2022 World Cup

I honestly have no idea how significant the fact that Pele was black was. I always just thought that he would be just as popular if he was any other other skin color, if he looked like Kaka, for example.

To be clear, being black remains a disadvantage in many non-Western countries. Like, even today, despite how "cool" african american hip-hop culture is, Asians still prefer white hollywood actors over black ones.

Not to get too far off topic, but being on this side of the world, lets not forget Mao, and I suspect Stalin too.

 

Exceptional Cambridge def. - not like most others of the same type; unusual

Advantage - a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position.

If Argentina has an advantage over others because of their aggressivness or favored refereeing that by definition puts them in an exceptional category, outside the norm.

And nobody would talk about them unless something stands out there, which is again, an exception by definition.

There are few things to say here:

There is a clear cut correlation between, for example shots on target by a team and winning, a bit smaller correlation between possesion and winning, but I have never seen a correlation between being aggressive (amount of duels, fouls, yellow cards per game or whatever metric you want to define it with) and winning. Why?

Because of two reasons:

1. Aggressive tactics, by itself, dont give you much advantage
2. Effective aggressivness is a skill that not everyone can implement and not just a matter of running around and trying to kick opponents

Plus.. are other teams forbbiden from implementing aggressive playing style if it gives you so much advantage? So where is that advantage for Argentina?

I know what people will say, its not aggressive playing style but that they are allowed to push boundaries in a way that others are not and then you will refer to 3 or 4 instances in which referee didnt call a foul (or possibly the red card) against Argentina when he should have.

Here is the thing. As I said, because of the natur eof football, as a contact sport and highly interpretable rules, every team gets bad calls in their favor and against them so cherry picking few instances in which Argentina got few favorable calls does not prove the rule.

Refereeing is like trying to break a stick in a half. You will never perfectly succeed. Every single time one piece will be slightly longer or shorter than the other one hence the phrase "get the short end of the stick"

And in my view (as obejctively as I can see it), considering all mistakes for and against Argentina, they got SLIGHTLY longer end of the stick throughout wc as a whole (net favorable refereeing), most certainly because of the big team, Messi narrative bias.

And that is not me admitting anything but thats just nature of refereeing in football. Every team falls on a spectrum.

But to argue that Argentina was overwhelmingly favored and that they got away with overly aggressive playing style is a huge stretch.

If you want to argue that, which is certainly what few of you are consciously or unconsciously trying to do, prove it not just by cherry picking mistakes in favor of Argentina (because thats confirmation bias) but statistically or comparatively to other teams

Show some sort of statistical anomaly like correlation between duels and yellow cards or attempted (sliding) tackles and yellow cards or fouls against Argentina per defensive action compared to others.. or if you wanna go to pens, the number of contacts (touches, duels, plausible penalties) in opposition's penalty box and rewarded pens.

All of this anecdotal evidence (look at his or that situation) is insufficient, especially because majority of it comes from a single game against Netherlands which was absolute chaos.

Use copa america 2021 and wc qualifiers stats if you want..

One thing is to not prefer aggressive style, the other is to claim that Argentina has had unfair advantage or that they are exceptionally aggressive team by todays standards.

The latter is clearly not the case and the former,.. nobody has made any good case for it.

 

You are possibly correct
Jesse Owens did deny this ever happening


As with most things on the internet it is difficult to know what is true and what is false

 

Tbf, it's very difficult to prove these things, which is why it requires the eye test.

Like, what stats can prove that a shirt-pulled foul wasn't called in a box?

Not saying that Argentina received that exact benefit, but a lot of referee bias goes uncounted, statistically, so setting that as the bar makes it almost impossible.

I've seen enough referee bias to know that some teams are definitely favored, although that's mostly at the club level.

I'm not sure that Argentina was favored to the same extent, especially not in the final. If there was one "unwritten rule" that the ref probably played by in the final is to "not ruin the game."

 

There was a video implying Upamecano handled the ball just before the 3-3 penalty. Turned out to be false.

If you are cynical you might say: there was no need for 50-50 decisions because France was so lethargic/sick anyway, and there was already the cushion of the 2-0 (including the easy penalty). Before that 1-0, a few nasty challenges did take place (this was again no match for tiki-taka and playing around the walking footballers). We all saw Varane being completely wrecked and positionally all over the place (because of the illness). The difference in competitive level was so big that the one-sided blue stand (very few Les Blues fans) didn't make a difference.

