Now that we know our opponents, just like before the Hex, I have fired up my Poisson model to determine rational expectations for the USA's performance in the group stage of the World Cup. The procedure is straightforward: take the results of all international matches over the past five years, weight them such that more recent results count more heavily, and assume goals to be Poisson-distributed. It is then possible to predict the expected results of Group C of the World Cup as follows: Code: team w d l pts gd eng 2.0 0.6 0.4 6.5 3.7 usa 1.3 0.7 1.0 4.7 0.8 svn 0.8 0.8 1.5 3.1 -1.6 alg 0.5 0.7 1.8 2.3 -2.9 total 4.6 2.8 4.6 16.6 where w, d, and l are (fractional) wins, draws, and losses, respectively, and pts and gd are the corresponding total points and predicted total goal difference. ENG is predicted to win the group, with USA qualifying for the knock-out stages in 2nd place. Obviously, in the real world fractional results are not possible. One possible real scenario matching the predicted results as closely as possible is as follows: Scenario 1: Code: team w d l pts eng 3 0 0 9 usa 2 0 1 6 svn 0 1 2 1 alg 0 1 2 1 total 5 2 5 17 This table is the result if ENG win all their matches, USA defeat SVN and ALG, and SVN and ALG draw. This scenario is the closest match to the model predictions in terms of total points won by all teams (17) and matches drawn (1/6), but the point totals of the individual teams differ somewhat from the expected values. A second scenario is as follows: Scenario #2 Code: team w d l pts eng 3 0 0 9 usa 1 1 1 4 svn 0 2 1 2 alg 0 1 2 1 total 4 4 4 16 This table is the result if ENG win all of their matches, USA draw SVN and beat ALG, and SVN and ALG draw. The total points won (16) and matches drawn (2/6) are still close to the predicted, but the point totals for the individual teams still differ somewhat from the predicted. The final scenario is as follows: Scenario 3: Code: team w d l pts eng 2 1 0 7 usa 1 2 0 5 svn 0 2 1 2 alg 0 1 2 1 total 3 6 3 15 This table is the result if ENG draws USA and beats SVN and ALG, USA draws SVN and beats ALG, and ALG and SVN draw. The point totals of the individual teams are quite close to the predicted, although this table would require 3 of 6 matches to end in draws, more than predicted by the model given the observed strength differences between the teams. From the standpoint of a USA fan, the good news is that in all three of these most likely scenarios, the USA qualifies for the knock-out stages quite comfortably. Alternatively, it is possible to calculate the probability of qualification to the round of sixteen for each team, as follows: Code: team prob eng 87% usa 63% svn 31% alg 19%
Good post. I was afraid a thread mentioning "rational expectations" would be all about who can be the best "we're going three and out and we'll be lucky if we don't allow seven goals against Algeria before halftime" killjoy among US supporters. The important thing is whether or not the US can shake off a probable loss to England and get the rest of the points from Algeria and Slovenia. It also seems to me that we better hope England runs the table in that case.
Pessimism is always rational. As is trolling. Honestly, rational expectation is that qualification for the round of 16 is there for the taking, and must be taken. Anything more is gravy, and anything less will be very disappointing. It should not be expected to be easy or pretty, however. A garbage goal 1-0 win over Algeria might not be what we dream about seeing, but that's a lot more likely than a stylish 3-0 stroll in the park on consecutive matchdays against the Slovenians and Algerians.
Agreed. And that is reflected in the USA's predicted total goal difference of ~+1 for the three group stage matches.
Glad this isn't an overly pessimistic thread. There is never an easy game in the World Cup, but this draw is about the best we could have hoped for (aside from South Africa, Uruguay and a weak UEFA team, but even that might be worse). Have to show up to win for each of the 3, especially with Germany lurking in group D.
Great stuff. Really, the USA has the potential to do itself a world of good by drawing the first game. Not only will it be a point we aren't expecting, but it will force England to play to win in games 2 and 3 to ensure they win the group - further increasing the odds we beat out whoever for second place.
Not only that, but a draw with ENG would give the USA a shot at finishing first in the group - probably a good thing with Germany likely awaiting the 2nd place finisher in the round of 16.
Goal differential will obviously be very important if we are able to pull a draw against the Motherland. It's nice that we got the one African team that is not Sub-Saharan African; South Africa won't be anything close to home soil for Algeria.
Not to be pessimistic...but a 1 goal loss isn't a terrible result either. What the US does NOT want is to go into matchday 3 with a worse GD than their opponent and need a win when their opponent knows they need a draw. (Same as what happened in 2006.) That's an enormous advantage. A 2-1 loss to England sets the US up to be in a position where a win in the 2nd match means they probably will know they only need a draw in the 3rd match.
That's all well and good, but I'm of the opinion that the USA should be able to take care of business against SVN and ALG and take six points from those two matches. Unless SVN or ALG can beat ENG, six points will be enough to ensure USA's passage to the round of 16.
Before the draw, I felt like I'd be happy with a 4 point group stage, even if we didn't wind up advancing. Now I feel like 6 points should be the goal--an absolutely attainable goal--but 4 points, to me, would still be perfectly respectable and (depending on GD) enough to advance. Neither Slovenia nor Algeria are a guaranteed 3 points. Slovenia is approximately as good as we are, and so much depends on how the ball bounces.
