What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official 2014 World Cup Thread*** (1 Viewer)

Given that the WC is over, and we have several other threads with related content going - I suggest letting this one die on the vine, absent some specific WC2014-related news...

 
Although I'm not a fan, you might also enjoy the book, Soccernomics. I would say that soccer is probably at least as far along in statistical analysis as football. It is a bit behind basketball (IMO) and, like all sports, way behind baseball (for obvious reasons).

I'm probably the biggest critic of traditional crossing strategies on the board. I think too much has to go right in order to pull it off. Players need to be on the same page (on the fly) and the ball has to be perfect, normally with someone putting pressure on the crosser. There have been studies of the effectiveness of corners that show that they might even be -EV in terms of goals. Now a cross from the run of play has the advantage over a corner in that defenses are not set, but it also offers several advantages. The corner taker has far more targets, and he knows where every one of them are supposed to be. He can often get a free runner with the sophisticated picks that the attacking teams have practiced. If, even then, we're talking about at best a 1/10 chance, I just don't think that a lot of first time crosses in the box are a very good percentage play. Particularly when you allow for the fact that they leave your transition defense unset.
Just makes you appreciate the Portugal play all that much more....it was a great cross, to a player making the right run, and connecting at the right time.

 
One area I would love to see coaches try and be more creative on is set pieces. I don't mean one out of every 10 try something different, but better than the 1 out of every 100 we probably see now, instead of the "pump it into the box and hope"

There were two creative set pieces in the WC that stand out for me

1) The US's sweet little interplay in the Belgium game that almost tied the game

2) The "fake" corner that the linesman screwed up. For those that missed this, this is how it went down (I think it was Colombia that tried it).

a) player A slowly jogs towards corner and sets up to take it.

b) player B calls him off saying he will take it instead and jogs toward player A

c) player A casually touches the ball forward saying "ok here you go take it" and jogs into box

d) just before player B gets to ball he looks over shoulder and saw no defender

e) player B immediately picks up the live ball and dribbles unimpeded right into the box

Unfortunately the linesman called it back not realizing that Player A had correctly already taken the corner.

 
2) The "fake" corner that the linesman screwed up. For those that missed this, this is how it went down (I think it was Colombia that tried it).

a) player A slowly jogs towards corner and sets up to take it.

b) player B calls him off saying he will take it instead and jogs toward player A

c) player A casually touches the ball forward saying "ok here you go take it" and jogs into box

d) just before player B gets to ball he looks over shoulder and saw no defender

e) player B immediately picks up the live ball and dribbles unimpeded right into the box

Unfortunately the linesman called it back not realizing that Player A had correctly already taken the corner.
I hate these kinds of plays in all sports. Seems like cheating.

 
That said, there's "flopping" (taking a dive), "embellishing" (using histrionics to sell a foul) and just "riding a tackle" (getting off your feet to avoid getting hurt when a tackle is coming in- which looks like flopping to a lot of lay-people, IMO). The first two are garbage to me, even though it appears to be more culturally accepted in continental Europe and Latin America. Unless you want players continuously hurt, get used to the last one and try your best to take note of the difference.
Pushing the distinction between a "flop", "embellishment", and "riding a tackle" will go a long way to explaining the sport to those who didn't play it growing up or don't watch it often. It's not obvious what "riding a tackle" is or why players are instructed to do it, but a lot clearer after it's explained the way you did here.FYI: in basketball, the term "flop" is used for both what soccer followers call a "flop/dive" and an "embellishment". So when folks like you say "that's not a flop, you moron. It's an embellishment", it's probably not because the other doesn't know the difference between the two, but doesn't know there are different terms to describe the different actions. They are seeing the same thing you are seeing. In hockey, embellishments are usually described as "dives", a similar conflation seen among basketball fans.

BTW, non-basketball fans show up in during the NCAA tournament and NBA playoffs every year to complain about flopping. It's not something unique to the soccer threads here. Or check out the Olympics threads to see boo-birds ##### about flaws in sports they don't follow year-round. Soccer fans here are, as they would say within their sport, "embellishing" the level of bully victimization unique to their sport on this board.

Of course the problem is that players will always do their best to ride the tackle- but will also often embellish on top of it. That might be the type of play that's "part of the game" that those of us who played a lot and/or watch a lot excuse more than the occasional viewer; since the foul has occurred, some are more ok with whatever the guy does afterwards to help sell it. I'm not, but there you go.
IMO there's a cultural difference in play here, too. Deception is part of most games. However - and I'm aware I'm using a broad brush here - American audiences seem fine with measures taken to deceive the opponent, but not the officials. Faking out an opponent is genius, but faking out the ref is unsportsmanlike. European/South American audiences seem more tolerant of deceiving the refs, viewing it as proper execution of game theory no less sportsmanlike than deceiving the opponent.

I will always complain when I see a ref miss a call- especially a big call.Why not? I don't see how it's having it both ways here. I will also complain if players mess up. Or embellish. Basically, I'm just a complainer.
I kept trying to write a thoughtful response to this without coming off like wanting to escalate into a discussion into a referendum on soccer's game design, but failed. So I'll just say I don't see it as having it both ways, and leave it at that.

