Hmmm, I guess the lack of a question would explain the lack of answers.
The OP was just, what’s “get a result” mean in a soccer context? Like when they say England needs to get a result in it’s next match to advance to the 2nd round. I’m sure it’s simple, but does it mean a win? And if so, why don’t they just say that?
I believe just means “get a win”. Why? Just because it’s British English and not American English.
There’s a lot of phrases that sound funny to Americans from soccer. Goalkeepers “turn in clean sheets” instead of “shutouts”.
There was an OP ?
Okay, I think they mean it a little differently than explained. Thing to bear in mind is that this is the Group stage of the World Cup Finals. You don’t necessarily have to win to “get a result” because of the way two of the four teams in your particular Group go forward to the knock-out stage – sometimes you just need to avoid losing.
For example, a draw against Argentina in the next game “is a result” for England if you think England will beat Nigeria in the last Group game and will, then, go through. It’s also a result if you think Argentina are the best team in the world and will likely beat most opposition (including that in this Group)…it gets complicated and “a result” depends on both a few variables (other results) and on subjective judgement.
Well I think BobT is half right.
In most sports there is always a result, it’s just a question of whether you win or lose. In soccer, quite often there is no useful result at all, because draws (and even nil/nil draws) are commonplace.
When a soccer person says “We need a result” what they probably mean is that they need the points that a win will give them and that playing a defensive game just to ensure they don’t lose won’t be good enough.
Learn football terminology from the Master. Ron Atkinson is a genius of a commentator (announcer in US English?) who comes up with a lot of this sort of crap.
Check here:
That site lists ‘Buddy Holly’ as a term meaning to go down.
Generally its used in football as rhyming slang for ‘volley’.
Such is the genius of Big Ron - taking phrases that other people use and then screwing them up in such a way that they take on a whole new lease of life.
It really is like he is talking another language sometimes.
I think it is simply that football commentators seldom seem to have mastered the English language. It is a tooth-grindingly annoying phrase.
(Oops - who’s mangling the language now) 
‘Get a result’ in football terms usually means not losing.
During the League season, semi-coherent managers / commentators use this phrase a lot, particularly if they are the away team. “We’ll be happy to go there and get a result.”
In the World Cup, as London-Calling points out, various permutations are possible, so ‘getting a result’ becomes vaguer.
In extremis, losing narrowly to a team that thrashes all the others in your group might mean you still come second in the group and thus qualify for the next round.
With only say 2 matches left in a group, the maths is not too difficult, but it seems to throw the managers / commentators / reporters, who can’t generally describe it.
P.S. On UK ‘Big Brother’ a young woman was heard stating that “East Anglia is abroad, right?”
No dear.
:wally
“Get a result” means to achieve an objective, which may even include losing.
Obviously to win is a “result”, but often in tournaments and leagues where there is a possiblity of more than one team finishing with the same number of points then other factors will be taken into account to differentiate between the teams.
In many cases a draw, and the subsequent awarded point may be enough to allow a team to progress further in a tournament, and some teams will play just to get a draw for this purpose, it isn’t good to watch but it achieves the desired goal.
However there is one exception, and there is a useful example of this in the current world cup tournament.
As you are aware, the early stage of the world cup finals are played in mini leagues with 4 teams in each(every team had to play a series of qualifying matches just to get there)
The top two teams in each group will go on to the knockout part of the competition.
Each team has only 3 matches to get the points needed, and with so few games to gain points from then there will be many teams who finish with the same number of points.
Ways have been devised to separate them, by taking into account the differance between goals conceded and scored, and if this isnt enough then use either goals scored, and finaly goals conceded.
I have to explain this to be able to show you the true context of “getting a result”
Much to everyones amazement Senegal beat France the latter are the world champions.
Next Senegal and Denmark drew 1 goal apiece.
Denmark beat Uruguay 2 goals to nil.
France drew with Uruguay no goal scored.
This means the group looks like this.
Denmark 4 points.
Senegal 4 points
France 1 point
Uruguay 1 point.
France might still qualify but they can only do this by beating Denmark, and they must do so by two goals.
If Denmark lose but by only one goal then France are out of the competition.
From Denmarks point of view “getting a result” means, win or draw, or even lose but by less than two goals.
casdave
Great explanation. But I still can’t get used to the American announcers using the British practice of using a plural verb with a country’s name.
On this side of the pond, Denmark loses, never lose.
Some of the ESPN announcers for the Cup are British or Irish, but even the Americans talk like they are Brits.
This topic was discussed in another thread and the consensus seemed to be that either form seemed strange depending upon what you learned growing up.
BobT - I’ve forgotten how US commentators describe a club team - are they consistent using ‘loses’ ?
Be interesting to know how non-English speaking countries/teams approach it.