Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Women's World Cup' started by soccernutter, Jun 3, 2019.
So after this week, which teams do you expect to be paired in the ko fase?
Alright, well, continuing from my 3rd-place analysis a few posts ago...
A2vC2: Norway v Australia
D1vE3: England v Cameroon
A1vC3: France v Brazil
B2vF1: Spain v USA
C1vB3: Italy v China
E1vD2: Netherlands v Japan
B1vD3: Germany v Scotland
F2vE2: Sweden v Canada
Interestingly, this puts all four previous winners in different quarter-brackets... Though I'd say USA's quarter and Germany's quarter would be much more "loaded" than the other two if this plays out.
How do the 3rd place teams get paired up?
I'm assuming the 3rd place teams in the matches above are not fixed.
That is, who gets the worst 3rd place team and who gets the best 3rd place team?
This is the way I see the bracket now, without knowing how any of the teams are going to finish:
Left side of bracket:
A2 v C2
D1 v 3*a
A1 v 3*b
B2 v F1
Right side of bracket:
C1 v 3*c
E1 v D2
B1 v 3*d
F2 v E2
It's not a worst/best thing, in the same way that it's never been worst/best how the first- and second-place teams get paired (in 12, 16, 24, or 32 team tournaments). It's a predetermined set of pairs made before the tournament draw even happens. Then, in 12- and 24-team tournaments, the pairings for 3rd-place teams are determined by which set of groups the 3rd-placed teams come from, done so that no group has more than two teams on each half of the bracket and no quarter bracket gets two teams from the same group.
To be more specific, let's take an example from this tournament's bracket. Both A1 an A2 are in the top half of the bracket, so if A3 advances, they'll have to be in the bottom half of the bracket. Six of the eight slots in the bottom half of the bracket are already determined, with one quarter of the bracket getting teams from CDE and the other quarter getting BEF. The possible third-place teams in each quarter thus compliment the teams already existing; that is, the 3rd place team in the CDE quarter must come from ABF, while the third place team in the BEF quarter must come from ACD. So, depending on which 4 teams advance as 3rd-place teams, there is a very specific way they must all four be slotted into the bracket to satisfy all the balancing issues.
is impossible and unreasonable since it has two teams from the same group; I don't know where you got that pairing from. (Plus you have all three teams from group A in the top half - er, "left side" as you call it.)
If you want the 3rd-place teams from ABCD to all advance, you'd end up with AvC x2 and BvD x2.
OK, this is what I was looking for.
Sorry, I should have wrote third 3rd placed team instead of using small letters (a,b,c,d) to denote first, second, third, fourth. I was trying to figure out the pairings based off the predictor thread, which had a link to FIFA's WWC prediction page, but was coming up with some confusing pairings that only now make sense.
Good question, I think.
I think one good reason has to do with the Cup being only every four years. I think in terms of a player's normal time span on a team as running for about 12 years, say 20 to 32 years old, 22 to 34, or such. Some players will have longer spans, others shorter. Using a 24 player roster since it's easier than 23, this means that if the players' ages are staggered as they should be in order to have a team that continuously is near the top, you're going to be having about 2 players per year ageing out of the team. That means 8 players every World Cup cycle -- which probably is a little low if you look at the number of "newbies" this cycle, due to their being other factors leading to players leaving.
So, if you're a coach, you're going to have to spend the first part of the cycle looking for who the 8+ players are that you're going to be adding to the roster, evaluating the returning players, and so on. This cycle, taking the US as an example, Ellis brought in just short of 60 players for evaluation. Some just into camps, some on game rosters, some into games, some into multiple games. This occurs primarily at the beginning of the cycle. Over time, the group gets whittled down, with some late-comers getting call ins later. This process takes a long time, I'd say about 2 1/2 years. Also during this process, it's the time for major tactics experimentation. I think of She Believes two years ago, where the US bombed, as being during this process. One's not looking at this time period as a time when the team must dominate, but rather as the first half of the transition to the ultimate roster and tactical set up.