 
One area I would love to see coaches try and be more creative on is set pieces. I don't mean one out of every 10 try something different, but better than the 1 out of every 100 we probably see now, instead of the "pump it into the box and hope"

There were two creative set pieces in the WC that stand out for me

1) The US's sweet little interplay in the Belgium game that almost tied the game

2) The "fake" corner that the linesman screwed up. For those that missed this, this is how it went down (I think it was Colombia that tried it).

a) player A slowly jogs towards corner and sets up to take it.

b) player B calls him off saying he will take it instead and jogs toward player A

c) player A casually touches the ball forward saying "ok here you go take it" and jogs into box

d) just before player B gets to ball he looks over shoulder and saw no defender

e) player B immediately picks up the live ball and dribbles unimpeded right into the box

Unfortunately the linesman called it back not realizing that Player A had correctly already taken the corner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWWm1H1DC-Q

 
One area I would love to see coaches try and be more creative on is set pieces. I don't mean one out of every 10 try something different, but better than the 1 out of every 100 we probably see now, instead of the "pump it into the box and hope"

There were two creative set pieces in the WC that stand out for me

1) The US's sweet little interplay in the Belgium game that almost tied the game

2) The "fake" corner that the linesman screwed up. For those that missed this, this is how it went down (I think it was Colombia that tried it).

a) player A slowly jogs towards corner and sets up to take it.

b) player B calls him off saying he will take it instead and jogs toward player A

c) player A casually touches the ball forward saying "ok here you go take it" and jogs into box

d) just before player B gets to ball he looks over shoulder and saw no defender

e) player B immediately picks up the live ball and dribbles unimpeded right into the box

Unfortunately the linesman called it back not realizing that Player A had correctly already taken the corner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWWm1H1DC-Q
yes that was it exactly! And the linesman in that game screwed it up too.

What I don't get is if you are planning to do this, tell the friggan linesman before the game that you might try it so that he pays attention to the initial corner that is perfectly legal if it goes one revolution of the ball..

 
One area I would love to see coaches try and be more creative on is set pieces. I don't mean one out of every 10 try something different, but better than the 1 out of every 100 we probably see now, instead of the "pump it into the box and hope"

There were two creative set pieces in the WC that stand out for me

1) The US's sweet little interplay in the Belgium game that almost tied the game

2) The "fake" corner that the linesman screwed up. For those that missed this, this is how it went down (I think it was Colombia that tried it).

a) player A slowly jogs towards corner and sets up to take it.

b) player B calls him off saying he will take it instead and jogs toward player A

c) player A casually touches the ball forward saying "ok here you go take it" and jogs into box

d) just before player B gets to ball he looks over shoulder and saw no defender

e) player B immediately picks up the live ball and dribbles unimpeded right into the box

Unfortunately the linesman called it back not realizing that Player A had correctly already taken the corner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWWm1H1DC-Q
yes that was it exactly! And the linesman in that game screwed it up too.

What I don't get is if you are planning to do this, tell the friggan linesman before the game that you might try it so that he pays attention to the initial corner that is perfectly legal if it goes one revolution of the ball..
This one failed because Rooney never stopped the ball i don't think. IT looks like he just rolls it in and out of the corner area without stopping it. Just my guess though.

eta> maybe he did stop it completely, never mind...

but yeah, as I'm walking over there I'm talking to the Lino telling him what's going down

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2) The "fake" corner that the linesman screwed up. For those that missed this, this is how it went down (I think it was Colombia that tried it).

a) player A slowly jogs towards corner and sets up to take it.

b) player B calls him off saying he will take it instead and jogs toward player A

c) player A casually touches the ball forward saying "ok here you go take it" and jogs into box

d) just before player B gets to ball he looks over shoulder and saw no defender

e) player B immediately picks up the live ball and dribbles unimpeded right into the box

Unfortunately the linesman called it back not realizing that Player A had correctly already taken the corner.
I hate these kinds of plays in all sports. Seems like cheating.
If it is with in the rules (like say the hidden ball trick in baseball), I don't see why it would be considered cheating.

 
2) The "fake" corner that the linesman screwed up. For those that missed this, this is how it went down (I think it was Colombia that tried it).

a) player A slowly jogs towards corner and sets up to take it.

b) player B calls him off saying he will take it instead and jogs toward player A

c) player A casually touches the ball forward saying "ok here you go take it" and jogs into box

d) just before player B gets to ball he looks over shoulder and saw no defender

e) player B immediately picks up the live ball and dribbles unimpeded right into the box

Unfortunately the linesman called it back not realizing that Player A had correctly already taken the corner.
I hate these kinds of plays in all sports. Seems like cheating.
If it is with in the rules (like say the hidden ball trick in baseball), I don't see why it would be considered cheating.
I didn't say it was cheating, I said it seems like cheating. You're not competing with the other team by trying to best them at the game. You're trying to gain an unfair advantage through deception about what's actually happening. And no, it's nothing like the sort of deception where a QB pretends to handoff to the RB or something like that. That's game related, not rules-related. Stuff like the hidden ball trick or any sort of play where you pretend like the play is over but it really isn't are bull####.

 
Using FIFA's formula for calculating rankings, below is the final tally after the Final.

This shows the Ranking prior to the tournament, the country, total points earned, in this many matches, average per match

Code:
 2	Germany	        13624.40	7		1946.3415	Netherlands	11706.40	7		1672.34 5	Argentina	10714.16	7		1530.59 8	Colombia	 7987.92	5		1597.5811	Belgium	         7459.44	5		1491.89 3	Brazil	         7351.68	7		1050.2428	Costa Rica 	 6860.00	5		1372.0017	France	         6313.92	5		1262.7814	Chile	         4612.16	4		1153.04 7	Uruguay	         4572.00	4		1143.0020	Mexico	         4458.08	4		1114.52 6	Switzerland	 3851.52	4		 962.8812	Greece	         2961.84	4		 740.4644	Nigeria	         2688.08	4		 672.0226	Ecuador	         2495.52	3		 831.8413	USA	         2466.16	4		 616.54 4	Portugal	 2340.40	3		 780.13 9	Italy	         2280.00	3		 760.0022	Algeria	         2098.40	4		 524.6021	Bosnia-H	 1620.24	3		 540.0823	Ivory Coast	 1589.28	3		 529.7618	Croatia	         1486.08	3	 	 495.36 1	Spain	         1424.16	3		 474.7219	Russia	         1104.24	3		 368.0837	Ghana	          792.00	3		 264.0046	Japan	          752.00	3		 250.6757	South Korea	  724.00	3		 241.3310	England	          605.44	3		 201.8143	Iran	          536.64	3		 178.8833	Honduras	    0.00	3		   0.0056	Cameroon	    0.00	3		   0.0062	Australia	    0.00	3		   0.00
 
Although I'm not a fan, you might also enjoy the book, Soccernomics. I would say that soccer is probably at least as far along in statistical analysis as football. It is a bit behind basketball (IMO) and, like all sports, way behind baseball (for obvious reasons).

