply through the luck of the draw (the US—Iran game Tuesday is a good example of a must-win as a result of how the other games ended). That's fine. What I don't think is right is for one game to be statistically more valuable in the standings than another game is, or at least when that fact cannot be known in advance. (That is, I believe some auto racing series have sometimes had "double points" races. I could see making the Indy 500 worth more due to the prestige factor, for example. If that's known in advance, I have no gripe with it.)

But I don't know what the solution is. In the NHL, assuming for discussion purposes that they will never return to allowing ties, the solution is seemingly easy: Make a regulation win worth three points and an overtime win worth two. That way every game would be worth an aggregate three. Some owners have objected to this because it would "distort point totals compared to historic records," but that's already happened under the current system.

But I don't know what the solution would be in soccer's system where you have tie games. Having an incentive to play to win isn't necessarily a bad thing, but making the game worth more than some other game doesn't strike me as the right way to do it as a matter of statistical principle.

(Then there was that bizarre point system the NASL used: Six for a win, three for a tie, plus up to three bonus points for goals scored regardless of whether you won, lost, or tied. Of course they abolished ties in favor of the shootout at some point. I understand wanting to encourage teams to score goals, but the NASL system suffered from the same flaw of the number of total available standings points being unknown–indeed, unknowable–in advance.)

No game is worth less than others before the game starts; they all have 3 points on offer. If no team gets the breakthrough for the win, that's when a point disappears into the ether. From an entertainment standpoint alone, it makes sense to incentivize people to go for the win late in games rather than being happy with a tie. Depending on the talent levels of the teams and the odds of who is likelier to win, some teams are quite happy with a draw (i.e. Bournemouth playing at Manchester City, Bournemouth fans would be thrilled with a point), but it's almost never the case that both teams are satisfied with dropping points, in case, quite often the opposite with both teams ruing missed opporunities.

tl;dr, don't fuck with soccer. It's the perfect sport. 

[Scott5114]

Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.

[US 89]

Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.

How many high schools have a separate field for soccer anyway? At mine, we only had one field with markings for football, soccer, and lacrosse.

[Big John]

Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.

How many high schools have a separate field for soccer anyway? At mine, we only had one field with markings for football, soccer, and lacrosse.

Not many, but I've been to a couple high schools that had a separate field for soccer.

[JayhawkCO]

My high school in Colorado had a separate soccer field.

[Bruce]

It's typical for teams here to share a main stadium (often with a turf surface) for soccer, football, and track & field, with separate practice fields (often grass/mud). Gets a bit tougher when space is at a premium, though.

Oklahoma has had a few professional-ish teams for some time now, but one of them is going on hiatus due to a lack of a suitable venue that meets D2 standards.

[Scott5114]

Yeah, I think one of them is playing in the football stadium of one of OKC's inner-city high schools. Every time MAPS is up for renewal there's talk of building a soccer stadium somewhere but it never seems to make it to the final ballot proposal.

[Bruce]

Yeah, I think one of them is playing in the football stadium of one of OKC's inner-city high schools. Every time MAPS is up for renewal there's talk of building a soccer stadium somewhere but it never seems to make it to the final ballot proposal.

OKC Energy was playing at Taft Stadium, but it doesn't meet the minimum field dimensions required by USL (the D2 league). The team were hoping to move into the MAPS 4 stadium that is behind schedule.

There was also a short-lived competing team (Rayo OKC) in the other D2 league of the time, NASL. It didn't survive for various reasons and the league tanked anyway, so no one can really fault Energy for jumping into the market.

[Scott5114]

Yup, that's the one I was thinking of, although I misremembered that Taft is actually a middle school.

[NWI_Irish96]

We're now through two games for each team.

Three teams--France, Brazil and Portugal--have six points and have already secured passage to the knockout round.

Two teams--Qatar and Canada--have zero points and have already been eliminated from qualifying for the knockout round.