At the same time, one might think France is not the sort of country to mess with. The G7 country most sympathetic to Qatar, many would say (actually, Germany is a bigger beneficiary). Didn't join those rainbow flag things. Played a big role in giving the WC to Qatar (and PSG to them). It's a bit like how the gift season ended for Brazil in 2014 once they played another superpower.

edit: from many, many scientific studies we just know there is a home bias and a nationality bias. It does make a difference whether the fans are distributed 40/60 in the stadium or 10/90. Of primary concern is the orderliness and safety.

 

Mmm, probably true for the USA, but not for Europe. Berlin knew a very progressive jazz scene in the 30ies, much to the dislike of certain people wearing brown shirts. In Rotterdam the neighbourhood Katendrecht was a safe haven for jazz under nazi occupation, very much because of the ban for German soldiers by their commanders to put a foot in that hood. The same goes for Paris.

 

There is a reason why eyewitness testimony is the worst level of proof in the court:

"Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions."

Because human perception is a flawed tool and people have agendas and biases.

You cant prove that a shirt-pulled foul wasnt called in pen box per se, but if there is a systematic bias towards Argentina in any meaningful way it will show in statistics.

For example, If Argentina were to be the team in WC with the highest rate of duels and/or attempted tackles per 90 min of time they are not in possesion (meaning they play very physically when defending), but were also the team with the least percantage of fouls per duel / tackle (at least the least amongst teams with similar rates of duels and tackles) then you could begin to argue that referees were much more forgiving to Argentina's aggressivness compared to other teams.

You can go step further and see what are the same stats for opposition teams in matches against Argentina and argue that referee doesnt have the same criteria for Argentina and their opponents.

Etc. You can get very creative with stats and if the bias is strong it will show up as an anomaly in statistics one way or another.

I didnt see anything strange looking through fubdamental stats.

 

I'm agreeing to disagree again on that to be honest, but I really think it's best if me and Sexy Beast don't argue anymore (I did appreciate when he was open to thinking that perhaps Argentina had had to some extent the better of the decisions so we're probably best leaving it at that from his side, and from mine the acknowledgement that I certainly wouldn't have any proof about any collusion to allow Argentina to foul or anything like that).

 

For what it's worth the agreeing to disagree aspect would have been because a team can make lots of fair challenges for the ball, and it's only by viewing each incident that we'd see whether a challenge is fair or unfair, clean or dangerous etc etc.

 

Yeah, when I see it (we can switch commentary language here) I notice that too and I've also seen things like a computer calculation by the Daily Telegraph before the start of the 2021 season where they concluded "the best driver in the list pound-for-pound, but has just lacked a vehicle at the very front to prove it." I do not particularly like him either as you know (how he comes across), and he is driving for the wrong country if you ask me, the wrong flag. Especially if I compare it with liking, say, Kompany, VvD, Bergkamp, Cruijff (but I do see his exceptional technical knowledge; something also Ricciardo and Alonso have talked about). I'm talking about 'in general' of course (with Brundle on the boundary/outside 'in general'). I saw Brundle calmly saying and analysing (not in an actual argument) that he is not like Senna and Schumacher in the past; also emphasizing how often he starts from 5th or 10th and still wins 15 races in a year. I also showed to you (or you found out) how muted the native commentary was (sensing this is not the 'right' way) compared to the same commentator in the 2016 barcelona gp victory. On the other hand, how he (or Hazard, VvD in football - Hazard literally was *by miles* the most fouled player of the 2010s) literally got pushed into the hospital didn't feel right and Brundle made some careful remarks about that too. But there are many pieces too where they are evasive/indirect about the inevatible observation that he has won more races (higher percentage) than Hamilton in any of his seasons, and from further back on the grid (= no factory team car).

Either way, this was another example to illustrate what I meant and how the media market dynamics function (just as in football).

Yeah I agree. The racism was first and foremost in relation to the colonies, a lot less so in the mainland itself. Those were not second class citizens (serfdom, slavery had been banned for a long time, in theory and in practice). Certainly in the interbellum. The label and reputation of (relative) tolerance was not a myth and grounded in reality.

What can be mentioned here too is that it was Lionel Hampton, as a figure of pop culture, to create the first mass hysteria. Before Bill Hayley his Rock around the clock, and a decade before the Beatles. Hampton was an Afro-American musician, with the exoticness working in his favor here. Now, our poststamp =/= the whole world - but for the other mentioned reasons I think that aspect about Pele can be overblown.