I'm probably the biggest critic of traditional crossing strategies on the board. I think too much has to go right in order to pull it off. Players need to be on the same page (on the fly) and the ball has to be perfect, normally with someone putting pressure on the crosser. There have been studies of the effectiveness of corners that show that they might even be -EV in terms of goals. Now a cross from the run of play has the advantage over a corner in that defenses are not set, but it also offers several advantages. The corner taker has far more targets, and he knows where every one of them are supposed to be. He can often get a free runner with the sophisticated picks that the attacking teams have practiced. If, even then, we're talking about at best a 1/10 chance, I just don't think that a lot of first time crosses in the box are a very good percentage play. Particularly when you allow for the fact that they leave your transition defense unset.
I don't know from analytics... but IMO, from personal experience playing and watching, the ball taken to the end line and then passed diagonally back across the goal towards the PK spot creates the most opportunities. Usually leaves defenders heading the wrong way (running back to goal to defend) and it can be practiced so that players know who, where and when the runs need to be made.

But lobbing the ball across- meh.

 
Using FIFA's formula for calculating rankings, below is the final tally after the Final.

This shows the Ranking prior to the tournament, the country, total points earned, in this many matches, average per match

2 Germany 13624.40 7 1946.3415 Netherlands 11706.40 7 1672.34 5 Argentina 10714.16 7 1530.59 8 Colombia 7987.92 5 1597.5811 Belgium 7459.44 5 1491.89 3 Brazil 7351.68 7 1050.2428 Costa Rica 6860.00 5 1372.0017 France 6313.92 5 1262.7814 Chile 4612.16 4 1153.04 7 Uruguay 4572.00 4 1143.0020 Mexico 4458.08 4 1114.52 6 Switzerland 3851.52 4 962.8812 Greece 2961.84 4 740.4644 Nigeria 2688.08 4 672.0226 Ecuador 2495.52 3 831.8413 USA 2466.16 4 616.54 4 Portugal 2340.40 3 780.13 9 Italy 2280.00 3 760.0022 Algeria 2098.40 4 524.6021 Bosnia-H 1620.24 3 540.0823 Ivory Coast 1589.28 3 529.7618 Croatia 1486.08 3 495.36 1 Spain 1424.16 3 474.7219 Russia 1104.24 3 368.0837 Ghana 792.00 3 264.0046 Japan 752.00 3 250.6757 South Korea 724.00 3 241.3310 England 605.44 3 201.8143 Iran 536.64 3 178.8833 Honduras 0.00 3 0.0056 Cameroon 0.00 3 0.0062 Australia 0.00 3 0.00
So we actually fell some spots after all that?

 
Using FIFA's formula for calculating rankings, below is the final tally after the Final.

This shows the Ranking prior to the tournament, the country, total points earned, in this many matches, average per match

2 Germany 13624.40 7 1946.3415 Netherlands 11706.40 7 1672.34 5 Argentina 10714.16 7 1530.59 8 Colombia 7987.92 5 1597.5811 Belgium 7459.44 5 1491.89 3 Brazil 7351.68 7 1050.2428 Costa Rica 6860.00 5 1372.0017 France 6313.92 5 1262.7814 Chile 4612.16 4 1153.04 7 Uruguay 4572.00 4 1143.0020 Mexico 4458.08 4 1114.52 6 Switzerland 3851.52 4 962.8812 Greece 2961.84 4 740.4644 Nigeria 2688.08 4 672.0226 Ecuador 2495.52 3 831.8413 USA 2466.16 4 616.54 4 Portugal 2340.40 3 780.13 9 Italy 2280.00 3 760.0022 Algeria 2098.40 4 524.6021 Bosnia-H 1620.24 3 540.0823 Ivory Coast 1589.28 3 529.7618 Croatia 1486.08 3 495.36 1 Spain 1424.16 3 474.7219 Russia 1104.24 3 368.0837 Ghana 792.00 3 264.0046 Japan 752.00 3 250.6757 South Korea 724.00 3 241.3310 England 605.44 3 201.8143 Iran 536.64 3 178.8833 Honduras 0.00 3 0.0056 Cameroon 0.00 3 0.0062 Australia 0.00 3 0.00
So we actually fell some spots after all that?
Well, we are no Spain - but yes, the system rewards wins - and we only had 1 of those, against a lower-ranked opponent. But we played 1, 5, 17, and 25 1 -1-2 is about right for that schedule.

 
Using FIFA's formula for calculating rankings, below is the final tally after the Final.

This shows the Ranking prior to the tournament, the country, total points earned, in this many matches, average per match

2 Germany 13624.40 7 1946.3415 Netherlands 11706.40 7 1672.34 5 Argentina 10714.16 7 1530.59 8 Colombia 7987.92 5 1597.5811 Belgium 7459.44 5 1491.89 3 Brazil 7351.68 7 1050.2428 Costa Rica 6860.00 5 1372.0017 France 6313.92 5 1262.7814 Chile 4612.16 4 1153.04 7 Uruguay 4572.00 4 1143.0020 Mexico 4458.08 4 1114.52 6 Switzerland 3851.52 4 962.8812 Greece 2961.84 4 740.4644 Nigeria 2688.08 4 672.0226 Ecuador 2495.52 3 831.8413 USA 2466.16 4 616.54 4 Portugal 2340.40 3 780.13 9 Italy 2280.00 3 760.0022 Algeria 2098.40 4 524.6021 Bosnia-H 1620.24 3 540.0823 Ivory Coast 1589.28 3 529.7618 Croatia 1486.08 3 495.36 1 Spain 1424.16 3 474.7219 Russia 1104.24 3 368.0837 Ghana 792.00 3 264.0046 Japan 752.00 3 250.6757 South Korea 724.00 3 241.3310 England 605.44 3 201.8143 Iran 536.64 3 178.8833 Honduras 0.00 3 0.0056 Cameroon 0.00 3 0.0062 Australia 0.00 3 0.00
So we actually fell some spots after all that?
Well, we are no Spain - but yes, the system rewards wins - and we only had 1 of those, against a lower-ranked opponent. But we played 1, 5, 17, and 25 1 -1-2 is about right for that schedule.
So is it weighted for wins and losses? Or is a win vs. Australia as good as a win vs. Germany?

