OT: World Cup Thread 6/28 - Should Belgium-England Try to Lose?
An interesting question here - Belgium and England play and the winner wins the group G and the loser is guaranteed 2nd place in the group.
The winner moves to the left side of the bracket and the lose moves to the right side of the bracket. Look at the bracket here - isn't there a much easier path on the right side of the bracket for the second place team (the team that loses today's match?) Furthermore, both would be favored against their first round opponent - a team from Group H, but the winner of today would get Brazil/Mexico in the 2nd round and the loser would get Sweden/Switzerland in the 2nd round.
England currently holds the tie breaker - they both have the same goal differential, the same goals scores, but England leads on fair play with less yellow cards.
It probably doesn't matter, but it may be an easier path forward if Belgium or England loses today as weird as that sounds.
Isn't that soccer? One team can totally control the game and yet it is close to the wire?
Against Tunisia:
England: controlled the ball 60% of the time, had 7 shots on target and Tunisia just 1, which was a penalty kick.
Belgium: controlled the ball 52% of the time, had 12 shots on target and Tunisia 5.
Did England not control and dictate that game?
Possession time in soccer is as pointless as it is in American football. England was better than Tunisia but still looked to be headed for a draw until Tunisia forgot to cover Kane on an extra-time corner.
In their game, Belgium left no doubt at all.
I'm trying to envision the game if they both try to lose. The game would look normal in some respect (except with attackers and defenders flipped as to side of field). Except for the goalkeepers. Who wouldn't be trying to block shots.
It would be a farce, but I sort of wonder what it would look like.
Has there been any example in soccer history where this sort of thing did occur?
Kind of...
In the 1982 World Cup they didn't play the last 2 games of Group Play at the same time. West Germany was playing Austria and if West Germany won by 1 or 2 goals both teams would advance. If there was any other score it would result in just 1 of the teams advancing.
So basically, Austria let West Germany score and then they just piddled around taking turns passing the ball around without anyone really trying to score or play defense.
After that they started making the final 2 group games kickoff at the same time so you are less likely to do this.
I'm not sure Austria let West Germany score, but once they did the game effectively ended.
And the game effectively ended for it started for France/Denmark and Belgium/England this year too.
It isn't World Cup, but there is a story of a team needing to score a goal on itself to advance.
Barbados needed to win the game by two clear goals in order to progress to the next round. Now the trouble was caused by a daft rule in the competition which stated that in the event of a game going to penalty kicks, the winner of the penalty kicks would be awarded a 2-0 victory.
With 5 minutes to go, Barbados were leading 2-1, and going out of the tournament (because they needed to win by 2 clear goals). Then, when they realized they were probably not going to score against Grenada’s massed defence, they turned round, and deliberately scored on their own goal to level the scores and take the game into penalties. Grenada, themselves not being stupid, realized what was going on, and then attempted to score an own goal themselves. However, the Barbados players started defending their opponents goal to prevent this.
In the last five minutes, spectators were treated to the incredible sight of both team’s defending their opponents goal against attackers desperately trying to score an own goal and goalkeepers trying to throw the ball into their own net. The game went to penalties, which Barbados won and so were awarded a 2-0 victory and progressed to the next round.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/football-follies/
Thanks for posting that ---- that was a hilarious read.
That's had to be the last time any soccer tournament used that sort of format. They were asking for shenanigans to occur!
Just wait for the 48 team World Cup with 16 groups of 3. That format is just begging for shenanigans.
How in the hell will that even work? Only 2 games in the group stage?
The group stage with 48 teams is going to be severely diluted and you're probably going to see a lot of these really bad teams completely park the bus and try to get out of the game with a 0-0 tie.
Oh man that had to be hilarious to watch
As a matter of fact, yes.
both teams will play reserves, let them go for the win and carry momentum. All it takes is one surprise win early in the knockout rounds and it could shift the conversation altogether. Look at what Portugal did in Euro2016
Did anyone ask Herm Edwards what he thinks?
Like Mexico tried to lose yesterday. Foolishness.
Get me to the Knock round already.
Whatever happens, this will be one very lopsided bracket. Saturday's matches will be great (France/Argentina and Uruguay/Portugal).
Senegal/Colombia is heating up...some good chances from both teams.
That "pod" is definitely the toughest of the four. Those teams each have to face group champ quality competition twice to get the to the semi's.
You play to win the game! - Herm Edwards
Besides, defeating Belgium will do wonders for English confidence.
Never, EVER try to lose ...
But if the goal is to win , and by win I mean the world cup itself, then this match is just a part of a bigger strategy. Like chess, it can pay dividends to sacrifice a valuable piece in exchange for better positioning. It would be smart to have Belgium continually score on their own goal If they decide to play.
