FIFA ready to punish players looking to game disciplinary tie-breakers

[The_jagster]

The best one this season was Suarez being his usual self to get himself banned for a less important match and the ref refusing to book him.

It's all very well saying you need to beat the big teams to win but the last Euros were the perfect example of how needing a massive performance then playing again 4 days later if you win was a lot harder than doing a Portugal and playing awfully before managing to beat one big team in the final.

[G-Man11]

3 hours ago, JDownie said:

I don't get the argument that England "have a better chance" if they finish 2nd. Statistically proven not to be the case. 

And yeah Brazil and Germany having to play each other then avoiding them is a big plus, but if you get to the semis you're gonna have to play those sort of teams anyway.  If you're scared of them in the QFs, you'll be scared of them anywhere else. Doesn't matter where you play them really. 

To be the best you've got to beat the best. England should play with desire and integrity and say, "we can beat anyone, no matter the draw" - a true sign of champions. Look at Real Madrid in the CL. They took on the best teams possible in each KO round. They weren't scared. They relished the challenge and rose to it. Let's see England doing that

e: fwiw I've got England to finish 3rd overall in the tournament. I also have Belgium winning it and topping their group. I had it down as Belgium GD group win with both teams on 7 points, I didn't expect England to make up the GD difference in 1 game I think England will top the group now tbh. 

I don't really care what England do but this is such terrible logic.

Your odds of beating 4 good teams in a row to win the WC are pretty damn low, for any side. Your odds of beating 2 mediocre sides and then 2 good sides to win the world cup are considerably better. 

The desire for any team at the WC isn't 'to be the best' it's simply to win the damn competition any way possible.

[JD nawrat]

54 minutes ago, G-Man11 said:

I don't really care what England do but this is such terrible logic.

Your odds of beating 4 good teams in a row to win the WC are pretty damn low, for any side. Your odds of beating 2 mediocre sides and then 2 good sides to win the world cup are considerably better. 

The desire for any team at the WC isn't 'to be the best' it's simply to win the damn competition any way possible.

The point of the competition is to determine the best team in the world

Besides, what I said was right. You can say Mexico are 'mediocre' but if they beat Germany and top that group then they're just as dangerous as Germany. 

[Rob1981]

1 hour ago, G-Man11 said:

odds of beating 4 good teams in a row to win the WC are pretty damn low, for any side. Your odds of beating 2 mediocre sides and then 2 good sides to win the world cup are considerably better. 

The desire for any team at the WC isn't 'to be the best' it's simply to win the damn competition any way possible.

Exactly this.  Usually to get through from the R16 to the Final you need the luck of the draw to some extent. Nobody goes out and beats three top teams one after the other, or only very rarely.

2014 Germany - Algeria, France, Brazil

2014 Argentina - Switzerland, Belgium, Holland

2010 Spain - Portugal, Paraguay, Germany

2010 Holland - Slovakia, Brazil, Uruguay

2006 Italy - Australia, Ukraine, Germany

2006 France - Spain, Brazil, Portugal

2002 Brazil - Belgium, England, Turkey

2002 Germany - Paraguay, USA, South Korea

look at 2006 Italy ffs, Australia and then Ukraine to get to the semis. and 2002 Germany  

[JD nawrat]

3 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

Exactly this.  Usually to get through from the R16 to the Final you need the luck of the draw to some extent. Nobody goes out and beats three top teams one after the other, or only very rarely.

2014 Germany - Algeria, France, Brazil

2014 Argentina - Switzerland, Belgium, Holland

2010 Spain - Portugal, Paraguay, Germany

2010 Holland - Slovakia, Brazil, Uruguay

2006 Italy - Australia, Ukraine, Germany

2006 France - Spain, Brazil, Portugal

2002 Brazil - Belgium, England, Turkey

2002 Germany - Paraguay, USA, South Korea

look at 2006 Italy ffs, Australia and then Ukraine to get to the semis. and 2002 Germany  

How many winners haven't won their group and gone on to win the trophy though?

I know that no team has ever won it unless they were 1st seeds. But that doesn't account for finishing 2nd in the group. 

[git2thachoppa]

It's easy to forget there are only about 7 'big teams' in the world, and at any time that usually goes down to 3-5 given form, generation and if they even qualify.

You also get a few tricky 'best of the rest' teams who may be better than usual at the time (Portugal, Uruguay, Belgium, England, Croatia, the odd African team) but history forgets their level and usually they get beaten once they meet one of those big teams anyway.

So a winner will usually only have to beat 1 big team outside the final to win the World Cup, because getting 3 would just be ****** luck.

Remember, recent European Championships has seen semi-finalists including Wales, Russia, Czech Republic, Turkey... so Europe's not chock full of juggernauts to add to Brazil and Argentina.