The Asians themselves (well, Japan in particular) have played an outsized role in making the sounds of popular music. Through the synthesizers. At one point, half of the #1 hits in the USA and a large chunk in the charts had a Yamaha synthesizer in it (the DX7 in particular). Sometimes, without knowing itself, they are listening to their own music and sound. (our own Philips, most notably, has from time to time performed a significant role as well )

edit: don't forget that most pop music is written in quadruple time, thus the sound and color of the instruments are very important. They make the feel of a song. That was created in Japan, by Japanese engineers, independent of the West (some presets and sounds were not used at all, found no application).

 

Your mind is set in the idea that Argentina are favored (you said that yourself) and you are trying to prove that through an anecdotal evidence falling into selection bias, which is focusing on a sample that is not representitive of the whole picture.

Your perception is filtering out anecdotal evidence and facts that challenge and oppose your strong held beliefs. Thats what human perception does.

If you suddenly had a change of heart and believed that Argentina was not favored and then went on to argue for them, the whole new world would open up to you and you would see things you otherwise didnt. Immediately 50-50 situations that went against Argentina would pop out like big one vs Croatia in 14th minute when Messi was tackled to the ground 17 meters away from goal and was stopped from going 1v1 with Livakovic..

If that happened to Netherlands vs Argentina that would be a top 3 evdience that Argentina was heavily favored.

There is a saying that whatever you choose to believe, you will find evidence for it.

Thats how it is possible for people to believe in so many conspiracies, to believe the earth is flat, there was a major bias towards Argentina, etc.

What cant be argued with are statistics, sensically interpreted anomalies in statistics.

 

Please mate: I said that I don't have any proof that there was any collusion(favouritism) and I realise an alternative theory to that extreme one could be based on a genuine intention to let the game flow more that affected the interpretations of what might be looked at again etc. You've agreed that it can appear to have been the case that Argentina had the more favourable/longer end of the stick. Let's leave it at that. I know I involved myself again, but I suppose I felt that I had a right to add my viewpoint on that (about not just looking at stats and ignoring the footage), and it does seem we are agreeing to disagree indeed, again.

EDIT - Some real conspiracies do exist/have existed - some alleged ones are uncertain still (but some that were once alleged have since been admitted). A conspiracy to let Argentina foul is not among the proven ones though, and I'm not even saying I suspect that's what happened: I did observe a number of hard fouls by Argentina that I was surprised weren't referred by VAR to the ref, but we've been over all that. I think the Dutch team eventually reacted to the fouls they'd been receiving from early in that particular game, and then there were incidents like Romero going through the ball to foul the player in the Final which also didn't get a VAR check. That's all I was saying, but we've been round in circles with it now, and I feel like you're saying you know better than I do....

2nd EDIT - I saw most of most of the games, so I could/would have noticed a similar trend in potential red card fouls by another team - I can't say that I did though (again, that's all I was saying).

 

Because of the result it is now forgotten a bit but many found the game vs Qatar suspicious as well (see for example page 55 and 56 here). He did three of our matches, and did France vs England too (a team like Argentina or Germany has the influence to veto such guy for the USA game). All in all, the two by far worst rated officials took care of four out of five games for us.

I must say I saw no favouritism - or how you name it - at all in the USA match while there is feasibly public pressure to do so (but you can also say this wasn't a tight match in any way; four quick bursts were good for three goals)

edit: I will stop here with that

 

I dont look to agree or disagree or to persuade anyone but I say what I have to say when I see that certain things are not said or when I see interesting conversation to be have.

My last few posts have unique perspectives and thoughts that I havent articulated in such way so far and the talk about perception and human biases and how it colors our views on football is personally very engaging to me.

If he doesnt want to continue the conversation because its boring to him or too uncomfortable, he can stop fueling me with material to talk to. Just ignore me. If someone is interested in the things I say they can further the conversation by adding their thoughts or perhaps challenge my views by showing me ways in which my perceprtion fails. I entertain the idea that I can learn more and deepen my thinking.

But I see pattern in this forum, its more of football historians (football fanatics) trying to create a consesus story of football's history or people searching for security in confirming their beliefs.

Its entertaining nevertheless but it could be so much more tho.