Probably not because Japan is so weak as a first round opponent that it's still about even between winning group G or being runners up.
There’s no vintage side in the World Cup as there has been in the prior two with Spain and Germany. In fact if any team comes close to hitting that golden generation cycle it’s Belgium. But there’s not a huge incentive to avoid any particular side. Priorities for the managers today will be avoiding injury and getting your depth/bench players a run. It will also factor that most of these players are Premier League players, many of them club teammates, so we’re likely to see a gentle match.
Neither Spain nor Germany looked that strong in group play in 2010 and '14, respectively. Spain lost a group game in '10 and Germany tied Ghana and barely scraped by the United States.
Both teams rounded into form in the knock-out stages. That's often the case. It's rare that a team just crushes everybody for seven games straight.
True but Spain and Germany had both won the Euros before, so they had a pedigree that I don’t see from any side this year. Their domestic leagues had both also recently won Champions League titles.
Spain had won the Euro two years previously (2008). Germany had not. I don't think Germany was considered a favorite in '14 at all - most had Brazil or Spain.
I don't think it's possible to say whether there's a "vintage" team or not just yet. The World Cup is pretty unique in the way it makes the legends. What looks to be an only ok France right now could, potentially, catch on fire, score goals all over the place, and win a World Cup with a team of future legends. Same with Brazil, with Coutinho dropping guides missiles wherever he wants on the pitch and Neymar somewhat free to be himself up front.
Your discussion of Germany as a "vintage" side last world cup is itself a pretty clear demonstration of this, because if they hadn't won nobody would think of them that way. But they did win, and in the process they are well remembered.
The story hasn't been written yet.
I do agree with your conclusion that there's not as big an incentive to avoid any particular bracket, but there are still teams that seem to be better equipped with talent, and those are the ones you can lose to even if they aren't playing their best.
I mean, England and Belgium shouldn't try to lose...but it would be adventageous to maybe rest your starters, but your B team out there, avoid yellows, etc, and if you end up losing and end up in a much easier bracket, well then that's a bonus.
Also, I think Panama and Tunisa might be a more interesting game than Belgium/England. Not as good soccer, but both teams have nothing to lose and will be looking to salvage some good memories out of the world cup. It might be quite interesting actually.
Maybe already covered by who advanced if Japan and Senegal each end up with 4 points (if these results hold and Columbia wins this and wins the group?)
Nevermind. Japan advances on "fair play points" is the tiebreaker ... what a shame as Senegal is better and was looking forward to seeing Mane in the knockouts
One of the many things that makes this whole thing dumb is the fact that what you say is correct.
There should be a reseeding after Group play taking rankings into account, and not have it drawn out who you play.
Columbia is better than Japan. period. England and Belgium are going to want to play Japan over them and not worry about the following round at this point. You're going to run into good teams no matter what as you go through the knock-outs.
There has been some talk of doing a secondary draw after the Group Stage to avoid issues like this. However, with the travel arrangements, tickets, etc that would be very difficult, especially in countries like Russia or 2026 in the USA/CAN/MEX.
The other catch with doing a secondary draw after the group stage is how much time off a team might have. If they did a draw Thursday evening/Friday morning there would almost have to be some sort of stipulation where the teams that played Thursday wouldn't have to play a game for a couple of days. It would be a huge disadvantage for a team that played Thursday to get drawn into a Saturday or possibly even a Sunday game.
As long as FIFA doesn't go all IOC on them.
https://www.rt.com/sport/badminton-players-disqualified-losing-602/
There was some debate last week regarding the potential virtue of a three-team group vs. the current four-team format.
More opportunity today to evaluate the four-team format. The best, of course, is embodied in moments like Argentina's 86th-minute goal and Germany's collapse against South Korea, as well as the action this morning where a Columbia goal abruptly put Senegal on the outside and a trailing Japan squad on the in, but only barely as ceding a goal would eliminate them.
The bad is this afternoon, where people are discussing whether or not it is wise for Belgium and England to try to lose.
I favor four teams. I think occasional snoozers like this are an acceptable cost for days like yesterday, and this is still better than actual corrupt bargains that are enabled by smaller groups with staggered games. But today is a data point.
And still Belgium scores.
I don't think it's that much of a debate anyway. The winner here plays Japan; the loser plays Colombia. Almost everyone would agree that Colombia is the more dangerous opponent. You can't worry about the rounds beyond that.
Exactly, you can't look past the next round. Columbia played Japan even with 10 men, they are the better team even without James.