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

[Leroy Hoard]

seeing odds of 4/5 on Germany, indicating about 6/5 on the combo of draw & win for US.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've been watching the WC for some time now, at least since 94, and I've gotten into EPL and La Liga, especially over beers at a couple local pubs, been to some minor league soccer here in NO (even gotten to know their coach) and helped with a local soccer association. But there are things that I still don't get. Can someone explain how the extra time is calculated? How is it validated, ie how do we know that 5:00 minutes is the correct and proper time? I think the American sports fan in me wants some kind of certainty or verifiability as to why the teams get the extra time that they do? That just seemed like a lot of ET in that game.

Supposedly the ref is suppose to keep track of it during the game to account for goals, subs and injuries and other time wasting tactics but most fans will tell you it is rarely accurate.Up until fairly recently, the fans were not told how much extra time there would be. You just waited for the whistle. They made a tiny improvement to at least post it now after the 90 minutes is up.

I've explained this to several new viewers the last few weeks and they've all rolled their eyes and asked why they can't just stop the clock. I really didn't have an answer. It's not a good system.

We talk about this from time to time in the soccer thread.Some long time fans love injury time.

Stopping the clock on goals, subs and injuries would be the first rule change I would make.

It should entirely remove three massive problems

1) time wasting

2) inaccurate measurements of how much time was wasted

3) removes a tool used by refs when corruption occurs. We all know many games have either way too much or way too little injury time added.

I look at it like I do the shaving cream for free kicks. Extremely easy to fix and it serves an immediate purpose.

They would also take that time to run commercials, just saying. One thing people love about soccer is its uninterrupted flow. Add in breaks, more will come.

Having said that as a sometimes watcher (EPL, Liga, local minor league team) and participant (local youth soccer), I would totally love to see the changes you offer.

I haven't brought it up because it seems uncool and complaining, but the extra time business seems particularly bad. The refs may be rounding up, or rounding down. They mad add in time for substitutions, they may not. There is no official clock available for viewers and commentators to compare to see if what the ref is doing is correct. In USA vs POR they may have added in time for Zusi coming off slowly, they may not have. No one can tell.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Here's a silly newbie question:

So once the ref determines extra time, can more extra time be added on? For example, they say 3 minutes of injury time is added on to the end of the game. But at the 91 minute mark a player is injured and lays on the ground for a minute. Will another minute be added on?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Here's a silly newbie question:

So once the ref determines extra time, can more extra time be added on? For example, they say 3 minutes of injury time is added on to the end of the game. But at the 91 minute mark a player is injured and lays on the ground for a minute. Will another minute be added on?

yes

 

[berndog]

I’m very interested to see the starting 11 on Thursday. Outside of the Altidore/Zusi switch the starters have played 180 minutes and have a short recovery period. I’m sure we will see some fresh legs but who? I’m guessing we see Chandler come in for Beasley and Diskerud knock someone out of the midfield.

I speculated earlier that it would not shock me to see Yedlin start over Bedoya especially with the short turn around.

Yedlin and Fab on the right could cause a lot of problems for Germany.

That would be an interesting combo for 90 minutes and Yedlin has the speed to make up for a lot of his mistakes. I think Klinsmann will make more than one switch but with his willingness to put players in new positions it's tough to predict what the lineup will be.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Weighing in on the Bradley debate. Bradley completed 87% of his 69 passes. The only player he attempted nearly that many passes was Kyle Beckerman, who completed a tidy 90%

One thing to think about in soccer is context. We're used to Bradley completing a high percentage of his passes because he has traditionally played either as a dedicated "#6" or at least as a box to box guy with lots of defensive responsibilities in distributing the ball safely out of the back. In this World Cup, Bradley is being played as an attacking MF. He should complete less passes because we want him attempting ambitious passes that put pressure on the defense. Alejandro Bedoya completed 91% of his passes, but I'd argue that he played far, far too safe for even a "defensive" winger. Yedlin probably had more giveaways in a fraction of the minutes, but Yedlin created the second goal. Context.