Btw, my words clearly have some resonance because he has soften some of his strongly held beliefs by considering a different perspective so I disagree that we disagree. We clearly agree on so much.

 

Come on man, are you seriously comparing eye witness in a fight/flight situation with people watching the game? Especially if the game is watched by millions of people, thousands of experts, and in some cases, rewatched many times?

These things are all relative anyway. Even with all the advances in stats, the eye-test remains the least unreliable method of understanding the game, especially if done by people who knows what they're talking about.

In this case, we're not even talking about player scouting. None of us would be particularly good at it, compared to the professionals, and even they get it wrong often.

No, we're just talking about ref bias, where the stats are even more unreliable. The stats are at least trying to capture players performance, but they're not trying to capture ref bias, so why would the stats even come close to telling us anything?

Take your tackles and foul percentage as an example, and we'll connect this with @leadleader favourite topic of the past few year: yellow-resistant fouls. Real favoourtism wouldn't even look like what you've outlined here:

For example, If Argentina were to be the team in WC with the highest rate of duels and/or attempted tackles per 90 min of time they are not in possesion (meaning they play very physically when defending), but were also the team with the least percantage of fouls per duel / tackle (at least the least amongst teams with similar rates of duels and tackles) then you could begin to argue that referees were much more forgiving to Argentina's aggressivness compared to other teams.

A team could easily attempt the average amount of tackles and be called the the average amount of fouls, yet enjoy a ridiculous level of ref bias in terms of aggression. So at the end of the match, both teams might have the same amount of tackles and fouls, except one team were much more physically aggressive in their tackles and getting away with it. So it's different inputs for the same outputs. Not to even mention all the different actions that aren't captured by stats like shirt pull.

As example, watch this:


Now look at the stats below



Does the stats even remotely capture the ref bias that was on full display that game? If someone who only watched the game but hasn't seen the stat and someone who has only seen the stat but not the game talked to each other about ref bias, do you think they would come to an agreement?

I'm not even saying that Argentina enjoyed such bias. I already said I don't think they did, in the final at least. However, on this separate point that we can somehow find evidence of ref bias from stats is a ridiculous notion. As unreliable as it often is, to spot ref bias, you need the eye test.

 

I was refering to statistics throughout the whole wc and not just one game.

Lets say If all teams average 15 fouls per game with 50 tackles, but when they play Argentina they average 23 fouls and 52 tackles.. then you can say something is fishy here. Why all teams suddenly when playing Argentina foul much more?

Thats just an example..

Ive never suggested that statistics alone is a proof or enough to conclude something.

But this is again. 5 minute video created by Arsenal fan and shared on the forum by Arsenal fan. What is left out? I mean those are big mistakes by ref, but compiling it like that into a video creates a much more dramatic effect.

Thanks for showing what actual agression and bad calls look like. Thats not a pen and red card for Van nisterlooy.

Not a single pen or a red card situation by Argentina is comparable to that.

 

But in a WC, stats are even more unreliable. The sample is too small, and the favoritism doesn't have to come in to play in every game.

So my point is, even if teams foul a bit more, it wouldn't show up because the sample is too small. They might foul 8 more times against Argentina, but then they might also foul 8 more times against Morocco for very different reasons. The game against Argentine could be ref bias while the game against Morocco was intensity. There would be no way for a stat to show the difference.

I know you never said stats alone can prove, but my point goes even further. Stats are so useless at finding ref bias that it's practically pointless bringing it up as some sort of evidence as you did. You wanted statistical evidence, and I'm saying if that's your bar, no one will be able to provide you any.

 

Greetings everyone, I'm new here. Have been following this forum for a decade though, just that it took me that long to register.don't know why

 

Small biases are impossible to see in statistics, but patterns of heavily biased refereeing would emerge in statistics. Smaller sample size only means that there is uncertainty about it, but statistical certainty is not what I was refering to.

I am not saying the conversation ends if there is no clear cut statistical proof. All I am saying is there needs to be an argument for significant bias for Argentina other than cherry picking 5, 6 instances that are POTENTIALLY mistakes, because few exceptions dont make a rule.

If you were to analyze other teams with the same level of scrutiny you would find uncalled fouls, yellow cards, unreplayed fouls, pulled shirts, foot stomping, etc for virtually every team and if I were to compile it and list it here, would be able to make it seem like bias was there.

I gave statistics as an example, but it could be anything of substances that is not just listing instances that favor one side of the discussion.

