Official Football Thread
- Thread starter national acrobat
- Start date
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
The weather in Oslo sucks today, and I've got nothing better to do, so I tried to sort out all the different combinations of total points you can get in a group of 4 where all teams play every other team once, as is the case in the Euros and the World Cup.
I concluded that there are 33 unique combinations if one does not include which team is 1st, which one is 2nd and so on, but only counts the number of points for the 1st placed team, the 2nd placed team et cetera. In 7 of these combinations, the winning team has 9 points. There are 11 combinations where the group winners have 7 points. The least likely point tally for a group winner is 3, which only happens if all matches in the group are drawn.
If the rain continues, I'll go through the last Euros and World Cups back to 1994 and see which of the 33 outcomes has happened most frequently.
I concluded that there are 33 unique combinations if one does not include which team is 1st, which one is 2nd and so on, but only counts the number of points for the 1st placed team, the 2nd placed team et cetera. In 7 of these combinations, the winning team has 9 points. There are 11 combinations where the group winners have 7 points. The least likely point tally for a group winner is 3, which only happens if all matches in the group are drawn.
If the rain continues, I'll go through the last Euros and World Cups back to 1994 and see which of the 33 outcomes has happened most frequently.
I don't think we were that horrible yesterday. The first half was a bit of a deadlock, but I think we played better than England (though perhaps not well, in a strict sense) in the beginning of the second, up until Mellberg's second goal. What's sorely missing in the Swedish team is structure and a workable game plan. We've rather easily given up a lead in both matches this tournament, which is very uncharacteristic. As dull as it sounds, Sweden's primary strength has always been solid defense, and our somewhat hubristic coach needs to realize that. Offensively, I hope Sebastian Larsson and John Guidetti keep improving.
national acrobat
Ancient Mariner
This sort of post is why I like this forum so much.Not just Albie, but me too. I celebrated wildly in the pub last night (stomach and head are paying for that today), I just can't help myself supporting England. I would probably even cheer a T***y goal. This has been the most enjoyable tournament for a number of reasons, one of them being that I wasn't really looking forward to it too much.
Last night when Milner was taken off for Walcott, lots of my mates were cheering that substitution while I said something along the lines of "Not Walcott, he's bloody useless". Shows how much I know.
(but I still don't think he's very good)
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Okay. I was very bored and decided to go all the way back to the 1978 World Cup. The reason why I stopped there is that the next tournament I was about to check was the 1976 European Championship, where there was no group stage.
First: I must correct the number of possible combinations. I had overlooked some possible combinations with 7 and 5 points to the group winners, and there is a total of 38 combinations. Out of these, there are seven that have never occurred.
Second: For all tournaments prior to 1990, a win gave two points, not three. I have recalculated these numbers using three points for a win.
There has been a total of 86 groups played, including the 2nd round group stage in 1978. In 25 cases, one team has won all three group matches. The most common is that the group winners win two and draw one: this has happened 36 out of 86 times, or 42%. The single most common result, however, is the following:
Team 1 3 0 0 9p
Team 2 2 0 1 6p
Team 3 1 0 2 3p
Team 4 0 0 3 0p
This has happened 9 times.
Only once has a team won their group with four points (one win, one draw, one defeat). This was group E in the 1994 World Cup, where all four teams finished on four points and zero goal difference. Norway were eliminated on number of scored goals ...
First: I must correct the number of possible combinations. I had overlooked some possible combinations with 7 and 5 points to the group winners, and there is a total of 38 combinations. Out of these, there are seven that have never occurred.
Second: For all tournaments prior to 1990, a win gave two points, not three. I have recalculated these numbers using three points for a win.
There has been a total of 86 groups played, including the 2nd round group stage in 1978. In 25 cases, one team has won all three group matches. The most common is that the group winners win two and draw one: this has happened 36 out of 86 times, or 42%. The single most common result, however, is the following:
Team 1 3 0 0 9p
Team 2 2 0 1 6p
Team 3 1 0 2 3p
Team 4 0 0 3 0p
This has happened 9 times.
Only once has a team won their group with four points (one win, one draw, one defeat). This was group E in the 1994 World Cup, where all four teams finished on four points and zero goal difference. Norway were eliminated on number of scored goals ...
Albie
Keeping an open eye on the Weeping Angels.
He's just not consistent enough, that's his problem. Sometimes he's blinding, next he's crap. I do not think based on 30 minutes of football, he should be a starter v Ukraine. Bring him on late as a sub.Last night when Milner was taken off for Walcott, lots of my mates were cheering that substitution while I said something along the lines of "Not Walcott, he's bloody useless". Shows how much I know.
