I have only seen them play a bit this cycle so I am unfamiliar with them. What makes you say this?I'd really really really hate Greece in our group.
They are very sound defensively and always seem to play 10 guys behind the ball. I think we'll have a very tough time breaking them down and 3 points from that game will be unlikely.I have only seen them play a bit this cycle so I am unfamiliar with them. What makes you say this?I'd really really really hate Greece in our group.
That is certainly their modus operandi against clearly better opponents but I have a feeling they will be looking at the US as a must 3 points and will have to come out of their shell.They are very sound defensively and always seem to play 10 guys behind the ball. I think we'll have a very tough time breaking them down and 3 points from that game will be unlikely.I have only seen them play a bit this cycle so I am unfamiliar with them. What makes you say this?I'd really really really hate Greece in our group.
So, kind of like early CONCACAF qualifying.They are very sound defensively and always seem to play 10 guys behind the ball.
yeash, but with better players imoSo, kind of like early CONCACAF qualifying.They are very sound defensively and always seem to play 10 guys behind the ball.
Mexico = goose eggyes pleaseI just got a group of Brazil, France, Italy, Mexico
EG, on the off chance you might want to consider a non draft (ie treat it more like an NCAA hoop pool where everyone picks the result of every game), check out this post, it has worked well the last two WC's for us. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=699418&p=16241292Help me out here, mathguys. I'm starting a very small WC pool - will either be random draw or serpentine drafting (I prefer the latter) of teams until all teams are assigned. Scoring (here's where I need a little help) :
Group stage - 1 point for a draw, 3 for a win for each team.
Knockout round 1 - ___________ pts for a win
Knockout round 2 - ___________ pts for a win
Semifinals - _____________ pts for a win
Finals - _____________ pts for a win
What do you think are the right point values to assign to those blank spots in order to ensure that whoever draws/picks Brazil (or whoever ultimately wins) doesn't automatically roll through the thing? By the same token, I don't want the knockout rounds to be virtually irrelevant if someone has built up a big lead in the group stage. By doing so, that person would clearly have the most sides participating in the knockout stages anyway, so I'd like to at least have the possibility exist that someone could catch up and everyone doesn't lose interest after the round-robin portion. And yes, I understand that I've been somewhat contradictory here.
Basically, just want a good balance between early and late round results like most decent NCAA pools have (I use seed x round to determine points awarded for a win.) This is tougher, though, because there are no numeric seeds to speak of (and I don't much want to assign them) and no two participants can ever have a stake in the same team.
Group stage - 1 point for a draw, 3 for a win for each team.Help me out here, mathguys. I'm starting a very small WC pool - will either be random draw or serpentine drafting (I prefer the latter) of teams until all teams are assigned. Scoring (here's where I need a little help) :
The only think I might add is a point per goals scored. Probably wouldn't make a difference, but it's nice to have some reward for entertaining play.Group stage - 1 point for a draw, 3 for a win for each team.Help me out here, mathguys. I'm starting a very small WC pool - will either be random draw or serpentine drafting (I prefer the latter) of teams until all teams are assigned. Scoring (here's where I need a little help) :
Knockout round 1 - 6 pts for a win
Knockout round 2 - 9 pts for a win
Semifinals - 12 pts for a win
Finals - 15 pts for a win
There are 48 first-round games, which means anywhere from 96 to 144 points in the first round, depending on how many draws there are. To keep things interesting in the knockout stages without giving an overwhelming advantage to the eventual winner, you probably want to have the available points be somewhere in that range. This setup has 123 (48 round 1, 36 round 2, 24 round 3, 15 final).