Another thing to consider in these situations is where the giveaways occur. Jermaine Jones, who seems to be the popular pick for Man of the Match, completed 77% of his passes. At least three of his giveaways were central, in bad areas. Portugal didn't capitalize on them, so we never think of them again. Of Bradley's giveaways before that final minute, I can only think of one that was in a bad area that might have led to a transition. That was bad.

Of the offensive giveaways (which, again, I think you tolerate out of AMs), the one that was slightly behind Deuce stands out. But for somewhat different reasons. The US had a numbers breakaway. Zusi (I think) out on the left was the easiest ball. It would have produced a low percentage shot chance or a possible cross into the box. The pass to Deuce was higher difficulty, but would have produced a clear chance. Bradley tried the harder pass and played it a hair behind Deuce. Now, it was no more behind Deuce than Jones' assist on the first goal against Ghana. The difference was that Deuce couldn't execute the drag back this time. I'd argue that Bradley played the pass we want our CAM to play in that situation. And those aren't always going to come off.

Now, it's perfectly fair to assign blame to Bradley for the late giveaway. Knowing what we know now, he probably should have just volleyed it first time out of bounds or something. But he did have room. If it's not the last minute of the game, the decision to control is obviously correct. The execution with regard to the first touch wasn't. With that said, when I look at that goal again, I see tons of numbers back for the US. And I see that Portugal got on runner into the box. Bradley (and Beasley too) share some blame on the goal. But the lion's share has to go to Cameron.

Great post - though I would deflect some of the blame from Beasley - I think the right play there, against Ronaldo, is to play off him, and make him hit a cross, rather than get sucked in, and have him beat you, and have a run into the goal. I think a lot more could go wrong if CR7 blows past Beasley and into the box.

As it was, he hit a great cross, and Varela beat Cameron to the ball.

 

[NewlyRetired]

From an on field playing aspect Portugal should get stronger with the return of Pepe and Ghana loses I think the heart of their team in Muntari who one could argue has been Ghana's best player.

I hope this closes some of the mental gap as I think Ghana senses they have a good path to the second round where as Portugal looked defeated even after the last second goal last night.

I don't think CRo will recover in time but he is still dangerous enough to cause problems. If he finds his shooting boots, he could pip one since he found some openings against the US but shot poorly.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Here's a silly newbie question:

So once the ref determines extra time, can more extra time be added on? For example, they say 3 minutes of injury time is added on to the end of the game. But at the 91 minute mark a player is injured and lays on the ground for a minute. Will another minute be added on?

Yes. The definition of what is posted is "at least" that much time. If there is time wasting/injury etc during extra time, more time is added at the ref discretion.

 

[Jaysus]

Here's a silly newbie question:

So once the ref determines extra time, can more extra time be added on? For example, they say 3 minutes of injury time is added on to the end of the game. But at the 91 minute mark a player is injured and lays on the ground for a minute. Will another minute be added on?

Yes. The definition of what is posted is "at least" that much time. If there is time wasting/injury etc during extra time, more time is added at the ref discretion.

It happened yesterday, 4 minutes was originally announced, then after the slow sub for Zusi, the 4th official added another minute making it at least 5 mins of injury time.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Weighing in on the Bradley debate. Bradley completed 87% of his 69 passes. The only player he attempted nearly that many passes was Kyle Beckerman, who completed a tidy 90%

One thing to think about in soccer is context. We're used to Bradley completing a high percentage of his passes because he has traditionally played either as a dedicated "#6" or at least as a box to box guy with lots of defensive responsibilities in distributing the ball safely out of the back. In this World Cup, Bradley is being played as an attacking MF. He should complete less passes because we want him attempting ambitious passes that put pressure on the defense. Alejandro Bedoya completed 91% of his passes, but I'd argue that he played far, far too safe for even a "defensive" winger. Yedlin probably had more giveaways in a fraction of the minutes, but Yedlin created the second goal. Context.

