Match Day 11: England v Panama; Japan v Senegal; Poland v Colombia

[AndrewJ]

A question for the more knowledgeable boarders...

So England and Belgium are both on 6 points. Both with a goal difference of 6 - and both with 8 for and 2 against. So... if they happen to draw in the next match... who finishes on top? And why? Does it go to performance during the qualifiers? (I'd been wondering the same with Spain and Portugal both currently on 4 points, both with 4 goals scored and 3 against. So if they win with the same scoreline in their last games, they will be in the same situation. But the Engalnd/Belgium match just needing to finish in a draw makes it far more likely than two games having the exact same outcome)

 

[Xray the Enforcer]

If all of the other factors are already taken into consideration - then it comes down to fair play. Who got the least number of cards? only after that consideration does one go to drawing lots.

https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/06/22/world-cup-tiebreaker-rules-scenarios-group-play-knockout-round

[AndrewJ]

Thanks, Xray.

And I actually googled it earlier. So it seems England have one fewer yellow cards than Belgium. So, I'll be cheering for a draw and a yellow for England - so we get the fun of having a toss of the coin sort out the positions. (It would be even better if it were for second spot and would determine who goes forward and who misses out).

 

[Iskaral Pust]

Harry Kane now has five goals without actually contributing at all to open play: two tap-in rebounds from corners, two penalties and one shot deflected off him.  He could win the golden boot without reaching the quarter finals, or even having a decent game.  

Panama were pretty unlikable, even when the whole world wants to root for a plucky underdog.  And they could actually play some decent football when they wanted to.  

Groups A and G both had some cannon fodder, so it’s hard to know what to expect from the teams who progress.

There’s lots of talk about teams deliberately trying to come second in their group to avoid Germany, possibly Brazil, or possibly Argentina too.  But they’ve hardly looked like difficult opponents so far.  They may improve but they don’t command that fear factor yet.  

Colombia finally woke up.  Great to see that attacking flair back.  Poland have been poor though after a decent showing in Euro 2016.

[Maltaran]

4 hours ago, AndrewJsonsen said:

Thanks, Xray.

And I actually googled it earlier. So it seems England have one fewer yellow cards than Belgium. So, I'll be cheering for a draw and a yellow for England - so we get the fun of having a toss of the coin sort out the positions. (It would be even better if it were for second spot and would determine who goes forward and who misses out).

 

I saw some speculation that the teams might deliberately try and finish second - because whoever wins that group, if they get to the quarter final, is going to face the winner of what’s probably going to be a Brazil-Germany second round match

[mormont]

This business about teams going out to finish second seems to me more a product of the fever dreams of certain commentators than a thing professional footballers actually do. 

That's not to say that the managers might not put out a weaker team, or settle for a result in the last ten minutes. But when the whistle blows and the match begins, the players on the pitch will be setting out to win the game. Anything else would be unprofessional and dangerous. Momentum matters. Mentality matters. Testing yourself on the pitch matters. All of these matter more than hypothetical future match-ups that depend on other results anyway.

Not to mention the fact that deliberately attempting to lose or draw a game is against the rules. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

32 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

That's not to say that the managers might not put out a weaker team, or settle for a result in the last ten minutes. But when the whistle blows and the match begins, the players on the pitch will be setting out to win the game. Anything else would be unprofessional and dangerous. Momentum matters. Mentality matters. Testing yourself on the pitch matters. All of these matter more than hypothetical future match-ups that depend on other results anyway.

 

*cough* Gijion 1982 *cough*

[mormont]

35 minutes ago, Notone said:

*cough* Gijion 1982 *cough*

The exception that proves the rule, and for that you have to go back 36 years. Even then, it could only happen because in those days final group fixtures weren't played simultaneously: both teams did start the match trying to win: and Austria, after settling for a defeat, did not win another match in the tournament, which rather makes the point of how dangerous it is to lose on purpose. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, La Albearceleste said:

The exception that proves the rule, and for that you have to go back 36 years. Even then, it could only happen because in those days final group fixtures weren't played simultaneously: both teams did start the match trying to win: and Austria, after settling for a defeat, did not win another match in the tournament, which rather makes the point of how dangerous it is to lose on purpose. 