Looking at Pot 4, Greece is probably the team I'd want to face the most, which is more of a commentary on the other options. I'd be good with Greece or Croatia, I'd be OK (not happy, but OK) with Bosnia, Russia or England all things considered, would rather avoid France and Portugal, and obviously Italy or Netherlands would be a disaster draw.I saw all 4 of Greece's matches during UEFA 2012 and didn't exactly come away fearful of their talent level. They did advance past the group stage but they were extremely lucky to do so. The final group stage match vs Russia they were completely dominated and only snuck by 1-0 because the Russians completely botched a throw in and let Greece get a point blank scoring chance right before halftime. I actually think this would be a very good matchup for the US. They would be able to get a good amount of possession and would likely be able to play the majority of the match in the offensive zone.
If you are looking to not give an overwhelming advantage to the winner, you could also assign some points for the 3rd place game that might help balance. Of course if you do that, you may need to give some points to the loser of the finals since it is not fair that the winner of the 3rd place game gets points and the loser of the final does not.CBusAlex said:Group stage - 1 point for a draw, 3 for a win for each team.Evilgrin 72 said:Help me out here, mathguys. I'm starting a very small WC pool - will either be random draw or serpentine drafting (I prefer the latter) of teams until all teams are assigned. Scoring (here's where I need a little help) :
Knockout round 1 - 6 pts for a win
Knockout round 2 - 9 pts for a win
Semifinals - 12 pts for a win
Finals - 15 pts for a win
There are 48 first-round games, which means anywhere from 96 to 144 points in the first round, depending on how many draws there are. To keep things interesting in the knockout stages without giving an overwhelming advantage to the eventual winner, you probably want to have the available points be somewhere in that range. This setup has 123 (48 round 1, 36 round 2, 24 round 3, 15 final).
Pretty close to the way i feel save for the boldedmy rankings/preferences:
Seeds:
Switzerland
Belgium
Colombia
Uruguay
Argentina
Spain
Germany
Brazil
Pot 2:
Algeria
Cameroon
Ecuador
Nigeria
Ivory Coast
Chile
Ghana
Pot 4:
England
Croatia
Bosnia
Italy
Greece
France
Russia
Portugal
Netherlands
Seed group:my rankings/preferences:
Seeds:
Belgium
Colombia
Switzerland
Uruguay
Argentina
Spain
Germany
Brazil
I think what most people are thinking is that this team is probably objectively better than the equivalent team in 2010. In 2010, our CM pairing was a younger Michael Bradley and either Maurice Edu or Ricardo Clark. Now, it's a mature Bradley and Jermaine Jones (two CL caliber CMs) with Geoff Cameron in reserve. I think we assume that Jozy is better and that Aron Johanssonn is a more capable second striker than we had in 2010 (keeping in mind that we'll still play Dempsey in the hole either way).I hate to be a downer, but I don't expect the US to advance to the knockout stages unless they get a very favorable draw. I have been less than impressed with the US team in the games I have seen where they have been forced to control games. Against "better" opponents I can see them doing fairly ok with a defensive system, hoping to keep a clean sheet and counter or take advantage of set pieces.
For my money, a draw that includes one or more teams that consider themselves superior, and willing to control the play, would be much more advantageous. I would prefer teams like England and Italy, over teams like Greece. I can see those teams struggle to score while being vulnerable from counter attacks.
Maybe I haven't seen enough of the US games, but I don't see a strong midfield that can control the ball, the pace of the game and feed the attackers on a regular basis. I don't see attackers/forwards with a knack to put the ball in the net on every touch and a suspect back line. The only position I consider strong would be goal tending. What am I missing?
I'm waiting on the 2nd pot (mostly because it's a must 3pt game, no matter the opponent), but I feel I have a good grasp of this group. Russia, Netherland, Portugal and to some extent France I feel are superior to the US squad, and they would be challenged to get a point from either one, unless they catch them on a bad day. I think the US can draw Greece, Bosnia and Croatia with the right system executed well, and maybe a 10% chance of getting a win on the counter or set pieces.Pot 4:
England
Italy
Croatia
Bosnia
Greece
France
Russia
Portugal
Netherlands
I did see that and like it, but a couple of these guys are hyper casual fans and are way more likely to get into something luck-based than skill based. Kind of the same theory behind many office football pools using straight-up winners only instead of point spreads.NewlyRetired said:EG, on the off chance you might want to consider a non draft (ie treat it more like an NCAA hoop pool where everyone picks the result of every game), check out this post, it has worked well the last two WC's for us.http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=699418&p=16241292Evilgrin 72 said:Help me out here, mathguys. I'm starting a very small WC pool - will either be random draw or serpentine drafting (I prefer the latter) of teams until all teams are assigned. Scoring (here's where I need a little help) :
Group stage - 1 point for a draw, 3 for a win for each team.