Another thing to consider in these situations is where the giveaways occur. Jermaine Jones, who seems to be the popular pick for Man of the Match, completed 77% of his passes. At least three of his giveaways were central, in bad areas. Portugal didn't capitalize on them, so we never think of them again. Of Bradley's giveaways before that final minute, I can only think of one that was in a bad area that might have led to a transition. That was bad.

Of the offensive giveaways (which, again, I think you tolerate out of AMs), the one that was slightly behind Deuce stands out. But for somewhat different reasons. The US had a numbers breakaway. Zusi (I think) out on the left was the easiest ball. It would have produced a low percentage shot chance or a possible cross into the box. The pass to Deuce was higher difficulty, but would have produced a clear chance. Bradley tried the harder pass and played it a hair behind Deuce. Now, it was no more behind Deuce than Jones' assist on the first goal against Ghana. The difference was that Deuce couldn't execute the drag back this time. I'd argue that Bradley played the pass we want our CAM to play in that situation. And those aren't always going to come off.

Now, it's perfectly fair to assign blame to Bradley for the late giveaway. Knowing what we know now, he probably should have just volleyed it first time out of bounds or something. But he did have room. If it's not the last minute of the game, the decision to control is obviously correct. The execution with regard to the first touch wasn't. With that said, when I look at that goal again, I see tons of numbers back for the US. And I see that Portugal got on runner into the box. Bradley (and Beasley too) share some blame on the goal. But the lion's share has to go to Cameron.

Great post - though I would deflect some of the blame from Beasley - I think the right play there, against Ronaldo, is to play off him, and make him hit a cross, rather than get sucked in, and have him beat you, and have a run into the goal. I think a lot more could go wrong if CR7 blows past Beasley and into the box.

As it was, he hit a great cross, and Varela beat Cameron to the ball.

I think with Beasley, much like with Bradley, the fact that it was the last minute of the game has to weigh in. I'd have closed down, because if CR7 blows by me, I'd have absolutely no compunction with grabbing his jersey and taking the card in that situation. But that's obviously with the benefit of hindsight, not in the middle of a game where I've killed myself for 90 minutes.

 

[jon_mx]

This is how I understand the tie-breaker scenerios for the US

US wins or draws against Germany = Advance

US loses by 1 goal to Germany, US needs the following to advance:

1. Tie between Portugal and Ghana.

2. Ghana winning by only 1 goal while not scoring more than 2 goals than the US scores against Germany.

3. Portugal winning but by 3 goals or less.

4. Portugal winnng by 4 goals while not score more than 2 goals than the US.

If US loses by more than 1 goal.

1. Ghana advances with any win.

2. Portugal advances with a win if their win margin + our loss margin is greater than 4.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Here's a silly newbie question:

So once the ref determines extra time, can more extra time be added on? For example, they say 3 minutes of injury time is added on to the end of the game. But at the 91 minute mark a player is injured and lays on the ground for a minute. Will another minute be added on?

Yes. The definition of what is posted is "at least" that much time. If there is time wasting/injury etc during extra time, more time is added at the ref discretion.

OK. So it is theoretically possible for them to say 4 minutes of extra time added on but have the game end in the 6 extra minute?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's a silly newbie question:

So once the ref determines extra time, can more extra time be added on? For example, they say 3 minutes of injury time is added on to the end of the game. But at the 91 minute mark a player is injured and lays on the ground for a minute. Will another minute be added on?

Yes. The definition of what is posted is "at least" that much time. If there is time wasting/injury etc during extra time, more time is added at the ref discretion.

It happened yesterday, 4 minutes was originally announced, then after the slow sub for Zusi, the 4th official added another minute making it at least 5 mins of injury time.

Has this been established? Someone tweeted it like it was a news flash. No one can really tell, can they?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Here's a silly newbie question:

So once the ref determines extra time, can more extra time be added on? For example, they say 3 minutes of injury time is added on to the end of the game. But at the 91 minute mark a player is injured and lays on the ground for a minute. Will another minute be added on?

Yes. The definition of what is posted is "at least" that much time. If there is time wasting/injury etc during extra time, more time is added at the ref discretion.

