LIKE THE WAR OF 1812, ONLY WITHOUT THE BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS: So the reason why it's okay to have a match in an international competition end in a tie is ... ?
[Yes, I certainly understand that within the confines of the rules of the World Cup, a tie against England is a dandy outcome, even if it means that they keep Madonna's accent and we've got at least one more year of Russell Brand. I just don't like that a ninety minute tie is an option at all; I find it unsatisfying. There ought to be some way -- even if not a shootout -- to provide more resolution or incentivize winning in regulation. And I accept that there's a perfectly logical answer for this, and I'm just a silly yankee-come-lately for even asking such a question.]
In other news: Great Moments In History, If A Vuvuzela Were There.
I think the Battle of Yorktown functions as a suitable tiebreaker.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK-gUXl7usc
ReplyDeleteNo kidding, my husband hadn't even closed his mouth from asking this same question when I opened the site up. It was like ALOTT5MA was lip syncing what he was saying.
ReplyDeleteBecause 1st round is round-robin, not single elimination, a clear winner is not necessary. Then factor in the number of games, shared stadiums, travel time, and a short schedule. It's just easier for everyone, including international television, to play 90 minutes and stop. Sort of how Wimbledon plays tiebreakers at the end of sets unless it's the last set, then you keep playing games until someone is two up.
ReplyDeleteDown to 16 teams then it's lose and go home. Now it's two 15 minute periods, with first to score wins. Still tied, then a shootout. Used to be there was no golden goal and both teams could score in the overtime periods.
Then there's the FA Cup -- year long tournament of eight divisions of English leagues -- that would replay the entire game if it ended in a tie:
Each tie is played as a single leg. If a match is drawn, there is a replay, usually at the ground of the team who were away for the first game. Drawn replays are now settled with extra time and penalty shootouts, though until the 1990s further replays would be played until one team was victorious. Some ties took as many as six matches to settle; in their 1975 campaign, Fulham played a total of 12 games over six rounds, which remains the most games played by a team to reach a final.<sup></sup><span>[</span>2<span>]</span>1991–92 they were staged at least 10 days later on police advice. This led to penalty shoot-outs being introduced. Replays are no longer held for the semi-finals or final
Because 1st round is round-robin, not single elimination, a clear winner is not necessary. Then factor in the number of games, shared stadiums, travel time, and a short schedule. It's just easier for everyone, including international television, to play 90 minutes and stop. Sort of how Wimbledon plays tiebreakers at the end of sets unless it's the last set, then you keep playing games until someone is two up.
ReplyDeleteDown to 16 teams then it's lose and go home. Now it's two 15 minute periods, with first to score wins. Still tied, then a shootout. Used to be there was no golden goal and both teams could score in the overtime periods.
Then there's the FA Cup -- year long tournament of eight divisions of English leagues -- that would replay the entire game if it ended in a tie:
Each tie is played as a single leg. If a match is drawn, there is a replay, usually at the ground of the team who were away for the first game. Drawn replays are now settled with extra time and penalty shootouts, though until the 1990s further replays would be played until one team was victorious. Some ties took as many as six matches to settle; in their 1975 campaign, Fulham played a total of 12 games over six rounds, which remains the most games played by a team to reach a final.<sup></sup><span>[</span>2<span>]</span>1991–92 they were staged at least 10 days later on police advice. This led to penalty shoot-outs being introduced. Replays are no longer held for the semi-finals or final
I find the beehive effect of the vuvuzelas oddly soporific. But I'd already slept through Argentina vs. Nigeria (yes, after waking up and eating breakfast, I fell back asleep watching futbol) so I managed to stay conscious during USA vs. England.
ReplyDelete. . .because the match itself isn't the relevant unit of measurement in the group stage of the tournament. Rather, number of points (from results) after three matches is the key unit (think of it as one 270 minute game with a rotating set of opponents). If the England/US game went to a shootout, and England won, and then Algeria beat the US 3-0, it wouldn't be a fair reflection of the relative qualities of those teams in their games against the US that they each end up with three points.
ReplyDeleteAnother way of answering it, is to ask the mirror question: the problem with a game in the group stages ending in a tie is. . . ? It turns on the mindset with which you contextualize the sport. I think people who are used to soccer, see no problem with it The possibility of ties creates another layer of strategic choice.
I'm not saying that ties are particularly optimal, but forced resolution through shootouts or some other mechanism, to me, cheapens what's gone before it. Shootouts are necessary in the knockout stages, because finality is required, but I don't see the reason to force it in the group stages when it's unnecessary.
You can just ignore my comment below, as bill. was more concise and was faster on the keyboard.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a big fan of the shootout. I'd rather they keep playing 15 minute periods until a goal is scored. But if there has to be a shootout, I wish FIFA would adopt the old NASL style. Much more exciting and the keeper has more than a random chance of stopping the shot.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a fan of the shootout, either (as a fan of the Dutch team, it probably could have gone without saying). I worry, though, that playing until a goal (even with short periods) would just wear the players down to much (particularly in N. Hemisphere Cups) if they didn't change the number of subs allowed.
ReplyDelete<span>Winners, like North Vietnam?
ReplyDelete</span>
<span>Shut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie! </span>
The central tenet of Buddhism is NOT "every man for himself," TPE. I looked it up.
ReplyDeleteI do have to say, it's not often you see a 1-1 draw where both teams were lucky it wasn't worse...
ReplyDeleteMan, do I hate the vuvuzela. It makes it sound like the games ("matches") are played in a cloud of mosquitos.
ReplyDeleteA dramatic interpretation of the Clint Dempsey goal.
ReplyDeleteIf it makes a difference, even though the score was tied, everyone in England considered it a loss. And the fact that only the goalie's blunder allowed the U.S. to tie made it an even more discouraging loss. But you have to give the UK tabloids their props; you can't beat headlines like "The Hand of Clod" and "Tainted Glove."
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the biggest controversy so far does in fact seem to be about the vuvuzelas. Came up twice today during the FIFA press conference, and one prominent FIFA official was (mis)quoted as saying he'd be willing to ban them. I saw my first match in person today, and I have to say that it's odd to be at a sporting event with the usual ebb and flow of cheering being replaced by a constant drone. Takes some of the excitement out of it, I think.
Ties don't bother me as much as having coaches from other countries coach national teams.
ReplyDeleteAs you could see from the Serbia/Ghana game, winning isn't always cause for celebration.
Is it just me, or shouldn't the coach of the national squad also be from that nation?