 
One area I would love to see coaches try and be more creative on is set pieces. I don't mean one out of every 10 try something different, but better than the 1 out of every 100 we probably see now, instead of the "pump it into the box and hope"

There were two creative set pieces in the WC that stand out for me

1) The US's sweet little interplay in the Belgium game that almost tied the game

2) The "fake" corner that the linesman screwed up. For those that missed this, this is how it went down (I think it was Colombia that tried it).

a) player A slowly jogs towards corner and sets up to take it.

b) player B calls him off saying he will take it instead and jogs toward player A

c) player A casually touches the ball forward saying "ok here you go take it" and jogs into box

d) just before player B gets to ball he looks over shoulder and saw no defender

e) player B immediately picks up the live ball and dribbles unimpeded right into the box

Unfortunately the linesman called it back not realizing that Player A had correctly already taken the corner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWWm1H1DC-Q
yes that was it exactly! And the linesman in that game screwed it up too.

What I don't get is if you are planning to do this, tell the friggan linesman before the game that you might try it so that he pays attention to the initial corner that is perfectly legal if it goes one revolution of the ball..
This one failed because Rooney never stopped the ball i don't think. IT looks like he just rolls it in and out of the corner area without stopping it. Just my guess though.

eta> maybe he did stop it completely, never mind...

but yeah, as I'm walking over there I'm talking to the Lino telling him what's going down
We had a couple of "trick plays" in my playing days, and we always let the refs know up front. Just good practice IMO.

 
So... does professional soccer have drug testing... or can we safely assume most of them are dirty? :stirspot:
Most, if not all, of the professional leagues have multiple random tests each year, all the way down to 8-9-10 year old. I don't have much faith in FIFA's test, but the national organizations are all separate from the FAs.

ETA: Reading up on this a little more, it seems the standard practice nowadays is 2 randomly selected players for each team, in the games randomly selected. Anywhere between 5% to 20% of the games depending on league.

Youth testing seems to be more common the further north you go.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From my own experiences, I was subjected to testing from 8yrs old, once or twice a year until I hit juniors (16-18) when it was more frequent. Every major tournament you were almost guaranteed to be called in as well, so I would think 6-8 tests a year during those years.

Luckily they never tested for alcohol :oldunsure: , I think

ETA: We had banned substance lists sent to the club once or twice a year, and I believe they all focused on steroids and ephedrines (I think). Basically anything that would be performance enhancing from a stamina perspective, or muscle building. I know any player with asthma, or any type or respiratory issue, had to have doctor's notes with them at all time, including practice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Question for the soccer fanatics here. In football there are all sorts of analysis done on things like whether it's better to punt on 4th down or go for it from various areas of the field.

I imagine the same must be true for soccer with it being as big of a sport as it is worldwide. The aspect here that I keep coming back to is how often a team will be entering the opponent's third, in a position they could, at worst, take a stab at putting it in the box and see if something goes their way. But instead they reverse the ball, sometimes sending it as far back as their own goal keeper, and then have to work their way forward again. And they may lose possession before even reaching again the point they willingly gave up before.

Does anyone know of any studies that look at what the odds are for a team to score from these sorts of positions if they press forward even against non-ideal situations... vs what the odds are they score without losing possession if they reverse field like that?

I don't want to get bogged down in the reasons teams do this. That isn't the question. I'm wanting to know which choice has actually been shown by analysis to be most likely to result in a goal.
It is a great question.There has been a lot of research on this topic as soccer analytics are becoming more and more important as the old guard is replaced by younger minds running the playing side of the sport.

I can't point you to any specific studies online but if you enjoy this technical aspect of the sport, one of the best sites is Zonal Marking.

Here is his great write up on the final with plenty of stats, charts etc from the Opta tracking system

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2014/07/14/germany-1-0-argentina-aet-gotzes-extra-time-goal-wins-the-world-cup/#more-10857
Thanks for that site... that was some interesting reading, especially the GER:BRA semifinal

 
Using FIFA's formula for calculating rankings, below is the final tally after the Final.

This shows the Ranking prior to the tournament, the country, total points earned, in this many matches, average per match

2 Germany 13624.40 7 1946.3415 Netherlands 11706.40 7 1672.34 5 Argentina 10714.16 7 1530.59 8 Colombia 7987.92 5 1597.5811 Belgium 7459.44 5 1491.89 3 Brazil 7351.68 7 1050.2428 Costa Rica 6860.00 5 1372.0017 France 6313.92 5 1262.7814 Chile 4612.16 4 1153.04 7 Uruguay 4572.00 4 1143.0020 Mexico 4458.08 4 1114.52 6 Switzerland 3851.52 4 962.8812 Greece 2961.84 4 740.4644 Nigeria 2688.08 4 672.0226 Ecuador 2495.52 3 831.8413 USA 2466.16 4 616.54 4 Portugal 2340.40 3 780.13 9 Italy 2280.00 3 760.0022 Algeria 2098.40 4 524.6021 Bosnia-H 1620.24 3 540.0823 Ivory Coast 1589.28 3 529.7618 Croatia 1486.08 3 495.36 1 Spain 1424.16 3 474.7219 Russia 1104.24 3 368.0837 Ghana 792.00 3 264.0046 Japan 752.00 3 250.6757 South Korea 724.00 3 241.3310 England 605.44 3 201.8143 Iran 536.64 3 178.8833 Honduras 0.00 3 0.0056 Cameroon 0.00 3 0.0062 Australia 0.00 3 0.00
So we actually fell some spots after all that?
Well, we are no Spain - but yes, the system rewards wins - and we only had 1 of those, against a lower-ranked opponent. But we played 1, 5, 17, and 25 1 -1-2 is about right for that schedule.
So is it weighted for wins and losses? Or is a win vs. Australia as good as a win vs. Germany?
It is a formula that has multiple components including:

match result (win/draw/loss)

match status (friendly/WC qualifier/continental championship/WC finals)

opponent strength (their ranking at time game was played)

regional strength (each region has their own multiplier)