It happened yesterday, 4 minutes was originally announced, then after the slow sub for Zusi, the 4th official added another minute making it at least 5 mins of injury time.

Hmm... I missed that somehow. I know it's just a small thing, but that question has been bugging me for 3 World Cups. Not enough to go research it on my own, apparently. But close.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Here's a silly newbie question:

So once the ref determines extra time, can more extra time be added on? For example, they say 3 minutes of injury time is added on to the end of the game. But at the 91 minute mark a player is injured and lays on the ground for a minute. Will another minute be added on?

Yes. The definition of what is posted is "at least" that much time. If there is time wasting/injury etc during extra time, more time is added at the ref discretion.

OK. So it is theoretically possible for them to say 4 minutes of extra time added on but have the game end in the 6 extra minute?

Yes, it is quite common.

 

[NewlyRetired]

This is how I understand the tie-breaker scenerios for the US

US wins or draws against Germany = Advance

US loses by 1 goal to Germany, US needs the following to advance:

1. Tie between Portugal and Ghana.

2. Ghana winning by only 1 goal while not scoring more than 2 goals than the US scores against Germany.

3. Portugal winning but by 3 goals or less.

4. Portugal winnng by 4 goals while not score more than 2 goals than the US.

If US loses by more than 1 goal.

1. Ghana advances with any win.

2. Portugal advances with a win if their win margin + our loss margin is greater than 4.

You have it all correct. You should add a simple qualifier to the beginning to make the scenarios clearer. The US advances if it wins or draws vs Germany OR the Ghana Portugal game is tied.

If Ghana Portugal tie, the US is through no matter what the score of the US Germany game.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

seeing odds of 4/5 on Germany, indicating about 6/5 on the combo of draw & win for US.

Pretty interesting...

538's odds for the game:

US win - 14%

Draw - 22%

Germany win - 64%

Oddsmakers odds for the game:

US win - 9%

Draw - 37% (!)

Germany win - 54%

Basically I think the oddsmakers are pricing in the chances both teams are happy with a draw, and play very conservatively. 538's models can't incorporate that kind of thing. What's most interesting is that it's the first time in a long time that the oddsmakers at Oddschecker would rate the US chances of getting a result against a European team higher than the power ranking models. European oddsmakers almost always underrate the US in those situations.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I kinda can't believe I'm saying this, but I was actively hoping that the US players would embellish some injuries to waste time near the end of the game yesterday. Did anyone else feel that way?

Honestly, it felt like a very CONCACAF thing to do. I know we try to hold our team up to a higher standard, but damn did I want Dempsey or whoever to take a hack at the heels and roll around for 30 seconds like he'd been shot.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I kinda can't believe I'm saying this, but I was actively hoping that the US players would embellish some injuries to waste time near the end of the game yesterday. Did anyone else feel that way?

Honestly, it felt like a very CONCACAF thing to do. I know we try to hold our team up to a higher standard, but damn did I want Dempsey or whoever to take a hack at the heels and roll around for 30 seconds like he'd been shot.

Somebody was lying down on the ground for a while and everyone just ignored him.

 

[NewlyRetired]

This is how I understand the tie-breaker scenerios for the US

US wins or draws against Germany = Advance

US loses by 1 goal to Germany, US needs the following to advance:

1. Tie between Portugal and Ghana.

2. Ghana winning by only 1 goal while not scoring more than 2 goals than the US scores against Germany.

3. Portugal winning but by 3 goals or less.

4. Portugal winnng by 4 goals while not score more than 2 goals than the US.

If US loses by more than 1 goal.

1. Ghana advances with any win.

2. Portugal advances with a win if their win margin + our loss margin is greater than 4.

You have it all correct. You should add a simple qualifier to the beginning to make the scenarios clearer. The US advances if it wins or draws vs Germany OR the Ghana Portugal game is tied.

If Ghana Portugal tie, the US is through no matter what the score of the US Germany game.

Maybe one small change to this line?

"Ghana winning by only 1 goal while not scoring more than 2 goals than the US scores against Germany."

