2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa

[ShibbOleth]

@Gray_Ghost

Here’s the goal, at least until FIFA gets it yanked from youtube. Maybe the guy’s technically offside, maybe, (it looks to me, when the ball was struck, like the Slovak defender’s right leg is further back than the Italian player) but is that really the kind of attack the offsides rule was meant to prevent? I get the idea behind the rule—we don’t want guys camping next to the goal—I just think there’s a better way to achieve the desired result.

If you think you can judge offside from that video angle then you’re not accounting for parallax. That’s why the lines that get computer generated in are so helpful.

[Jackknifed_Juggernaut]

@ColonelDax

Another great result for the bookmakers, who have been cleaning up on the upsets such as Switzerland over Spain and Serbia over Germany. (Gamblers tend to back favorites, for anyone who’s unaware.) And the U.K. bookies, who usually like to see England lose, got what they wanted with the win over Slovenia, as England exiting at the group stage would have meant much less betting on the rest of the tournament.

Wouldn’t they just set/adjust the odds to get equal money on both sides (like bookies do in every other country/region/city of the world)? I suppose if that if bettors have access international internet bookmakers, it would make the life of the local bookies more difficult by having to compete with unbiased odds. But the local bookies would just be able to hedge their positions via the same international channels.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Jackknifed_Juggernaut

:smack: You are right. OK, I predict no European teams in the semis. Has that ever happened?

No. In fact, there have never been less than two European semifinalists, and there has only been a Europe-free final once, 1950. Typically the round of four is composed of three European sides and Brazil or Argentina.

[Tom_Scud]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

No. In fact, there have never been less than two European semifinalists.

Though in 2002, Turkey was one of the two European sides.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

For the purposes of football, there’s no argument about whether Turkey is a European state or not, since it’s a member of UEFA.

[ShibbOleth]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

For the purposes of football, there’s no argument about whether Turkey is a European state or not, since it’s a member of UEFA.

You’d think that they’d have gone into Asia since it should be a much easier qualifying route for them.

[Lantern]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

In fact, there have never been less than two European semifinalists, and there has only been a Europe-free final once, 1950.

I hadn’t realized the latter. In fact looking at the listof finals there is a rather remarkable pattern from 1962 onwards: every 8 years there is a cup outside Europe and a South American team beats a European team in the final. Then every 8 years when the cup is held in Europe, a European team wins.

Clearly this is partly a matter of coincidence since the Netherlands came excruciatingly close to winning in 1978 and Italy lost by penalties in 94. Still there is a decent chance that the trend will continue with perhaps Argentina beating the Netherlands again.

[ivan_astikov]

That’s not the way to improve as a team though. You are going to have to face the big boys at some point.

Anyhoo… I’ve noticed a lot of players wearing shirts with some sort of insulation tape all over them. What’s all that about?

[Ximenean]

I think it’s just an Adidas styling.

[GIGObuster]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

No. In fact, there have never been less than two European semifinalists, and there has only been a Europe-free final once, 1950. Typically the round of four is composed of three European sides and Brazil or Argentina.

Well, technically speaking, there was no final in 1950:

1950 FIFA World Cup

What they did was to set a round robin for the last 4 teams, the last game was considered the “final” as it was the decisive game but Basil came to the game only needing a tie to win the cup (Basil still lost to Uruguay in the Maracanazo). The other teams present for that final round robin were Sweden and Spain.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@ivan_astikov

Anyhoo… I’ve noticed a lot of players wearing shirts with some sort of insulation tape all over them. What’s all that about?

Are you talking about this stuff?

[QUOTE=Shibb0leth]
You’d think that they’d have gone into Asia since it should be a much easier qualifying route for them.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think qualifying was really an issue in 1954.

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Well, technically speaking, there was no final in 1950:

1950 FIFA World Cup

What they did was to set a round robin for the last 4 teams, the last the last game was considered the “final” as it was the decisive game but Basil came to the game only needing a tie to win the cup. The other teams present for that final round robin were Sweden and Spain.
[/QUOTE]

Fine, pedant! Brazil and Uruguay were the top two finishers, though, so it’s the same thing.

[Colophon]

@Jackknifed_Juggernaut

Wouldn’t they just set/adjust the odds to get equal money on both sides (like bookies do in every other country/region/city of the world)?

It’s a myth that bookies “always win”. Often they can’t get equal money matched on all outcomes, especially if a patriotic crowd are piling money onto their home team. Bookies are usually willing to lay England to lose a fair wedge - they know they’ll get paid off in later rounds

[Knorf]

Beautiful free kick from Honda.

[Jackknifed_Juggernaut]

@Colophon

It’s a myth that bookies “always win”. Often they can’t get equal money matched on all outcomes, especially if a patriotic crowd are piling money onto their home team. Bookies are usually willing to lay England to lose a fair wedge - they know they’ll get paid off in later rounds

I know that bookies don’t always win. I always felt that a 10% vig is more than reasonable considering the risks that bookies have. But there is far more risk in sports with point spreads (such as basketball or football), since lines are adjusted to allocate money equally. In the 2 or 3 outcome scenario (W/L) or (W/D/L), as with soccer, I’m certain that one could succeed easily without much bookmaking ability or experience.

[ivan_astikov]

@Colophon

It’s a myth that bookies “always win”.

Go on, I’ll bite. How many bookmakers have gone into administration over the last year?

[Knorf]

And another beautiful free kick goal from Keisuke Honda! Wow!

[fachverwirrt]

@GIGObuster

What they did was to set a round robin for the last 4 teams, the last game was considered the “final” as it was the decisive game but Basil came to the game only needing a tie to win the cup (Basil still lost to Uruguay in the Maracanazo). The other teams present for that final round robin were Sweden and Spain.

Is that the herb, or the guy who ran Fawlty Towers?

[ivan_astikov]

I thought it was Kawasaki Suzuki who scored?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I know that bookies don’t always win. I always felt that a 10% vig is more than reasonable considering the risks that bookies have. But there is far more risk in sports with point spreads (such as basketball or football), since lines are adjusted to allocate money equally. In the 2 or 3 outcome scenario (W/L) or (W/D/L), as with soccer, I’m certain that one could succeed easily without much bookmaking ability or experience.

Eh? Odds are adjusted to allocate bets roughly equally just like point spreads. They just aren’t typically adjusted once betting begins. In fact, bookkeeping with fixed odds is harder, because the bookie has to know beforehand where the money will be even.

[Tom_Scud]

Denmark now need a 3 goal swing to go to the next round, as they have to win this one outright.