Knockout round 1 - ___________ pts for a win
Knockout round 2 - ___________ pts for a win
Semifinals - _____________ pts for a win
Finals - _____________ pts for a win
What do you think are the right point values to assign to those blank spots in order to ensure that whoever draws/picks Brazil (or whoever ultimately wins) doesn't automatically roll through the thing? By the same token, I don't want the knockout rounds to be virtually irrelevant if someone has built up a big lead in the group stage. By doing so, that person would clearly have the most sides participating in the knockout stages anyway, so I'd like to at least have the possibility exist that someone could catch up and everyone doesn't lose interest after the round-robin portion. And yes, I understand that I've been somewhat contradictory here.
Basically, just want a good balance between early and late round results like most decent NCAA pools have (I use seed x round to determine points awarded for a win.) This is tougher, though, because there are no numeric seeds to speak of (and I don't much want to assign them) and no two participants can ever have a stake in the same team.
That's the exact set of numbers I came up with in the shower this morning. You and I think exactly alike, at least when I am nude and sudsy. Thanks, man.CBusAlex said:Group stage - 1 point for a draw, 3 for a win for each team.Evilgrin 72 said:Help me out here, mathguys. I'm starting a very small WC pool - will either be random draw or serpentine drafting (I prefer the latter) of teams until all teams are assigned. Scoring (here's where I need a little help) :
Knockout round 1 - 6 pts for a win
Knockout round 2 - 9 pts for a win
Semifinals - 12 pts for a win
Finals - 15 pts for a win
There are 48 first-round games, which means anywhere from 96 to 144 points in the first round, depending on how many draws there are. To keep things interesting in the knockout stages without giving an overwhelming advantage to the eventual winner, you probably want to have the available points be somewhere in that range. This setup has 123 (48 round 1, 36 round 2, 24 round 3, 15 final).
That's pretty cool.. I might use this.Ramsay Hunt Experience said:The only think I might add is a point per goals scored. Probably wouldn't make a difference, but it's nice to have some reward for entertaining play.CBusAlex said:Group stage - 1 point for a draw, 3 for a win for each team.Evilgrin 72 said:Help me out here, mathguys. I'm starting a very small WC pool - will either be random draw or serpentine drafting (I prefer the latter) of teams until all teams are assigned. Scoring (here's where I need a little help) :
Knockout round 1 - 6 pts for a win
Knockout round 2 - 9 pts for a win
Semifinals - 12 pts for a win
Finals - 15 pts for a win
There are 48 first-round games, which means anywhere from 96 to 144 points in the first round, depending on how many draws there are. To keep things interesting in the knockout stages without giving an overwhelming advantage to the eventual winner, you probably want to have the available points be somewhere in that range. This setup has 123 (48 round 1, 36 round 2, 24 round 3, 15 final).
Nothing really. I think most of us feel the same way.What am I missing?
Great write up QG!So I
Desireable Pot 4 teams: Croatia, Greece
Disaster Seeds: Italy, Netherlands, France, Portugal
Meh Seeds (relatively): Bosnia, Russia
I don't think there's any team that would, on average, be favored over the US by two goals.We are running out of ways to analyze the US draw
How about this one:
Of the teams that should beat us by 2 goals or more (Argie, Brazil, Italy, Holland, Germany, France etc), which one would have the greatest likelihood of assuming the US suck and pull a Portugal in 2002?