I think that should be more than 1 goal

If Ghana is level on points and GD with US and they score 2 more goals than US does, they are through on the goals scored tie breaker I think.

Do you agree?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

seeing odds of 4/5 on Germany, indicating about 6/5 on the combo of draw & win for US.

Pretty interesting...

538's odds for the game:

US win - 14%

Draw - 22%

Germany win - 64%

Oddsmakers odds for the game:

US win - 9%

Draw - 37% (!)

Germany win - 54%

Basically I think the oddsmakers are pricing in the chances both teams are happy with a draw, and play very conservatively. 538's models can't incorporate that kind of thing. What's most interesting is that it's the first time in a long time that the oddsmakers at Oddschecker would rate the US chances of getting a result against a European team higher than the power ranking models. European oddsmakers almost always underrate the US in those situations.

Projections (not sure of the source, but it's being widely cited)

https://www.bsports.com/world-cup#projections

USA with ~77% chance to advance.

 

[El Floppo]

I've explained this to several new viewers the last few weeks and they've all rolled their eyes and asked why they can't just stop the clock. I really didn't have an answer. It's not a good system.

This was the one "innovation" I thought MLS got right. They stopped the clock for injuries and time wasting and everyone could see exactly how much time was left. No need to have the clock count down, but it was a better system IMO.

Been this way in college soccer too. Not sure who started it though.

I wish there was a 5th official who kept track of time and any kind of red-card/PK/Off-the-ball video to issue cards.

I hate the completely arbitrary aspect of having the ref do it on the field.

 

[[icon]]

Has anyone run the scenarios for the US to advance yet?

Looks like we have a 2 goal differential over Ghana and 5 over portugal, right?

So if we win or draw with germany we advance, right?

If we lose and:

Portugal wins we should advance (pending us not getting blown out by GER and POR not blowing out GHA)
Ghana wins it gets tighter (only 2 goal differential - may go to total goals? We have head to head if that ties right)?

 

[NewlyRetired]

Has anyone run the scenarios for the US to advance yet?

)?

Look at the posts just before yours for some scenarios.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

seeing odds of 4/5 on Germany, indicating about 6/5 on the combo of draw & win for US.

Pretty interesting...

538's odds for the game:

US win - 14%

Draw - 22%

Germany win - 64%

Oddsmakers odds for the game:

US win - 9%

Draw - 37% (!)

Germany win - 54%

Basically I think the oddsmakers are pricing in the chances both teams are happy with a draw, and play very conservatively. 538's models can't incorporate that kind of thing. What's most interesting is that it's the first time in a long time that the oddsmakers at Oddschecker would rate the US chances of getting a result against a European team higher than the power ranking models. European oddsmakers almost always underrate the US in those situations.

Projections (not sure of the source, but it's being widely cited)

https://www.bsports.com/world-cup#projections

USA with ~77% chance to advance.

Not familiar with B Sports, but Nate Silver's group at 538 has it at 76% for the US. So the computers are all basically in agreement, but the oddsmakers actually have the US slightly better to advance (I've seen it as high as ~83% at 1/5).

 

[TheIronSheik]

Here's a silly newbie question:

So once the ref determines extra time, can more extra time be added on? For example, they say 3 minutes of injury time is added on to the end of the game. But at the 91 minute mark a player is injured and lays on the ground for a minute. Will another minute be added on?

Yes. The definition of what is posted is "at least" that much time. If there is time wasting/injury etc during extra time, more time is added at the ref discretion.

OK. So it is theoretically possible for them to say 4 minutes of extra time added on but have the game end in the 6 extra minute?

Yes, it is quite common.

Cool. Appreciate the answer. I feel like with each WC my soccer knowledge just grows and grows, and at the same time, I enjoy the games more and more.