These 4 items are then fed into a formula to spit out how many points you have earned in a game. Those points go towards your average over the last 4 years (more recent games are weighted higher than older games).

Here is more information if interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings

 
Question for the soccer fanatics here. In football there are all sorts of analysis done on things like whether it's better to punt on 4th down or go for it from various areas of the field.

I imagine the same must be true for soccer with it being as big of a sport as it is worldwide. The aspect here that I keep coming back to is how often a team will be entering the opponent's third, in a position they could, at worst, take a stab at putting it in the box and see if something goes their way. But instead they reverse the ball, sometimes sending it as far back as their own goal keeper, and then have to work their way forward again. And they may lose possession before even reaching again the point they willingly gave up before.

Does anyone know of any studies that look at what the odds are for a team to score from these sorts of positions if they press forward even against non-ideal situations... vs what the odds are they score without losing possession if they reverse field like that?

I don't want to get bogged down in the reasons teams do this. That isn't the question. I'm wanting to know which choice has actually been shown by analysis to be most likely to result in a goal.
It is a great question.There has been a lot of research on this topic as soccer analytics are becoming more and more important as the old guard is replaced by younger minds running the playing side of the sport.

I can't point you to any specific studies online but if you enjoy this technical aspect of the sport, one of the best sites is Zonal Marking.

Here is his great write up on the final with plenty of stats, charts etc from the Opta tracking system

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2014/07/14/germany-1-0-argentina-aet-gotzes-extra-time-goal-wins-the-world-cup/#more-10857
Thanks for that site... that was some interesting reading, especially the GER:BRA semifinal
if I am not mistaken, I think it is one guy who runs that site (at least it used to be). He really comes up with interesting ways to look at the data and the match together to form his analysis.

 
Using FIFA's formula for calculating rankings, below is the final tally after the Final.

This shows the Ranking prior to the tournament, the country, total points earned, in this many matches, average per match

2 Germany 13624.40 7 1946.3415 Netherlands 11706.40 7 1672.34 5 Argentina 10714.16 7 1530.59 8 Colombia 7987.92 5 1597.5811 Belgium 7459.44 5 1491.89 3 Brazil 7351.68 7 1050.2428 Costa Rica 6860.00 5 1372.0017 France 6313.92 5 1262.7814 Chile 4612.16 4 1153.04 7 Uruguay 4572.00 4 1143.0020 Mexico 4458.08 4 1114.52 6 Switzerland 3851.52 4 962.8812 Greece 2961.84 4 740.4644 Nigeria 2688.08 4 672.0226 Ecuador 2495.52 3 831.8413 USA 2466.16 4 616.54 4 Portugal 2340.40 3 780.13 9 Italy 2280.00 3 760.0022 Algeria 2098.40 4 524.6021 Bosnia-H 1620.24 3 540.0823 Ivory Coast 1589.28 3 529.7618 Croatia 1486.08 3 495.36 1 Spain 1424.16 3 474.7219 Russia 1104.24 3 368.0837 Ghana 792.00 3 264.0046 Japan 752.00 3 250.6757 South Korea 724.00 3 241.3310 England 605.44 3 201.8143 Iran 536.64 3 178.8833 Honduras 0.00 3 0.0056 Cameroon 0.00 3 0.0062 Australia 0.00 3 0.00
So we actually fell some spots after all that?
Well, we are no Spain - but yes, the system rewards wins - and we only had 1 of those, against a lower-ranked opponent. But we played 1, 5, 17, and 25 1 -1-2 is about right for that schedule.
So is it weighted for wins and losses? Or is a win vs. Australia as good as a win vs. Germany?
It is a formula that has multiple components including:

match result (win/draw/loss)

match status (friendly/WC qualifier/continental championship/WC finals)

opponent strength (their ranking at time game was played)

regional strength (each region has their own multiplier)

These 4 items are then fed into a formula to spit out how many points you have earned in a game. Those points go towards your average over the last 4 years (more recent games are weighted higher than older games).

Here is more information if interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings
I think it's neat how Nigeria just lost to USA last month, only won 1 WC game, and still managed to leap frog USA in the standings.

 
Using FIFA's formula for calculating rankings, below is the final tally after the Final.

