Looking Ahead to U.S. vs. Germany
This isn't a preview post, but instead an offer to (1) give thoughts about how this game looks on paper and (2) answer this question:
If Germany and the U.S. both advance with a draw (which is the case), what incentive is there for either side to be aggressive. Can we expect very conservative play since Germany is guaranteed the top spot if they simply don't make mistakes?
I don't know how Germany usually plays, but it seems like there would be every incentive in this game to just putt the ball around for 90 minutes. I mean, god forbid they try to advance it and we score and end up taking first place from them. Right?
I hope that this is their line of thinking. That Ghana draw really boned us, though. I could not for the life of me understand why people enjoyed that result.
There is no incentive, really. But it doens't take much for the Germans to score. I suspect the US will play the same formation they did today. It will be a slow game unless someone scores.
You can blame Germany for the simultaneous matches--they and Austria. Who knows, Algeria might get their revenge for that game.
The fact that Algeria called that the Anschluss is one of the funniest things in sports anywhere.
...living here for 18 months I can tell you that they are a pretty thin-skinned bunch.
If we win, Germany is in a tie breaker with the winner of the Ghana v Portugal game (both with 4 points). It would come down to goal differential. It would be imaginable if Portugal or Ghana made up the goal differential in that one single game, but this WC is crazy.
At this point, i'm hoping for a Portugal win 1-0 or 2-1 or 3-2 or 4-3 and so on.
I disagree with some commenters. I don't think Germany wants us to get knocked out. They still have an incredible amount of respect for Klinsman and would love to see him succeed. Also, they would love to see America move on for the love of the game from an international standpoint. It's very clear from social media, if the US does well, the world pays attention. I don't think the WC has to compete for the highest rated sports event internationally, but if it wants to make serious money, the advertisers are going to come from the US.
On a side note, if the US moves to the knockout round, I think you'll see an increase in attendance for MLS games in the near future. Fingers crossed they expand and pick Nashville as a new team. I'd seriously consider season tickets. That would be much more fun that Titans games.
As for Germany and Klinnsmann. I don 't think it is Germany's style to take it easy and I am sure Klinnsmann knows that.
Plus, we are still the US. Having the chance to whip the most powerful nation on earth in the world's most popular game is much too tempting to pass up.
I agree that we will not let up. Doesn't make sense for us to do. I don't think Germany lets up either, unless it's 1-1 or 2-2 with 15 minutes left. I think the Germans still have enough respect left over that they will concede considering they'll still have top slot and a Klinsmann lead US team would have 2nd.
Also, I agree that WC gets enough money, but it doesn't get 'enough' money. The money that would pour in if the US was a regular contributor would be astronomical. FIFA, like any other organization wants more money. Right now, the key to get international money is to win over the US, which happens to be the least interested major country invovled in the WC.
I think you're giving the German football federation far too much credit for being sentimental. They are going to want to crush the USA after the tie with Ghana and aren't going to take chances with a close game that will end in a draw because one false step and they could be out of the tournament. That Ghana game has made this last one meaningful for everyone in the group and with the games going on simultaneously they are going to have to take care of business themselves and not wait for another team to do it for them. I'm thinking Germany is going to come out guns blazing and when they do that, there isn't a better side in the world.
Germany's goal is to advance, it's that simple. I bet they play a little conservative to ensure that. Still even a conservative Germany is very dangerous. Will be very interesting to see how it plays out.
Their goal is to advance and because of how the group sits right now the only way to ensure that is to be a couple of goals up going into the final minutes. They have seen how crazy this world cup has been and I don't see any way that they come out conservative and play for a tie...I just can't see in this situation. We can always hope though.
After the scare Ghana gave Germany in the draw, I would think that they want no part of them again in the future. A tie ensures Germany advances as the top in the seed in the group and eliminates Ghana as well. I think they will probably come out conservative, save some energy, not risk injury, and move on.
The only way Germany could play Ghana (or anyone else in the group) again is if it's in the final.
we can beat 'em again
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Tim Howard?
Both teams will play to win because, barring a crazy change in goal differential by Ghana or Portugal, it feels like Germany and the US are kind of the two leaders in the clubhouse right now. Yes, there are some tiebreakers that could come into play, but the only result that would scare me is Ghana blitzing Portugal and getting that GD up. Portugal is pretty much out of it unless they really pour it on in a way they haven't all tournament.
Portugal has looked terrible since the start of this tournament. I'm worried they'll put one good game together and destroy Ghana. That team has incredible talent and are capable of anything. They could easily win or lose that Ghana game 4-0.
I don't see it. Playing in the Amazon, and having one less day of rest than Ghana, is going to catch up to them - and they're already riddled with injuries. I think it's much more likely Ghana wins.
As I said, with this Portugal team you just can't tell, but they have more than enough healthy talent that if they played their best game they could easily put up a big number against Ghana. Again though, they could easily lose by a big number too. With this team you just can't tell. What is certain though, is they haven't come close to playing to their potential thus far in the tournament and if it clicks at the right time they could make things far too interesting for my tastes.
If the USA were to lose by 1 vs Germany, and Ghana was to beat Portugul by 1, the USA would still advance because the tie breaker would come down to head to head since the goal differential would be the same. Correct?
I believe goals scored is next.
And right now we're up 4-3 in goals scored. So matching scores in our games means the US advances. If we lose 1-0 and Ghana wins 2-1, we're out on goals scored (5-4)
Goals scored is next. I don't know for sure what happens next but then I think head to head comes into play after GD and GS.