 

[ffldrew]

Weighing in on the Bradley debate. Bradley completed 87% of his 69 passes. The only player he attempted nearly that many passes was Kyle Beckerman, who completed a tidy 90%

One thing to think about in soccer is context. We're used to Bradley completing a high percentage of his passes because he has traditionally played either as a dedicated "#6" or at least as a box to box guy with lots of defensive responsibilities in distributing the ball safely out of the back. In this World Cup, Bradley is being played as an attacking MF. He should complete less passes because we want him attempting ambitious passes that put pressure on the defense. Alejandro Bedoya completed 91% of his passes, but I'd argue that he played far, far too safe for even a "defensive" winger. Yedlin probably had more giveaways in a fraction of the minutes, but Yedlin created the second goal. Context.

Another thing to consider in these situations is where the giveaways occur. Jermaine Jones, who seems to be the popular pick for Man of the Match, completed 77% of his passes. At least three of his giveaways were central, in bad areas. Portugal didn't capitalize on them, so we never think of them again. Of Bradley's giveaways before that final minute, I can only think of one that was in a bad area that might have led to a transition. That was bad.

Of the offensive giveaways (which, again, I think you tolerate out of AMs), the one that was slightly behind Deuce stands out. But for somewhat different reasons. The US had a numbers breakaway. Zusi (I think) out on the left was the easiest ball. It would have produced a low percentage shot chance or a possible cross into the box. The pass to Deuce was higher difficulty, but would have produced a clear chance. Bradley tried the harder pass and played it a hair behind Deuce. Now, it was no more behind Deuce than Jones' assist on the first goal against Ghana. The difference was that Deuce couldn't execute the drag back this time. I'd argue that Bradley played the pass we want our CAM to play in that situation. And those aren't always going to come off.

Now, it's perfectly fair to assign blame to Bradley for the late giveaway. Knowing what we know now, he probably should have just volleyed it first time out of bounds or something. But he did have room. If it's not the last minute of the game, the decision to control is obviously correct. The execution with regard to the first touch wasn't. With that said, when I look at that goal again, I see tons of numbers back for the US. And I see that Portugal got on runner into the box. Bradley (and Beasley too) share some blame on the goal. But the lion's share has to go to Cameron.

Great post - though I would deflect some of the blame from Beasley - I think the right play there, against Ronaldo, is to play off him, and make him hit a cross, rather than get sucked in, and have him beat you, and have a run into the goal. I think a lot more could go wrong if CR7 blows past Beasley and into the box.

As it was, he hit a great cross, and Varela beat Cameron to the ball.

I think with Beasley, much like with Bradley, the fact that it was the last minute of the game has to weigh in. I'd have closed down, because if CR7 blows by me, I'd have absolutely no compunction with grabbing his jersey and taking the card in that situation. But that's obviously with the benefit of hindsight, not in the middle of a game where I've killed myself for 90 minutes.

Beasley was just outside the box - if he gets beat he's grabbing CR7's jersey in the box - Beasley made the right play.

That play was on Bradley - he made a bad 1st touch - was slow to get to his miss - just poked a leg into the play instead of going in hard and knocking down the Portugal player - and then at a minimum fight hard and committing a yellow card offense there

As to the passing % - under pressure JJ had several passes directed to Bradley in the middle and over and over Bradley overran his space and the ball - and the passes became some turnover where JJ had to clean up the mess. Bradley was a just not playing composed in many situations that I saw and was only a bit better than his play against Ghana. Including a couple of times where he completed a pass but into dead ends - I remember a couple of good runs on the left that he never saw and went right with the pass.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Ghana wins it gets tighter (only 2 goal differential - may go to total goals? We have head to head if that ties right)?

If Ghana and US level on GD and goals scored then the US goes through on the head to head tie breaker.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I was looking at scenarios and came across this:

Note: If Nigeria loses 1-0 and Iran wins 1-0, the tiebreaker will be decided by a draw by FIFA

How insane is that, that your chances of going on would come down to the equivalent of drawing rocks in Survivor?!

 

[TenTimes]

I'm hearing more and more about just how much the US team is traveling. 9000 miles over 10 days to play their first 3 games. Compared to under 200 miles by bus to play 4 games in South Africa.

Ouch.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Here's a silly newbie question:

So once the ref determines extra time, can more extra time be added on? For example, they say 3 minutes of injury time is added on to the end of the game. But at the 91 minute mark a player is injured and lays on the ground for a minute. Will another minute be added on?