I am thinking maybe France would have no fear combined with hopefully enough arrogance to overlook us. Unfortunately, their embarrassing performance in 2010 works against us here.
Interesting. I don't follow betting lines but Brazil, for example, favored at home by 2 over the US does not appear to be much of a stretch to me.I don't think there's any team that would, on average, be favored over the US by two goals.We are running out of ways to analyze the US draw
How about this one:
Of the teams that should beat us by 2 goals or more (Argie, Brazil, Italy, Holland, Germany, France etc), which one would have the greatest likelihood of assuming the US suck and pull a Portugal in 2002?
I am thinking maybe France would have no fear combined with hopefully enough arrogance to overlook us. Unfortunately, their embarrassing performance in 2010 works against us here.
.
France or Italy maybeWe are running out of ways to analyze the US draw
How about this one:
Of the teams that should beat us by 2 goals or more (Argie, Brazil, Italy, Holland, Germany, France etc), which one would have the greatest likelihood of assuming the US suck and pull a Portugal in 2002?
I am thinking maybe France would have no fear combined with hopefully enough arrogance to overlook us. Unfortunately, their embarrassing performance in 2010 works against us here.
Good thing about Italy is that they rarely blow anyone out in group stage so you always have a fluke chance.France or Italy maybeWe are running out of ways to analyze the US draw
How about this one:
Of the teams that should beat us by 2 goals or more (Argie, Brazil, Italy, Holland, Germany, France etc), which one would have the greatest likelihood of assuming the US suck and pull a Portugal in 2002?
I am thinking maybe France would have no fear combined with hopefully enough arrogance to overlook us. Unfortunately, their embarrassing performance in 2010 works against us here.
Until some friendlies start and we have some rosters to chew on, its all we got to really discuss.In one respect, I'm looking forward to Friday so we can stop discussing theoretical and pretend draws. On the other hand, after the draw is completed we have six months of overanalyzing the real groups to look forward to.
Funny, I feel like we're going to get Germany and Russia too.Prediction: Germany, Cameroon, USA, Russia.
USA snatches a draw with Germany, 0-0, only to lose the final game vs Russia 3-1 after going down to 10 men on a dicey second yellow against Germaine Jones in the 57th minute.
Who do we consider stars by casual fan standards? Messi/Ronaldo/Rooney? Then maybe the USMNT guys?RvP is another candidate for an international megastar casual fan breakout star.
For US sports but not soccer fans, I think it is probably 5 people are well known: Messi, Ronaldo, Donovan, Dempsey and HowardWho do we consider stars by casual fan standards? Messi/Ronaldo/Rooney? Then maybe the USMNT guys?RvP is another candidate for an international megastar casual fan breakout star.
I follow betting lines (a lot), and can see multiple teams being -2 against the US (from a pure sporting perspective). When the tournament rolls along, the US team will most likely see lines between -1 1/4 to -1 3/4, with an odd -2 sprinkled in, depending on the draw of course.wdcrob said:I don't think there's any team that would, on average, be favored over the US by two goals.NewlyRetired said:We are running out of ways to analyze the US draw
How about this one:
Of the teams that should beat us by 2 goals or more (Argie, Brazil, Italy, Holland, Germany, France etc), which one would have the greatest likelihood of assuming the US suck and pull a Portugal in 2002?
I am thinking maybe France would have no fear combined with hopefully enough arrogance to overlook us. Unfortunately, their embarrassing performance in 2010 works against us here.
And I think the days when teams took the US for granted are done too. We've been a decent side for a long time and have won a lot of games against top teams.
oh, and most countries do not care one iota about results in friendlies... I would not put too much weight on a win against Spain (as an example) in a friendly.NewlyRetired said:One of the problems of being in Concacaf is so rarely getting a real game against top competition that is not a friendly with 6 subs. I am not sure countries give these as much weight as we do. We beat plenty of good countries prior to 2002 as well but that did not stop Portugal from overlooking the US.