This shows the Ranking prior to the tournament, the country, total points earned, in this many matches, average per match

2 Germany 13624.40 7 1946.3415 Netherlands 11706.40 7 1672.34 5 Argentina 10714.16 7 1530.59 8 Colombia 7987.92 5 1597.5811 Belgium 7459.44 5 1491.89 3 Brazil 7351.68 7 1050.2428 Costa Rica 6860.00 5 1372.0017 France 6313.92 5 1262.7814 Chile 4612.16 4 1153.04 7 Uruguay 4572.00 4 1143.0020 Mexico 4458.08 4 1114.52 6 Switzerland 3851.52 4 962.8812 Greece 2961.84 4 740.4644 Nigeria 2688.08 4 672.0226 Ecuador 2495.52 3 831.8413 USA 2466.16 4 616.54 4 Portugal 2340.40 3 780.13 9 Italy 2280.00 3 760.0022 Algeria 2098.40 4 524.6021 Bosnia-H 1620.24 3 540.0823 Ivory Coast 1589.28 3 529.7618 Croatia 1486.08 3 495.36 1 Spain 1424.16 3 474.7219 Russia 1104.24 3 368.0837 Ghana 792.00 3 264.0046 Japan 752.00 3 250.6757 South Korea 724.00 3 241.3310 England 605.44 3 201.8143 Iran 536.64 3 178.8833 Honduras 0.00 3 0.0056 Cameroon 0.00 3 0.0062 Australia 0.00 3 0.00
So we actually fell some spots after all that?
Well, we are no Spain - but yes, the system rewards wins - and we only had 1 of those, against a lower-ranked opponent. But we played 1, 5, 17, and 25 1 -1-2 is about right for that schedule.
So is it weighted for wins and losses? Or is a win vs. Australia as good as a win vs. Germany?
It is a formula that has multiple components including:

match result (win/draw/loss)

match status (friendly/WC qualifier/continental championship/WC finals)

opponent strength (their ranking at time game was played)

regional strength (each region has their own multiplier)

These 4 items are then fed into a formula to spit out how many points you have earned in a game. Those points go towards your average over the last 4 years (more recent games are weighted higher than older games).

Here is more information if interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings
I think it's neat how Nigeria just lost to USA last month, only won 1 WC game, and still managed to leap frog USA in the standings.
I don't think Nigeria leap frogged the US. I believe these are just the numbers earned during the WC, ranked from 1-32. It does not take into account their previous points nor does it take into account teams that were ranked highly but did not qualify..

These new points need to be then plowed back into the average over the last 4 years and then we will see who ends up where when the next list is released.

I don't believe Nigeria is going to surpass the US seeing that they were 44th previously and the points they earned during the WC won't be able to move their average up that much to catch the US.

Assuming I am understanding this correctly of course.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
USA will likely drop to #15 - ahead of England - the only team above us to drop below us.

USA will have 989 points, and will remain top-ranked in CONCACAF

17. Costa Rica - 935

18. Mexico - 930

 
We'd have probably ended up at #9, as near as I can tell, if he had held on against Portugal.
Nah - we would have only moved up to 14, and still been behind Portugal :(

Germany - 1761

Argentina - 1689

Holland - 1525

Colombia - 1492

Belgium - 1401

Uruguay - 1330

Spain - 1229

Brazil - 1220

Switzerland - 1216

France - 1202

Portugal - 1148 (1098 if they had lost to USA)

Chile - 1090

Greece - 1085

Italy - 1056

USA - 989 (1062 if they had beaten Portugal)

Costa Rica - 935

Mexico - 930

England - 911

 
Soccer seems to lag behind the rest of the major sports with regards to analytics. They probably need player tracking technology the most b/c their stats are lacking.
They have had player tracking for many years now. The tools track every single touch of the ball and every step a player takes

Here is just a sample of what they track for say Phillip Lahm in the final.

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/statszone/4-2013/matches/731830/player-stats/15207/OVERALL_02
Yeah, that is the type of thing. I hadn't looked into it a ton in the past few years so I'm sure its advanced a bit. But a friend of a friend does some soccer stats for ESPN and it was still very basic. Now I know that is ESPN and I'm sure Europe has more advanced systems. But 538 had this article which examined both Opta and Prozone. The problem with Opta, IMO, is that it still relies on individuals to input the data. That is what I meant with technology like SportsVU which Prozone attempts to use, which automates the process. I think that will open things up a bit b/c humans entering data can be a bit subjective/slow. The subjective part probably being the biggest problem.

Now as you mention, soccer analytics doesn't seem as public as other sports data which also hurts it. I guess the downside of gambling being so prevalent. And just reading some other articles, the different programs and more importantly teams, disagree about what numbers and how to measure them which tends to keep things clouded and secretive. That makes it very hard for the fan and you don't really hear a ton about analytics after a signing like you would in America. I'm sure analytics does play more into strategy and play than we realize but as Greg Russell points out, there definitely seems to be a gap in the perceived +EV play and the actual play.

 
Soccer seems to lag behind the rest of the major sports with regards to analytics. They probably need player tracking technology the most b/c their stats are lacking.
They have had player tracking for many years now. The tools track every single touch of the ball and every step a player takes

Here is just a sample of what they track for say Phillip Lahm in the final.

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/statszone/4-2013/matches/731830/player-stats/15207/OVERALL_02
Yeah, that is the type of thing. I hadn't looked into it a ton in the past few years so I'm sure its advanced a bit. But a friend of a friend does some soccer stats for ESPN and it was still very basic. Now I know that is ESPN and I'm sure Europe has more advanced systems. But 538 had this article which examined both Opta and Prozone. The problem with Opta, IMO, is that it still relies on individuals to input the data. That is what I meant with technology like SportsVU which Prozone attempts to use, which automates the process. I think that will open things up a bit b/c humans entering data can be a bit subjective/slow. The subjective part probably being the biggest problem.

Now as you mention, soccer analytics doesn't seem as public as other sports data which also hurts it. I guess the downside of gambling being so prevalent. And just reading some other articles, the different programs and more importantly teams, disagree about what numbers and how to measure them which tends to keep things clouded and secretive. That makes it very hard for the fan and you don't really hear a ton about analytics after a signing like you would in America. I'm sure analytics does play more into strategy and play than we realize but as Greg Russell points out, there definitely seems to be a gap in the perceived +EV play and the actual play.
I think advanced soccer metrics are still in their relatively infancy compared to the big four US sports. The multiplicity of international leagues will be an issue because it will be very hard to compare data across borders. It's a lot easier for teams to maintain proprietary information about the teams in their own country but normalizing that against scores of leagues and thousands of players is a huge undertaking.