The thing I don't like about it is how arbitrary it is. When Portugal tied it up last night, there were around 25 seconds or so left on the 5 minutes of extra time, yet the whistle was blown for the end of the game seconds after we starting moving the ball at midfield after the goal. It's like, what happened to those extra 20 seconds? Do they just get pissed away because a goal was scored? It's easy to say, what can happened in that short of time, but we saw last night what can.

Granted, I get why they never stop the clock, as stopping it at every whistle would be awful, especially since the play is often then restarted pretty quickly, and having to have an official signal for time startage and stoppage every time would be awful, but I just don't like the arbitrary way extra time is handled.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I think the US and Germany play straight up for 60 minutes, if it is tied after 60 minutes, I think both teams start to shut the offensive attacks down - trying to limit any counter-attacks. If Germany goes ahead by 2, I think they will sit back, and not try to make any defensive mistakes. Not sure who is sitting on a card for Germany, but if they have the game in hand - and up 2 is in hand, when a draw will see them through - I think they get very conservative to avoid injuries and cards.

 

[[icon]]

Got it... so we are all pretty big Portugal Fans then....

 

[NewlyRetired]

I was looking at scenarios and came across this:

Note: If Nigeria loses 1-0 and Iran wins 1-0, the tiebreaker will be decided by a draw by FIFA

How insane is that, that your chances of going on would come down to the equivalent of drawing rocks in Survivor?!

no corruption possibilities their either

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Would much rather see the U.S. advance with a win or a draw against Germany. Would be sorta disappointing if they get blown out but squeeze in on goal differential or because of a Ghana/Portugal tie. I mean, I'd still take it, just saying is all.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Got it... so we are all pretty big Portugal Fans then....

best case scenario is a draw but after that Portugal winning gives the US a much better chance of advancing because of the larger GD.

 

[[icon]]

" post="16932205" timestamp="1403540651"]Got it... so we are all pretty big Portugal Fans then....

Would much rather see the U.S. advance with a win or a draw against Germany. Would be sorta disappointing if they get blown out but squeeze in on goal differential or because of a Ghana/Portugal tie. I mean, I'd still take it, just saying is all.

Oh I hear ya... prefer to see us "earn" it too but just thinking worst case.

 

[The Gator]

Here's a silly newbie question:

So once the ref determines extra time, can more extra time be added on? For example, they say 3 minutes of injury time is added on to the end of the game. But at the 91 minute mark a player is injured and lays on the ground for a minute. Will another minute be added on?

Yes. The definition of what is posted is "at least" that much time. If there is time wasting/injury etc during extra time, more time is added at the ref discretion.

It happened yesterday, 4 minutes was originally announced, then after the slow sub for Zusi, the 4th official added another minute making it at least 5 mins of injury time.

Has this been established? Someone tweeted it like it was a news flash. No one can really tell, can they?

Twellman tweeted it, but I didn't see it when I re-watched it(admittedly wasted). The board went straight from the subs coming in/out to five minutes.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Food for thought:

in 2010 there were 10 games in rounds 1&2 decided by 2+ goals, and 3 (of 16) in the final set of games. Only 1 - against North Korea was decided by 3 goals.

In 2014 there have been 10 games decided by 2+ goals. It is hard at this stage to win a game by 2+ goals. So, even a pair of 2-0 games in Group G - with Portugal beating Ghana - would not be enough to eliminate the US. So, I think we are generally rooting for Portugal to win - by 1 or 2 goals....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I was looking at scenarios and came across this:

Note: If Nigeria loses 1-0 and Iran wins 1-0, the tiebreaker will be decided by a draw by FIFA

How insane is that, that your chances of going on would come down to the equivalent of drawing rocks in Survivor?!

no corruption possibilities their either

It's completely ridiculous.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I think the US and Germany play straight up for 60 minutes, if it is tied after 60 minutes, I think both teams start to shut the offensive attacks down - trying to limit any counter-attacks. If Germany goes ahead by 2, I think they will sit back, and not try to make any defensive mistakes. Not sure who is sitting on a card for Germany, but if they have the game in hand - and up 2 is in hand, when a draw will see them through - I think they get very conservative to avoid injuries and cards.