As for England just needing a draw v Ukraine, I hope they don't have that mentality going into the game. Remember Euro 2000? 1 point needed against Romania and we led 2-1. They equalised then Phil Neville hacked someone down in the 89th minute to give the Romanians a pen - 3-2 it ended and we went home with the Germans.
EDIT:
Am I right in thinking that the only team guaranteed qualification to the next stage is Russia? I'm trying to see a scenario as to how they can get knocked out but I can't see it.
EDIT2:
Found it, Greece beat them and either the Czechs or Poles win.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
That'd been a thrilling thing to see.
Not just Albie, but me too. I celebrated wildly in the pub last night (stomach and head are paying for that today), I just can't help myself supporting England. I would probably even cheer a T***y goal. This has been the most enjoyable tournament for a number of reasons, one of them being that I wasn't really looking forward to it too much.
Last night when Milner was taken off for Walcott, lots of my mates were cheering that substitution while I said something along the lines of "Not Walcott, he's bloody useless". Shows how much I know.
I thought about you as well when I posted that hehe.
If I may have a little point of criticism: I thought the English were a little lucky in their first match. I thought France was better. It looked like the English goal was made with the face rather (nose or cheekbone?) with the head. This is the kind of luck a certain other team needed / needs.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Football eh? Bloody hell.
Can't say I'm happy to see Greece go through. I was hoping for Russia vs Netherlands or Portugal in a quarter-final and Poland vs Germany in another ...
Can't say I'm happy to see Greece go through. I was hoping for Russia vs Netherlands or Portugal in a quarter-final and Poland vs Germany in another ...
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
Same here. Russia beats Czech Republic 4-1 in the first game then at the end, Czechs finish the group at the 1st place and Russia gets knocked out. The hell ?
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
The Dutch started very positively, but around the time when the goals came in the other match they let Portugal take command. They really have a big job to do, mentally, to get back to were they were in the first 15 minutes or so.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
national acrobat
Ancient Mariner
So-so so far. Rooney should have scored.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Yesterday again showed that goal line technology is needed. Of course, Ukraine should not feel robbed in this situation (because offside should have been given a few seconds earlier), but it again illustrates that even a referee on the line, a few meters from the ball, cannot always see that the ball is in. I think there should be a camera for this - in all major tournaments.
I also think we should go one step further in international tournaments (the World Cup, the Euros, Champions League etc.): If a goal is scored and the referee suspects that it might have been offside, he can have the fourth official check a video replay of the situation immediately. If he cannot conclude whether it was offside or not, the attacking team is given the benefit of the doubt, and the goal stands. The same goes for other decisions that are either 100% wrong or 100% right (like whether the ball has been out of play or not prior to a goal).
By doing it that way, the referee can let play go on unless he is 100% sure it should be stopped (either because the ball is out, or because it is played to a player who is offside). Other decisions are usually up to interpretation (handballs and other fouls), and should not be considered.
If applied to yesterday's game between England and Ukraine, the following would have happened; the goal line ref would have signalled that the ball was in, the ref would give the goal, and the linesman would indicate that it was a possible offside (or the referee would guess so from the appeals of the defending players). The referee (or the fourth official) would look at the video and conclude that the ball was in, but that an Ukrainian player was also in a clear offside earlier in the same attack.
It does take away the human factor from some situations, but I can't see how that is a problem when it comes to decisions that are either fully right or fully wrong.
I also think we should go one step further in international tournaments (the World Cup, the Euros, Champions League etc.): If a goal is scored and the referee suspects that it might have been offside, he can have the fourth official check a video replay of the situation immediately. If he cannot conclude whether it was offside or not, the attacking team is given the benefit of the doubt, and the goal stands. The same goes for other decisions that are either 100% wrong or 100% right (like whether the ball has been out of play or not prior to a goal).
By doing it that way, the referee can let play go on unless he is 100% sure it should be stopped (either because the ball is out, or because it is played to a player who is offside). Other decisions are usually up to interpretation (handballs and other fouls), and should not be considered.
If applied to yesterday's game between England and Ukraine, the following would have happened; the goal line ref would have signalled that the ball was in, the ref would give the goal, and the linesman would indicate that it was a possible offside (or the referee would guess so from the appeals of the defending players). The referee (or the fourth official) would look at the video and conclude that the ball was in, but that an Ukrainian player was also in a clear offside earlier in the same attack.
It does take away the human factor from some situations, but I can't see how that is a problem when it comes to decisions that are either fully right or fully wrong.