After the potential roster is mostly whittled down, the lead up to who actually will be playing and how they will play tactically kicks in. I see this as the last 1 1/2 years of the cycle. There's still roster adjustment to do and tactical work, but this period is aimed towards the players being together as a team on the field, mastering who does what, who likes to receive the ball how, and so on. It's the bunch of individual players becoming a single organism on the field, which if they do it successfully is what makes soccer the "beautiful game." Time on the field for this is critical. Some fans think you just can take one player off the field and put another on in her place and it shouldn't make a big difference, but that simply isn't true. Soccer at the highest level is much more sophisticated than that, it's 11 players with individual skills and talents improvising together on the field as if with one mind.
Due to the inherent need to have roster turnover from one Cup to the next, I think that to have a team capable of winning the Cup this takes a full four years. Thus the Olympics occur during the very initial stage of the "new cycle" process. Given that, if you've just won the Cup and are committed 100% to trying to win it again in four years, there's no way you're going to put your best foot forward for the Olympics that occur in the first year of the World Cup preparation cycle.
There are others who don't agree with this. They think it shouldn't be a problem to win a Cup, then win the Olympics, then win the next Cup. Thus, for those who are US fans, they criticize Ellis for the US' early departure from the 2016 Olympics. I don't agree. I think, if you look at the roster changes from 2015 to the 2016 Olympics, you'll see that the US was in the early stages of the 2019 Cup preparations. Any country with a good team will say that they're trying to win the Olympics 100%, but I think for the top countries what really matters is the World Cup, thus in reality the Olympics are in the early part of the transition period.
This can be true in general, but I doubt it is for Japan, for instance. In fact, the emphasis on Olympic games has always been very high in Japanese sport-culture, and not only at this cycle because of Tokyo 2020: it's been said that the 2011 WWC win was sort of unexpected, because the team was actually aiming at London 2012 and Sasaki had been especially asked to chase for that medal that had eluded Japan in 2008, when thay had settled for 4th place.
Why do most if not all of the teams play their group matches in 3 different cities? Is there a point to it? Why it's cool to see different cities in a different country, it's got to be tiresome for the players and team personnel to be packing up and equipment multiple times over a period of weeks. Why not situate each group in one city/stadium and play all of their group matches there? In this way you'd have no moving until after the group stage.
Maybe this is for the fans, so they see different teams if they are neutrals or so that national fans following their teams get to see more of the host nation?
I had the same thought as the post above.
The decision to change cities is probably geared towards making the WC a good "fan" experience vs a good "team" experience.
Germany looks solid, nothing more
Will advance «ugly» in this tournament
This is a pretty clear technical case since the 70ies. You cant have 6 games within a span of 9 days in the same stadium. The field does not survive it.
South Africa has got a really good captain though
Sad that they’re out although they play like savages out therd
All time Oranje topscorers in one picture.
Little Miedema with her idol Robin van Persie:
Robin van Persie en Vivianne Miedema. © Privé.
Momentarily circling back to the third-place-teams discussion: with China officially qualified for the KO phase, it's now impossible for C1 to face F3 in the R16.
R2-D2, do you know them?
So I may be in the minority but I have no problem with VAR. it’s better than what currently exists in the men’s and women’s game. I’ve been vocal about testing the limits of VAR in “less meaningful” situations like the Women’s game, although probably not the WWC. Or in minor leagues-like MLS or some Balkan or Scandinavian domestic league.
Having been a ref in semi-pro settings for a few years, college ranks, etc-too much of FIFA laws IN PRACTICE resides with referee discretion. I’ve defended and argued against both sides of this.
Even in the American leagues like the NBA or NFL-where you need a law degree to officiate-they still get the call wrong sometimes. But I’d rather have a system like that than the lottery we go through in top flight men’s soccer.
VAR is still very raw but with steady tweaks I think it can be refined. The main argument against it right now is that it captures the letter of the law but not the spirit.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.
Just like in the NFL, where for years no one knew for certain what a catch was, but they finally figured it out. Same thing will happen with the VAR in FIFA. They'll eventually change the rules to better fit the spirit of the game incorporated with the new tools available to officiating. Hopefully this melding of two worlds will happen sooner rather than later.