I think you are moving the goal posts a bit here. The original point I disputed was that  players, once they enter the pitch just want to play (to win). The football nerd in me just kicked and screamed Gijon 1982 instantly - there are probably less famous examples. The just punishment came for Austria in the next round, Germany made it to the final, despite really taking part in that anti-football no attack treaty for well over 60 minutes of play.

[mormont]

46 minutes ago, Notone said:

I think you are moving the goal posts a bit here. The original point I disputed was that  players, once they enter the pitch just want to play (to win). The football nerd in me just kicked and screamed Gijon 1982 instantly - there are probably less famous examples. The just punishment came for Austria in the next round, Germany made it to the final, despite really taking part in that anti-football no attack treaty for well over 60 minutes of play.

Not moving the goalposts at all. I made several points in the post you quoted, not one: if you disputed only one, that was not clear. And I would maintain that while the Austria players went out on the pitch aware that they didn't need to win, and gave up once it became clear that they didn't need to win, they weren't sitting in the dressing room planning out how they would lose. None of us will ever be able to prove that one way or the other, I suppose, but even if I'm wrong, I go back to the very first sentence in my reply - it's the exception that proves the rule, 36 years in the past. 

ETA - there's also a difference between being content with a defeat and deliberately aiming to lose, of course.

I'm fairly sure England and Belgium will pick weakened teams, but those teams will be looking to win. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Maybe not in the dressing room, but at some point all players were in on the fun, with the exception for Austria's Schachner. He sill tried to win that game and earned a severe scolding from his teammates, that he should stop that shenanigans -as reported by himself.

 

Anyway, moving. I agree there will be some rotations, but I think not as heavy as one might suspect. Both teamshave found their playing rhythm, and it's tough to get back into competition mode, after you essentially spent a game in friendly mode.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

HARRY KANE IS A GOD, PEASANTS!

[Iskaral Pust]

Ireland and Netherlands in 1990 in their final group game noticeably retreated into a non-aggression pact (other than VanBasten, who was eventually reprimanded by team mates) once news reached the players that England were ahead against Egypt in the simultaneous game.  Despite that, Ireland went on to their historic run to the quarter finals in their WC debut, while Netherlands lost narrowly to the eventual champions Germany.

There have definitely been situations that were more cynical than settling for a draw after the game had mostly elapsed.  And settling for a draw in a knock-out competition is not like in a league setting. It usually has a specific short-term cynicism rather than a long term average that picking up draws away from home or against bigger teams is an objective in itself.  

I don’t think any teams deliberately try to throw a game, except for Barbados vs Grenada in 1994 when both teams started scoring OGs as they attempted to lose, and the game ended with the teams trying to prevent any further own goals by their opponents. 

[Philokles]

Denmark drawing 2-2 with Sweden at Euro 2004, conveniently the result that saw both through at the expense of Italy.

[Maltaran]

19 minutes ago, I am Zlatan said:

Denmark drawing 2-2 with Sweden at Euro 2004, conveniently the result that saw both through at the expense of Italy.

That was the one I was thinking of.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Iskaral Putsch said:

Ireland and Netherlands in 1990 in their final group game noticeably retreated into a non-aggression pact (other than VanBasten, who was eventually reprimanded by team mates) once news reached the players that England were ahead against Egypt in the simultaneous game.  Despite that, Ireland went on to their historic run to the quarter finals in their WC debut, while Netherlands lost narrowly to the eventual champions Germany.

There have definitely been situations that were more cynical than settling for a draw after the game had mostly elapsed.  And settling for a draw in a knock-out competition is not like in a league setting. It usually has a specific short-term cynicism rather than a long term average that picking up draws away from home or against bigger teams is an objective in itself.  

I don’t think any teams deliberately try to throw a game, except for Barbados vs Grenada in 1994 when both teams started scoring OGs as they attempted to lose, and the game ended with the teams trying to prevent any further own goals by their opponents. 

Ha, I'm going to have to YouTube this after work and the gym.