We fielded almost exactly the same side after playing Mexico, and after playing Argentina again. Using all players is not because players were too fatigued to play again, but because of the use of tactical substitutions.
I’m listening to Hawkwind.
In other news, the referee was utterly shite, but as someone that wanted Brazil to lose - and to lose badly - I would have happily taken a red card and a free kick outside the box in the second minute (as it should have been). Yes it was outside the box, but as the man didn’t walk Brazil got off lightly.
Glad to see that Brazil got shown up again that once they come across a vaguely decent team they are just awful.
I’ve thought, thought a bit more and then thought again.
Your question makes absolutely zero sense.
ETA.
I now got your badly phrased question. The answer: fuck knows, this isn’t baseball.
Be more defensive.
What on earth makes the question badly phrased?
And why does it seem to irritate you so much that someone might ask it?
I don’t know the answer to the question, but it was pretty clear and seems reasonable enough.
Guess I’m like you - I don’t really care about such things, but in principle it should be possible to answer that question. My guess would be that whichever team scores first will go on to win more often than not, but I don’t know for sure.
That’s certainly the case in more recent late round games. But the 1954 final saw Hungary take a two goal lead and seemingly working toward a romp before Germany scored three goals to win their first title.
The best I could find is in something like 25-30% of the last 7 World Cups, only one team scored, so you can bank that in the “first team scores wins” column. It’s surprisingly difficult to Google. You’d think there’s some sort of numbers out there. I also found an MLS site where the first team to score went 31-0-12 in the 2011 season. It’s not World Cup, but that’s some more numbers to chew on.
Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me.
An interesting question, which is worse; objectively wrong calls or letting the match completely slip out of control and descend into a shin kicking contest?
Here someone did a partial analysis for part of a season for English teams. The advantage of scoring first certainly seems to be there: the team that scored first won 56% of the time, drew 30%, and lost only 14% of the time.
Losing a player that early is worse imo. Your basically playing for 90 minutes a man down. The closer it is to the end of the game the better it is losing the player rather than the goal.
These things do happen, yes. I seem to recall Liverpool overturning a 3-0 deficit to end up winning a UEFA Champions League final a few years ago.
I just have no idea how the stats work - do most teams that score first go on to win? I guess that yes, they do, but I dunno.
I think I’m going to have to go with Haimoudi on this one. He missed probably four critical match incidents starting at 2’, unless I’m forgetting some: penalty which should have been a free kick, yellow card that should have been red (this one is the worst to me as I cannot see any possible reasonable interpretation that makes this yellow), card for diving that should have been a PK, and I think that shove in the back on Robben was a PK as well. That’s a potential 3-goal swing right there, as well as 88 minutes of 11 vs. 11 when it should have been 10.
Velasco Carballo was more a cumulative effort of suck that could only be fully appreciated/derided at 90 minutes.
I think, perhaps, amanset was grumpy about the apparent obsession with stats that seems to be overwhelming in some US sports.
Which is fair enough, I suppose - the baseball fans can do the detailed analysis but yeah, there should be an answer to that question.
It’d be odd if scoring first did not correlate with winning, for the following reason: the winning team scores more goals than the losing team (duh). This means that any given goal in the match is more likely to be the winning team’s goal. This then also mean that for every match, the starting goal is more likely to be scored by the winning team.
This of course does not establish a causal relationship the other way, although I believe it exists. In other words, this shows they score first because they win, not they win because they score first.
Back to today’s match - RvP had a fantastic first game against Spain, and then - what? He’s been invisible, other than triggering the offside trap in the Costa Rica game like 7000 times. Has there been any explanation? Was that stomach flu one of those 6 week ones?
I just did a quick review of World Cup final games and was surprised to see that teams that scored first wound up losing eight times (including the 2006 final, which technically was recorded as a draw). Needless to say, such comebacks occurred mostly in the earlier tournaments, when more goals were scored overall. Ever since 1990, the goals in the championship games have been very scarce and there’s only been one instance where both teams scored (in 2006), so obviously comebacks are fairly unheard of anymore in final games.
The years in which first-scorers wound up losing in regulation are 1934, 1950 (which was actually part of a round robin), 1954, 1958, 1962, 1966, and 1974.
In which matches did most of the tactical substitutions take place? Had your entire squad(apart from the goalkeepers) been played before the matches that went into extra time? Or did those matches see greater induction of fresh players as substitutes?
Yeah, my thought would have been, or rather is, that since soccer is generally an especially low-scoring game, there is much more weight to each goal than in sports like American football, baseball, basketball, etc., where scoring first should have little to no correlation with winning (although I could imagine there being a slight correlation in baseball.) Hockey I would expect there to be a slight correlation as well (more than any of those three sports), but soccer I’d expect a fairly noticeable correlation. So, yeah, if I’m betting and somebody is crazy enough to give me even money on the team to score first losing, of course I’m taking that bet in a heartbeat.