I think VAR was originally introduced to soccer to make sure that the correct call was made when a ball goes just over the line, or nearly goes over the line. We all remember shots that hit the bottom of the crossbar and then hit the ground behind the goal line but were not called goals because the referee is never in a position to see such a play--and neither are the assistants in a lot of cases. Now it is being used more randomly to check for offsides on goals--but not consistently as what may have been an offside on a Cameroon goal was, strangely, not reviewed--and to makes decisions about players accidentally getting their studs into opponents in the box and illegal goalie movement on a PK, etc. etc. The problem with the last example is that it is illegal goalie movement has almost never been called--and now suddenly with VAR they decide to call it. And when everyone goes back to club play all of these plays will not be reviewed and so old habits will be renewed. I'm generally in favor of VAR, but it has generated a bit of controversy and odd decisions in this tourney. It's like all rules--enforcement needs to be consistently, and unless you have VAR in club play and friendlies, it won't be.
Were you joking about NFL referees needing a law degree? Most are insurance agents or somesuch, but definitely not lawyers. Referees have it tough in all sports, I will add, because there are a LOT of close/borderline plays.
After that Superman goal from the World Cup, we was mine too.
That's my main problem. Suddenly we have minimal infractions, that basically have never been called at any level and that were leaving no complaint behind them, because no human eye was even perceiving them at normal speed (or even with replays), being called and deciding games.
My exact feeling is the one of a pedestrian getting a life sentence for running a red light. Ok, it's technically wrong, it can be even dangerous, but... just give me a break!
Also, not sure how the refs perceive the VAR: probably they're going to tell me that they love it because it minimizes their mistakes, but to me this device seems unrespectful to the Central Referee in particular, who is suddenly looking like he/she hasn't the power to decide anything anymore. Sure, they have the last word, they can overturn VAR's "suggestion", but who dares to do that, when footage could deny them? Before VAR, a ref could say: "OK, the GK moved from the goal-line by an half-inch: you know what? Nobody noticed and nobody cares, because it was a completely irrelevant infraction in this case". Now the ref receives instant notification from the annoying know-it-all VAR room and can't possibly ignore it.
And don't get me even started about how VAR interrupts the flow of the match and play with the emotions of the players.
Sum up: I don't like VAR at all. I know I am probably in the vast minority, but I don't think technology is automatically a good thing, especially in sports, that by default have a big emotional component. This cold-blooded, surgical application of the law through technology just kills emotions.
I've repped both sides if the VAR discussion because I think they frame the issue very well. Perhaps some ambiguity needs to be intentionally introduced into the laws. A good example would be the question of the GK stepping over the line -- perhaps the law should say the GK can't step over the line in a way that gave the GK an advantage in stopping the shot. Then, the center ref would get to decide whether the step over mattered one way or the other.
This illustrates something I think is important to do, for those who don't like some of the calls: Try yourself to write the rule in a way that you would be willing to live with, without complaining when you get a call consistent with the rule but that you don't like! It's not that easy ....
And the bad referering from the last WC continues...
I agree that offside has been applied inconsistently but it’s nice that we can go back and review things. I believe it can work with the game. The laws say that benefit of doubt should go to attacker-on things like goals, offside, etc. play should be allowed to continue. Feverishly review anything with a moment of doubt.
Your argument that “it hasn’t been called that way before” is to accept that the law is either called incorrectly OR not called at all. I don’t like that about the current state of the game.
No, you do not need a law degree. It was just a turn of phrase I used because the NFL rule book, in particular, goes into the minutiae of what is or isn’t a catch, for example.
And it annoying for us that are in France to follow it, France is rather big for an European country and unlike Euros in Sweden they have it spread over most of the country (pretty much all but the southwest).
I can only guess why, but it seems they gone out of their way to try to avoid that the same team play in the same city if it can be avoided. So I guess they have been prioritizing to give the cities involved and their inhabitants a nice variation of teams and matches, and nothing else really matters.