 
Soccer seems to lag behind the rest of the major sports with regards to analytics. They probably need player tracking technology the most b/c their stats are lacking.
They have had player tracking for many years now. The tools track every single touch of the ball and every step a player takes

Here is just a sample of what they track for say Phillip Lahm in the final.

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/statszone/4-2013/matches/731830/player-stats/15207/OVERALL_02
Yeah, that is the type of thing. I hadn't looked into it a ton in the past few years so I'm sure its advanced a bit. But a friend of a friend does some soccer stats for ESPN and it was still very basic. Now I know that is ESPN and I'm sure Europe has more advanced systems. But 538 had this article which examined both Opta and Prozone. The problem with Opta, IMO, is that it still relies on individuals to input the data. That is what I meant with technology like SportsVU which Prozone attempts to use, which automates the process. I think that will open things up a bit b/c humans entering data can be a bit subjective/slow. The subjective part probably being the biggest problem.

Now as you mention, soccer analytics doesn't seem as public as other sports data which also hurts it. I guess the downside of gambling being so prevalent. And just reading some other articles, the different programs and more importantly teams, disagree about what numbers and how to measure them which tends to keep things clouded and secretive. That makes it very hard for the fan and you don't really hear a ton about analytics after a signing like you would in America. I'm sure analytics does play more into strategy and play than we realize but as Greg Russell points out, there definitely seems to be a gap in the perceived +EV play and the actual play.
I think advanced soccer metrics are still in their relatively infancy compared to the big four US sports. The multiplicity of international leagues will be an issue because it will be very hard to compare data across borders. It's a lot easier for teams to maintain proprietary information about the teams in their own country but normalizing that against scores of leagues and thousands of players is a huge undertaking.
I bet that at the end of the day the ball- and player-tracking cameras they're using in the NBA to continuously track the EV of the current arrangement of players on the floor vis the ball is where soccer gets some value. Soccer is usually less dense in terms of players concentrated in space, and the ball changes hands less often so it should be easier.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I bet that at the end of the day the ball- and player-tracking cameras they're using in the NBA to continuously track the EV of the current arrangement of players on the floor vis the ball is where soccer gets some value. Soccer is usually less dense in terms of players concentrated in space, and the ball changes hands less often so it should be easier.
Agreed that is what I mentioned before. The technology in the NBA is SportsVu which is what some of the soccer data sites attempt to do. Much like the NBA, they had issues tracking individual players, especially when they got bunched up. You get speed of the ball/players/locations,etc. and then you'll start to see some changes in positioning/formations and hopefully attacking styles. As you mention, NBA is starting to see where defenses/offenses should be spaced and when the best +EV play.Baseball actually just introduced new technology from the MLB Advanced Media for player tracking. Not only will it open up more analysis but they hope it makes watching the game more exciting as you gain a better appreciation for the game. It will also make defense analysis possible and they had a measure called route efficiency. I imagine things like that parallel soccer fairly well.

 
I bet that at the end of the day the ball- and player-tracking cameras they're using in the NBA to continuously track the EV of the current arrangement of players on the floor vis the ball is where soccer gets some value. Soccer is usually less dense in terms of players concentrated in space, and the ball changes hands less often so it should be easier.
Agreed that is what I mentioned before. The technology in the NBA is SportsVu which is what some of the soccer data sites attempt to do. Much like the NBA, they had issues tracking individual players, especially when they got bunched up. You get speed of the ball/players/locations,etc. and then you'll start to see some changes in positioning/formations and hopefully attacking styles. As you mention, NBA is starting to see where defenses/offenses should be spaced and when the best +EV play.Baseball actually just introduced new technology from the MLB Advanced Media for player tracking. Not only will it open up more analysis but they hope it makes watching the game more exciting as you gain a better appreciation for the game. It will also make defense analysis possible and they had a measure called route efficiency. I imagine things like that parallel soccer fairly well.
I agree with your take.

I think this advancement is definitely coming and it will make the game more enjoyable for fans especially younger fans who understand and appreciate how informative this data will be.

I think by the middle of the 2022 cycle, soccer metrics will blow away what we have today (which are already quite good and deeply embedded into the sport).

 
Using FIFA's formula for calculating rankings, below is the final tally after the Final.

This shows the Ranking prior to the tournament, the country, total points earned, in this many matches, average per match

2 Germany 13624.40 7 1946.3415 Netherlands 11706.40 7 1672.34 5 Argentina 10714.16 7 1530.59 8 Colombia 7987.92 5 1597.5811 Belgium 7459.44 5 1491.89 3 Brazil 7351.68 7 1050.2428 Costa Rica 6860.00 5 1372.0017 France 6313.92 5 1262.7814 Chile 4612.16 4 1153.04 7 Uruguay 4572.00 4 1143.0020 Mexico 4458.08 4 1114.52 6 Switzerland 3851.52 4 962.8812 Greece 2961.84 4 740.4644 Nigeria 2688.08 4 672.0226 Ecuador 2495.52 3 831.8413 USA 2466.16 4 616.54 4 Portugal 2340.40 3 780.13 9 Italy 2280.00 3 760.0022 Algeria 2098.40 4 524.6021 Bosnia-H 1620.24 3 540.0823 Ivory Coast 1589.28 3 529.7618 Croatia 1486.08 3 495.36 1 Spain 1424.16 3 474.7219 Russia 1104.24 3 368.0837 Ghana 792.00 3 264.0046 Japan 752.00 3 250.6757 South Korea 724.00 3 241.3310 England 605.44 3 201.8143 Iran 536.64 3 178.8833 Honduras 0.00 3 0.0056 Cameroon 0.00 3 0.0062 Australia 0.00 3 0.00
So we actually fell some spots after all that?
Well, we are no Spain - but yes, the system rewards wins - and we only had 1 of those, against a lower-ranked opponent. But we played 1, 5, 17, and 25 1 -1-2 is about right for that schedule.
So is it weighted for wins and losses? Or is a win vs. Australia as good as a win vs. Germany?
It is a formula that has multiple components including:

match result (win/draw/loss)

match status (friendly/WC qualifier/continental championship/WC finals)

opponent strength (their ranking at time game was played)

regional strength (each region has their own multiplier)

These 4 items are then fed into a formula to spit out how many points you have earned in a game. Those points go towards your average over the last 4 years (more recent games are weighted higher than older games).