I said something similar at work today, but said 70 minutes. I think the two teams are going to go at it. If it's still even after 70 minutes, I bet both teams become significantly more defensive. Of course, Germany will still have chances.

Can you imagine the nerves if the US is bunkering in a drawn game with Germany and Ghana is up by, say, 2 in the other game? I might bite my fingers until they bleed.

 

[jon_mx]

This is how I understand the tie-breaker scenerios for the US

Ghana and Portugal tie = US Advance

US wins or draws against Germany = US Advance

US loses by 1 goal to Germany, US needs the following to advance:

1. Tie between Portugal and Ghana.

2. Ghana winning by only 1 goal while not scoring 2 or more goals than the US scores against Germany.

3. Portugal winning but by 3 goals or less.

4. Portugal winnng by 3 goals while not score more than 2 goals than the US.

If US loses by more than 1 goal.

1. Ghana advances with any win.

2. Portugal advances with a win if their win margin + our loss margin is greater than 4.

You have it all correct. You should add a simple qualifier to the beginning to make the scenarios clearer.The US advances if it wins or draws vs Germany OR the Ghana Portugal game is tied.

If Ghana Portugal tie, the US is through no matter what the score of the US Germany game.

Maybe one small change to this line?

"Ghana winning by only 1 goal while not scoring more than 2 goals than the US scores against Germany."

I think that should be more than 1 goal

If Ghana is level on points and GD with US and they score 2 more goals than US does, they are through on the goals scored tie breaker I think.

Do you agree?

Yeah, we only have a one goal advantage on them, so they just have score two more than us.

 

[The Gator]

Got it... so we are all pretty big Portugal Fans then....

:confetti:

 

[NewlyRetired]

Would much rather see the U.S. advance with a win or a draw against Germany. Would be sorta disappointing if they get blown out but squeeze in on goal differential or because of a Ghana/Portugal tie. I mean, I'd still take it, just saying is all.

This is exactly what happened in what many consider the US finest moment at the WC

In 2002 the US lost is last group game 3-1 (the US was losing 3-0 late in the game) but backed in because SK scored a second half goal against Portugal to allow the US to back in.

It was quickly forgotten after the US beat Mexico in the second round and then played one of their best games ever taking Germany to the absolute limit before losing in the quarter finals.

 

[NewlyRetired]

So, I think we are generally rooting for Portugal to win - by 1 or 2 goals....

I think we are rooting for the score to be level for as long as possible. The longer that game stays level the more the US chances increase since a draw automatically puts the US through and a low scoring win by either side also helps the US.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

What's up with Alexis Sanchez's short shorts?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

So, I think we are generally rooting for Portugal to win - by 1 or 2 goals....

I think we are rooting for the score to be level for as long as possible. The longer that game stays level the more the US chances increase since a draw automatically puts the US through and a low scoring win by either side also helps the US.

But Ghana have give up four goals already, and Portugal have given up six so far. So could unfortunately be a goal fest.

 

[Sand]

I was looking at scenarios and came across this:

Note: If Nigeria loses 1-0 and Iran wins 1-0, the tiebreaker will be decided by a draw by FIFA

How insane is that, that your chances of going on would come down to the equivalent of drawing rocks in Survivor?!

They will have earned that with their miserable 0-0 game.

 

[NewlyRetired]

The activity level of an attacking team is many times affected by the score in your game.

It will be fun to watch the US team possibly have to change tactics based on how the score is changing in the other game.

If Portugal is winning by 2 after 70 minutes and the US is losing by 1, the US might just see the game out.

If Ghana is winning by 2 after 70 minutes and the US is losing by 1, the US is going to have to go after it at all costs.

Should be our typically frustrating highs and lows all game. Damn, is it too early to get queasy?

:(

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

That Robben guy seems pretty good.