[georginho_juventusygr]

If I remember correctly, the referee screwed USA up in 2002 against Germany.

[FaceCrusher]

29 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

2006 France - Spain, Brazil, Portugal

So much work only to lose the final.

[pago]

If both teams are up to shenanigans with cards then an England player getting deliberately booked will easily be counteracted by a Belgium player immediately having handbags or verbals in response to it thus nullifying the threat of England trying to be sneaky. 

[scott MUFC]

so last minute equaliser and take your shirt off.. job done

[ArsenalFan7]

I’ll bet Skomina has been instructed by FIFA to put in the most lenient performance of his life for this game. I think I’ll put a couple quid on there being no cards with so much expectation.

[JD nawrat]

5 hours ago, Rob1981 said:

Exactly this.  Usually to get through from the R16 to the Final you need the luck of the draw to some extent. Nobody goes out and beats three top teams one after the other, or only very rarely.

2014 Germany - Algeria, France, Brazil

2014 Argentina - Switzerland, Belgium, Holland

2010 Spain - Portugal, Paraguay, Germany

2010 Holland - Slovakia, Brazil, Uruguay

2006 Italy - Australia, Ukraine, Germany

2006 France - Spain, Brazil, Portugal

2002 Brazil - Belgium, England, Turkey

2002 Germany - Paraguay, USA, South Korea

look at 2006 Italy ffs, Australia and then Ukraine to get to the semis. and 2002 Germany  

Going back to this... let's say England win the WC, or at least make the final. What is their run then? 

Because whether they win the group and face Brazil/Germany or not, they still have a straightforward (on paper) tie against Japan, Senegal or Colombia. 

It's not like finishing 1st means Germany THEN Brazil. It's Japan, Senegal or Colombia THEN Germany/Brazil.

The QFs is where a team like England should be reaching as a bare minimum anyway, with the big ties starting to come into effect then you play by ear. 

Even if England get Mexico in the QFs, it's a clear indication that Mexico are one of the best teams at the WC and a worthy challenger. Should they face Brazil or Germany, you're going to be saying the same thing. If anything, you could argue Mexico would be tougher given they're having a good tournament so far, unlike the super-unconvincing displays by Brazil and Germany. 

[JD nawrat]

15 minutes ago, D_LO_ said:

Just for a laugh..

It could be Japan, Mexico, Croatia or it could be Colombia, Brazil, France. I know which route I'd prefer, I reckon we could get to the Semis in one half or I can see last 16 in the other tbh. Most importantly imo though, given our record when it comes to knock-out football, the easier that first game can be the better for confidence. 

Teams like Brazil can produce something out of nothing or completely blow anyone away on a good day. As good as Mexico has been I don't agree they're arguably at Brazil's or France's level. Individually they're not and despite how impressive they've been they still look far more prone to concede and aren't as clinical. As average as some of these top teams have been creatively and offensively it still doesn't look easy to get at them. I think we'd really struggle to create much against the likes of France & Uruguay in particular. Thankfully a lot of these negative sides are in one quarter of the draw. Wouldn't surprise me if the winner comes from that section though. In contrast the likes of Belgium, Spain, Germany (& England) are all looking too open atm to be serious contenders for me but get to the semis via a kind draw and you've got a chance. 

I'd rather face France and Brazil over Mexico and Croatia. England would beat France quite comfortably I think. Brazil might be tough, but then Croatia would be tougher still. 

Either way I don't think England should look past the next game. Try and win every game as it comes imo, see how far you can go. Don't look at the QFs until you've beaten the L16 opponent. 

[westy8chimp]

@JDownie are you sure you are Scottish? i understand what you are saying and agree completely

[RBKalle]

11 ore fa, Rob1981 ha scritto:

look at 2006 Italy ffs, Australia and then Ukraine to get to the semis. and 2002 Germany  

 

Yeah, but the easier path was a side-effect of a few unpredictable Groups...

In 2006 France didn't win their group (Switzerland did) and Australia advanced as runner-ups instead of Croatia.

Had the "expected" results happened, Italy'd have faced Croatia in R16 and the winner of France-Ukraine (likely France) in QF...  Not exactly a walk in the park (yet Italy struggled badly against the Socceroos).

In 2002 it was the blatant help South Korea received that changed completely the knockout stage tree. Also, Italy not winning their group meant Germany got Mexico/USA, instead of USA/Italy in QF...

 

Long story short, you can only rely so much on "planning" your path to the final. In rare cases you can "pick" the opponent for R16, but it's also a dangerous game to play because you can easily end up trading a more difficult QF/SF just to avoid a relatively stronger side in R16

All in all, the "you have to beat the best to be the best" logic may be a tad cliché, but it's not inaccurate. If you start overthinking things, you'd end up tripping on a shorter hurdle because you're already looking at the taller ones.