England beats Slovenia- England is in (assuming they beat Algeria)
US scores two against Algeria and win- US is in by tie breaker.
Shit hits the fan if England/Slovenia ties 2-2, and the U.S. and England beat Algeria 1-0. At that point all the tie breakers are even, and I believe its just lots.
If we don’t put at least 3 past these Algerians tonight, we may as well get on the plane back home.
Ok England - please kill Slovenia and Algeria. US - nail Algeria.
In addition to the list above, if England and the US both beat Algeria by 2 (or more) and England and Slovenia tie, the US and England go through.
And if they all end up on the same goals scored and goal differential, there’s a 33% chance that the luck of the draw will send Slovenia home.
In that case, Slovenia goes through (they have an extra goal) and it’s lots between US and England.
In the same scenario but with Eng-Slovenia ending 1-1, Slovenia and USA go through.
(edit for mistake on the last line)
This isn’t quite right - Slovenia would go through on the goals scored (5 to 4 for US and England) in that case. Make the US & England results vs. Algeria 2-1 and the math works.
Even changing it to 2-1, Slovenia still wins the group. There’s a tiebreaker of “most goals scored in games between the tied teams”, which would be 4 for Slovenia and 3 for US and England.
American football has the replay system right, I think. Limited amounts of challenges, lose a time out if you’re wrong.
Obviously it would have to be tinkered with a bit for rest-of-the-world football, but I think the framework exists.
Wait a minute: Slovenia was better first and showed some nice counter-strikes after they went ahead. When the U.S. scored, they remained a danger and could have made another goal. That the Slovenian players decided to wear their rugby-shirts later on, had a lot to do with the referee who was willing to look the other way.
Besides, early on, the U.S. benefitted from the referee’s lax attitude more than Slovenia – though that doesn’t change the fact that his biggest blunder was to your disadvantage.
Still, Slovenia, definitely not the favourite in this game, played well for a long period and was neither outclassed nor overpowered; the players of such a little country deserve more respect than you are willing to give them.
It can’t work this way in football that lives from continual gameflow.
This.
Can I respectfully suggest that any ref or team bashing is taken to the pit please.
I said they played like goons in the second half. That should not be in dispute. They were playing dirty from the moment Donovan scored. Still the US came back and rightfully should have won.
You can’t seriously expect me to respect that.
Mali… really not tiny. Referee: every bit as bad.
And I agree with those who say that while the call on the third goal was criminal (do we even know for sure what the call was?), there was more give and take in terms of cheap fouls and questionable tactics than this thread’s allowing for. A poorly officiated game doesn’t mean one team was cheating.
Until the second half I (an American) actually was getting really annoyed about the way Harkes was bitching about the refereeing. Altidore was locking up the defenders’ arms on aerial balls as much or more than he was getting held, it seemed to me (though every US attacker was very obviously getting held on the disallowed goal). That’s what bothers me about histrionics and diving; it really makes it difficult to identify the real fouls when they happen.
WE WERE ROBBED!!!
Those of you telling us not to get all upset…let us vent our frustration for a bit, mmm-kay.
No, they tackled more aggressively when they were tiring. You know, it’s a foul when the referee whistles. Most players are smart enough (Klose ain’t) to realise what they can and can’t do and adapt their game accordingly.
Besides, I’ve seen far more aggressive games in every league in Europe and during the Champions League.
And while the US had a slight advantage, the result was allright: Slovenia played a simple but effective formation with 2 lines of 4 men who used the width of the field better than their opponents; Birsa and Kirm showed some nice attacks and proved to be technically advanced players.
The US didn’t find its game for half an hour and played surprisingly narrow - which allowed the opponent more than one counter-strike. When your boys finally hit their stride, Slovenia quickly struck a second time.
They lost their organization for some time during the second half but managed to get back into the game, despite the U.S. goal. All in all, they deserved a point.
Well, seeing as how it would have been the first time in WC history that a team that had been down 2-0 had come back and won the game, yeah…I feel a need to rant a little!
Didn’t watch the game but the NYTimes says:
If that’s true, the nullified goal doesn’t seem much of an injustice.
Whoah, steady! Example: 1966 World Cup North Korea are 3-0 up against Portugal, Portugal then score 5, with the god-like Eusebio getting 4 of them.
Interesting, so there shouldn’t have been a free kick in the first place. Would anybody have been berating the refs if the americans had been allowed to win by virtue of the refs being fooled by a dive?
Not to mention the 1954 final when the legendary Hungarian team was 2-0 up but the Germans managed to come back and win 3-2.