The remaining teams all have somewhere between one and four points, with four points usually, but not always securing advancement.

The US are the only team with two points, which means they are also the only team with neither a win nor a loss so far.

A loss or draw against Iran eliminates the US. A win sends them through as the second placed team in the group, unless England somehow loses to Wales, or draws Wales and the US win by > 4 goals.

[JayhawkCO]

Additionally, there are three teams, Spain, England and Netherlands that would take basically miracles not to advance.

[swake]

Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.

I went to high school in Tulsa and I am dating myself, but 35 years ago in high school we certainly had soccer teams, boys and girls. That was the era of the Tulsa Roughnecks winning the 1983 NASL championship over the Toronto Blizzard and ever since soccer has been huge in Tulsa. Tulsa currently has FC Tulsa in the tier 2 pro USL Championship and the Tulsa Athletic in the semi-pro NPSL.

My kid's suburban Tulsa high school has a 10,000 seat football stadium that is shared by the soccer and lacrosse teams, but the soccer teams do have a two field soccer specific practice facility.

[NWI_Irish96]

Final table from Group A:

Netherlands 7
Senegal 6
Ecuador 4
Qatar 0

Most likely, the Netherlands will face the US or Iran in the Round of 16, with Senegal almost certainly facing England, which should be interesting with Senegal's keeping playing professionally at Chelsea.

[JayhawkCO]

Final table from Group A:

Netherlands 7
Senegal 6
Ecuador 4
Qatar 0

Most likely, the Netherlands will face the US or Iran in the Round of 16, with Senegal almost certainly facing England, which should be interesting with Senegal's keeping playing professionally at Chelsea.

Thought my Ecuador pick was good when Mane was hurt for Senegal, but right after tying it up, Ecuador conceded. It was a really good game.

[thspfc]

Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.

I went to high school in Tulsa and I am dating myself, but 35 years ago in high school we certainly had soccer teams, boys and girls. That was the era of the Tulsa Roughnecks winning the 1983 NASL championship over the Toronto Blizzard and ever since soccer has been huge in Tulsa. Tulsa currently has FC Tulsa in the tier 2 pro USL Championship and the Tulsa Athletic in the semi-pro NPSL.

My kid's suburban Tulsa high school has a 10,000 seat football stadium that is shared by the soccer and lacrosse teams, but the soccer teams do have a two field soccer specific practice facility.

Like most things, the soccer-playing divide here is much more about urban/suburban vs. rural than it is about entire states or regions. OKC and Tulsa are likely no less interested in soccer than other American urban areas of their size.

[Scott5114]

Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.

I went to high school in Tulsa and I am dating myself, but 35 years ago in high school we certainly had soccer teams, boys and girls. That was the era of the Tulsa Roughnecks winning the 1983 NASL championship over the Toronto Blizzard and ever since soccer has been huge in Tulsa. Tulsa currently has FC Tulsa in the tier 2 pro USL Championship and the Tulsa Athletic in the semi-pro NPSL.

My kid's suburban Tulsa high school has a 10,000 seat football stadium that is shared by the soccer and lacrosse teams, but the soccer teams do have a two field soccer specific practice facility.

Like most things, the soccer-playing divide here is much more about urban/suburban vs. rural than it is about entire states or regions. OKC and Tulsa are likely no less interested in soccer than other American urban areas of their size.

Perhaps–I didn't go to school in OKC proper, though; I was in what could be called an exurb if you were feeling particularly charitable. Our school sports were categorized as Class A (most large urban high schools in Oklahoma are Class 6A, so we were five divisions below that).

Accordingly, we were missing a lot of sports, it wasn't just soccer. We didn't have a swim team either, for instance.

[NWI_Irish96]

Oh my what a finish!

USA advances as 2nd place in Group B and plays the Netherlands Saturday at 10am ET. England win Group A and face Senegal Saturday at 2pm ET.

Final Group B table:

England 7
USA 5
Iran 3
Wales 1