I had heard it was yellow cards next, but apparently that's not the case, at least anymore. Thank God. As long as we don't lose by more than 1 and/or Ghana doesn't win by more than 1, we're in. That's not likely.
Tiebreaker gets absolutely messy here: Assuming Ghana 1-0 win and USA 1-0 loss.
Goal Differential = 0 and 0
Goals Scored = 4 and 4
Goals Allowed = 4 and 4
So next tiebreaker is Drawing of Lots (random draw).
Two ping pong balls, one each for Ghana and USA are placed in a bowl, a second bowl is filled with two ping pong balls numbered 2 and 3 respectively. A FIFA representitive draws a "team" from pot 1 and then a "place" from pot 2. That is how advancing is determined.
NOTE: Head to head is never used in FIFA.
but not until after goals scored. Here's the full list from the FIFA World Cup Regulations:
Drawing of lots is the very last resort. The head to head comes in play but it is described in a different way. Tiebreaker (D) is for all intents and puposes head to head, it is basically total points gained in group matches between the teams involved.
HERE is an article on how group stage tiebreakers work. The skinny:
Tiebreaker 1: Goal difference in the group matches.
Tiebreaker 2: Greatest number of goals scored in the group matches.
Tiebreaker 3: Greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned (head-to-head if two teams involved).
Tiebreaker 4: Goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned (only applies if three teams involved in tie-break).
Tiebreaker 5: Greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned.
Tiebreaker 6: Drawing of lots by the FIFA Organizing Committee.
They score a crapload of goals. The Ghana game was only the second time in two years anybody's held them to less than 3 in a competitive match. Nobody's held them to less than 2 since Italy in the Euros two years ago, 12 straight matches.
The same thing happened in qualifying for the Euros, they scored at least 3 in nine straight matches.
They also, occasionally, give up a crapload of goals. They beat Sweden in qualifying 5:3, drew them 4:4 blowing a 4-goal lead.
Knowing that a draw wins the group, they might very well decide to park the bus. But it isn't their nature.
Great stats thanks. Scary stats, but informative.
I think they'll play like Argentina did against Iran: the attackers will attack, but they won't throw everyone forward. As dangerous as Germany is, they don't have great speed at the back and they don't want to get burned on the counter.
Unfortunately, from a US perspective, Schweinsteiger looks fit. Low might decide to stop with Guardiola ball and move Lahm to RB and slot Schweinsteiger in with Kroos or Khedira. I have no clue who between Podolski, Muller, Klose, or Schurrle starts, but I presume Goetze and Ozil will play. I find it crazy that Ghana and Germany have the reverse problems--the former using one of their best midfielders/wingers as a defender; the latter using their best defender as a midfielder (albeit, he is very good in that position). Beasley vs. Goetze/Ozil/Muller plus Lahm overlapping could be interesting.
...are that Lahm stays where he is and Schweinsteiger replaces Khedira. There's also some speculation that it might be Oezil that gets rested up front, but it's not very convincing speculation if you ask me.
There's some discontent with this business of starting a back line of four central defenders, but it doesn't look like it's likely to change.
I'm not sure Beasley's going to be the focal point they attack--I expect them to try to pry the two central defenders apart for runs up the middle. They took advantage of Ronaldo down the right, but the US doesn't have anyone similar (needless to say).
I know Lahm has played well for Bayern in the midfield, but why is Low insisting on doing this? The midfield is where Germany has an abundance of talent. Why would you take arguably the best RB in the world and not play him there? I'm just curious, whether this is a tactical decision or in response to the temperature and humidity (i.e. no need for Lahm because Germany won't be using backs as attackers).
All I get from the press is that he'd committed to doing it this way; there aren't many clues to why. Speculations?
- Straightforward tactical decision. It works for his club (about half of which plays with him on the NT), why not give it a try? It's pretty clear he thinks Lahm is a better midfielder than fullback, but given the relative talent pools at the two positions that doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me.
- Loew does talk about the climate and the need to play a slower, more possession-oriented game than usual. I don't think it works very well--the goals seem to come during those brief stretches when they go back to pressing and quick counters--but it probably works well enough to get them through and that's all that matters. There's no point in running everybody's legs off in the group stage. The problem with this theory is that so far in the tournament Lahm's been the midfielder most prone to bad giveaways.
- Neither Schweinsteiger nor Khedira was fully fit coming in. Khedira looked ok the first game but he was visibly tiring against Ghana. Schweinsteiger looked ok against Ghana but he only played half an hour. Maybe this is the best option until they're both ready to go a full 90?
- I suppose fullbacks don't have to do a lot of defending crosses in the box, but they do it more than holding mids do. Asking Lahm to defend a cross is like asking Spud Webb to be your rim defender.
- The 4:4 and 5:3 results against Sweden scared him. Since they moved Lahm off the back they haven't leaked goals like that. They also aren't scoring as many.
This is only true in the group stages. Starting in the round of 16, it's win or go home.
Other sports (like Olympic hockey and basketball) have group stages as well, and sometimes you see fishy results in them, too. In the 2012 Olympics, Spain's basketball team suffered a surprising loss (to Brazil IIRC) in the group stage, which just happened to put them in the opposite bracket from the U.S. in the knockout round.
If two teams can't be separated over 90 minutes of play, why is it better to effectively flip a coin just to have a winner? To me, the extra possible outcome makes for a more precise translation of performance into result-table.
I play a lot of chess, maybe that's trained me to think that way. It's not enough to build up a better position--the advantage has to be big enough for victory and you have to convert it if you want the full point.
I understand why they're necessary in a knockout tournament but I hate shootouts with a passion.
What's the alternative?