Here is more information if interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings
I think it's neat how Nigeria just lost to USA last month, only won 1 WC game, and still managed to leap frog USA in the standings.
I don't think Nigeria leap frogged the US. I believe these are just the numbers earned during the WC, ranked from 1-32. It does not take into account their previous points nor does it take into account teams that were ranked highly but did not qualify..

These new points need to be then plowed back into the average over the last 4 years and then we will see who ends up where when the next list is released.

I don't believe Nigeria is going to surpass the US seeing that they were 44th previously and the points they earned during the WC won't be able to move their average up that much to catch the US.

Assuming I am understanding this correctly of course.
Exactly.

Some examples of points calculated:

win/draw/loss (3/1/0) X importance of match (4 for WC Finals) X rank of opponent (200-rank at time (except #1 is 200)) X confederation of opponent (1, .88, .86)

US draw with Portugal

US 1*4*(200-4)*1 = 784

Portugal 1*4*(200-13)*(.88) = 658.24

Germany win over Argentina

Germany 3*4*(200-5)*1 = 2340

Argentina 0*nothing else matters = 0

 
So is it weighted for wins and losses? Or is a win vs. Australia as good as a win vs. Germany?
It is a formula that has multiple components including:

match result (win/draw/loss)

match status (friendly/WC qualifier/continental championship/WC finals)

opponent strength (their ranking at time game was played)

regional strength (each region has their own multiplier)

These 4 items are then fed into a formula to spit out how many points you have earned in a game. Those points go towards your average over the last 4 years (more recent games are weighted higher than older games).

Here is more information if interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings
The FIFA rankings are sort of like RPI in college basketball: somewhat useful for getting a general sense of a team's relative strength, but not really all that accurate, often misranks teams by as much as ten or fifteen spots, is relied upon far too much by the selection committee, and can be manipulated through clever scheduling (looking at you here, Switzerland).

 
Sinn Fein said:
We'd have probably ended up at #9, as near as I can tell, if he had held on against Portugal.
Nah - we would have only moved up to 14, and still been behind Portugal :(

Germany - 1761

Argentina - 1689

Holland - 1525

Colombia - 1492

Belgium - 1401

Uruguay - 1330

Spain - 1229

Brazil - 1220

Switzerland - 1216

France - 1202

Portugal - 1148 (1098 if they had lost to USA)

Chile - 1090

Greece - 1085

Italy - 1056

USA - 989 (1062 if they had beaten Portugal)

Costa Rica - 935

Mexico - 930

England - 911
btw - this is what the new rankings will look like when they are announced.

 
So is it weighted for wins and losses? Or is a win vs. Australia as good as a win vs. Germany?
It is a formula that has multiple components including: match result (win/draw/loss)match status (friendly/WC qualifier/continental championship/WC finals)opponent strength (their ranking at time game was played)regional strength (each region has their own multiplier) These 4 items are then fed into a formula to spit out how many points you have earned in a game. Those points go towards your average over the last 4 years (more recent games are weighted higher than older games). Here is more information if interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings
The FIFA rankings are sort of like RPI in college basketball: somewhat useful for getting a general sense of a team's relative strength, but not really all that accurate, often misranks teams by as much as ten or fifteen spots, is relied upon far too much by the selection committee, and can be manipulated through clever scheduling (looking at you here, Switzerland).
Agreed.

It is further complicated by the fact that the gap from 1-15ish is gigantic compared to the gap from 16-35ish.

For example the gap between Germany and US is significantly bigger than say the gap between US and Ghana.

 
I'm not sure why this narative is developing that soccer is the only sport where people complain. Try opening up an NFL game thread without multiple posts complaining about the referee.
I think there is a large difference between complaining about a ref call (which is part of being a sport fan) and saying a sport sucks because of one issue or saying the sport can never catch on in the US because of flopping.

If people would say "that's a dive, the ref should have carded him" no one would care. But that is not how it goes for the most part unfortunately when some people watch soccer.
Given your past attacks on people it is evident that you (and some others) don't perceive a difference here at all.
We argue about referee decisions and dives in the soccer thread constantly. It's kind of a situation like a little sister - big brother can bully her at home, but if any outsider kid so much as looks at her sideways, he's gonna get a beating.
I don't see it like that at all. We never in the soccer thread deal with any issues like these.

Scooby predicted this all before the WC started (which is why he snapped a couple of pages ago). He knew people were going to come in and say things like "the sport can never catch on in the US" or "all Americans hate this crap". I could have stipulated this point in the first few posts of the thread but I don't think it would have made any difference.

Unlike Scooby I want more people to like the sport. I go out of my way to research and answer as many questions in posts and in PM's as I can for people who are trying to learn about the sport whether being old or new fans as I learn new things myself that way. But I think the group that continues to play the same cards over and over again are a bit trolling.
You actually were very helpful to me this World Cup and I thank you for everything you helped me learn. I really do appreciate that. I just don't understand why yesterday, all of a sudden, you lumped me in to the trolling group. I think I may have mentioned flopping 4 times in this thread, and at no point did I ever say anything like "this is why the US won't ever follow soccer" or any other crap like that.
I don't think I lumped you with the trolls.

I asked a simple question of why do you keep repeating the same issue over and over again when you got explanations from multiple people weeks ago?

I jumped down Woz's throat more than I should have but I don't like reading the constant stuff that soccer can't be popular in this country because of this issue when every single possible item we have says that is not true. I think you jumped into the conversation right after Woz said this and maybe you got caught up in a reply that was meant more for Woz.
:lmao:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top