This is the first time I feel like the US actually has pressure in the group stages. This time around, it isn't possible for us to advance if we catch a few breaks or if this, this and this happen. In 2010 we are expected to advance.
Rational? Here is what I am thinking: first match for both teams, an unbelievable amount of hype leading up to this match (colony vs. motherland, 1950, etc), Donovan vs. Beckham, the English "snobbery," oh....and the fact that it will be the World Cup. Huge! England will choke. Ferdinand with a bad foul (PK), Lampard will be non-existent, Rooney will have no service, and whomever is in goal for them will let in a soft free kick. 2-0 USA. John Terry will pout and Carragher will look lost. With England, the sum of their parts is MUCH BETTER than the whole. With the USA, the opposite is true. Plus, the English have such a great history of blowing it in the World Cup under pressure. The US wins the group, advances to play Ghana....gets revenge on them, then who the heck knows....
a rational expectation would be to get out of the group stage. but, we have to practical and consider our opponents are worthy, therefore it could come down to goal difference. reasonable to think we lose vs england, draw slovenia, and beat algeria. the same results could be said for slovenia, so goal difference could be the deciding factor.
1) Well, we'd be lucky to get points from England, but it's doable. 2) I fear the Slovenians...they beat out Poland, Czech Republic, Russia, and Northern Ireland to make it to the World Cup. that's impressive. Not to mention they have an extremely stingy defense which doesn't fit us well. So yeah, we are favored to win, but it'll be a lot tougher than most expect. 3) Algeria could be the next Iran for us if we aren't careful... a game we are favored to win that turns out to be a nightmare. they do have talented players and beating Egypt (although we did it rather well) is no small feat. However, i say they are the weakest in the group, and if we lose or draw than it is a failure.
This is how I'm feeling. The media is following in Lalas' conclusions that we should be able to beat Slovenia easily, but they are right with us, talent wise. They've qualified for 2/4 WC's since gaining independence, not bad for a nation of 2 million. Plus, they are a part of the former Yugoslavia, with a rich football tradition. And that route to qualifying. The group included Norther Ireland, Poland (beat us 3-1 at WC '02), Czech Republic (beat us 3-1 at WC '06), and was won by Slovakia (beat us 1-0 in a friendly last month). And then they beat Russia, who were ranked 6th by FIFA as late as September 2009. They should NOT be taken lightly, like, say, Ghana was in 2006. Or Iran in '98. I think we were NOT fortunate in the order of the games, with the toughest team first, then the next toughest team (Slovenia), then the weakest. If we aren't careful, our 3 points in the last game could be meaningless.
ESPN's SPi rankings did something similar, and came up with a mostly similar result, but with one key difference, which is that Algeria was given a "home continent advantage," which gave them a much better (still not majority) chance, mostly at our expense. I think their numbers were something like: England - 83% USA - 48% (this is obviously the one I remember specifically) Slovenia - 35% Algeria - 33% Now, I probably like NoSix's number a little better because, although 'Home Continent Advantage" has held true in the past, it really seems to be stretching it with regard to Algeria in South Africa. The two are immensely far away (Algeria is about 35 degrees north lattitude, South Africa about 35 degrees south), and are in completely different climactic zones (a lot of games in RSA will be at altitude, and it'll be their late fall/early winter, so temps will probably be in the 50s. That doesn't really seem to favor an Algeria). Plus, I would bet that within the last couple years, the US has played in South Africa more often than Algeria has.
Agreed. For the first time, the US goal isn't just "Advance from the group stage", because for the first time the US is going to be expected to advance. One thing that's interesting about NoSix's math is that, besides the obvious opening match, it is in the best interest of US fans to root for England beating the hell out of Slovenija and Algeria, with big goal differences. Personally, the best case scenario would be a US/England draw in the opening, followed by both teams advancing with seven, with the US edging England to win the group via GD. I'd personally take any of the other three teams in group D than Germany in the round of 16, especially a rematch with Ghana.
It should also be noted that the "Home continent advantage" probably will not apply among the South African fans. During the Confederations Cup, most of the Neutral SA fans supported the USA over Egypt. African rivalries burn deep- It would be like a World Cup being played in England, and expecting English fans to root for Turkey over Mexico because they are in the same confederation. Not going to happen. We learned in 2002 that the "Home Continent Advantage" only really applies in World Cups based in either of the Americas or Europe.
My rational expectation from this World Cup with this draw is a 4th game. My one worry, though, is based on the following quiz... What do these nations have in common? Austria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Poland, and Ghana?
Algerians are a different religion & race. Christian black Africans, righfully, have issues with both. I'd agree that SA fans will favor us with those damn horns over Algeria. I just don't see thousand of people on the earths poorest continent traveling in mass to see WC games like Europeans & the Americas would.
Ughhh.... This is one of the many reasons I hate looking to past WC's. Soccer turnover every 4 years is so drastic only 5-8 players remain cycle to cycle, let alone the 2-3 players over 2 cycles. Past results and records mean nothing. We should judge the performance and expectations of our team on the basis of this team. The one who beat Spain, but lost to Mexico. The team who dropped two in 25 on Brazil and couldn't muster a goal against Slovakia. This is the team that will be playing.