Final thoughts, clearly there is no big controversy. We see matches on the club level with much more bias and mistakes favoring one side on weekly basis. I believe Argentina was slightly favored but really nothing dramatic.

 

As I imagined, the inclusion of the ninth source (Mundo Deportivo) does not significantly change the averages. Messi continues to be the highest rated, although he only gains 0.01 points. Interestingly, the averages update makes a change in the top 3. Mbappé moves from 3rd to 2nd place although he loses 0.01. Bruno Fernandes moves from 2nd place to 3rd losing 0.08 in his average.

Como me imaginaba, la inclusión de la novena fuente (Mundo Deportivo) no cambia significativamente los promedios. Messi continúa siendo el mejor calificado, aunque solo gana 0.01 puntos. Curiosamente, la actualización de promedios hace que se produzca un cambio en el top 3. Mbappé pasa de la 3ª a la 2ª plaza aunque pierde 0.01. Bruno Fernandes pasa del 2º lugar al 3º perdiendo 0,08 en su promedio.

 

In relation to my previous XI proposal with the averages of 8 sources, it changes a little with the addition of one more (Mundo Deportivo). Specifically, the best striker I get is the one formed by Messi, Julián Álvarez and Mbappé. I had some doubt (not too big) with Szczesny and Bruno Fernandes, as "Dibu" Martinez had outstanding performances in the final crosses and the same could be said of Enzo Fernandez; however, the overall averages of the Pole and the Portuguese make them worthy of being among the best. I had some more doubts about the inclusion of Thiago Silva since Otamendi appeared in many of the ideal XI's of the World Cup, even though the statistical averages I use would make such recognition incoherent. My fourth and last doubt is about Casemiro. His average is 0.18 points higher than Amrabat's, lowering his margin by 0.08 in relation to the calculation with 8 sources; now with 9, they are closer to each other, but with a detail very favorable to the Moroccan, since his team went further and the difference in minutes played with respect to the Brazilian is very noticeable. Therefore, I consider Amrabat's presence in this XI as meritorious as Casemiro's. I would need more data to clarify my doubts. As for the change of Neymar for Alvarez, it responds to the decrease in the difference between the two; although Neymar's averages are still better, the championship in favor of Alvarez and his exhibition in the semifinals have been the causes for placing him in this XI between Messi and Mbappé.
Therefore, at this moment, I place this XI:
Szczesny; Achraf Hakimi, Thiago Silva, Gvardiol, Theo Hernandez; Griezmann, Casemiro (or Amrabat), Bruno Fernandes; Messi, Julian Alvarez and Mbappé.

En relación a mi anterior propuesta de XI con los promedios de 8 fuentes, cambia un poco con la adicción de una más (Mundo Deportivo). En concreto, la mejor delantera que me sale es la formada por Messi, Julián Álvarez y Mbappé. Tuve alguna duda (no muy grande) con Szczesny y Bruno Fernandes, ya que el "Dibu" Martínez obtuvo actuaciones sobresalientes en los cruces finales y lo mismo se podría decir de Enzo Fernández; sin embargo, los promedio generales del polaco y del portugués los hacen merecedores de estar entre los mejores. Alguna duda más tuve con la inclusión de Thiago Silva ya que Otamendi aparecía en no pocos XI,s ideales del Mundial, a pesar de que los promedios estadísticos que manejo haría incoherente dicho reconocimiento. Mi cuarta y última duda es la que se refiere a Casemiro. Su promedio es superior en 0.18 puntos al de Amrabat, rebajando su margen en 0.08 en relación al cálculo con 8 fuentes; ahora con 9, están más cerca uno del otro, pero con un detalle muy favorable al marroquí, ya que su equipo llegó más lejos y la diferencia de minutos jugados respecto al brasileño es muy notable. Por lo tanto, la presencia de Amrabat en este XI la considero tan meritoria como la de Casemiro. Necesitaría más datos para salir de dudas. En cuanto al cambio de Neymar por el de Álvarez responde al descenso de la diferencia entre ambos; aunque los promedios de Neymar siguen siendo mejores, el campeonato a favor de Álvarez y su exhibición en semifinales han sido las causas para colocarlo en este XI entre Messi y Mbappé.
Por lo tanto, en este momento, pongo este XI:
Szczesny; Achraf Hakimi, Thiago Silva, Gvardiol, Theo Hernández; Griezmann, Casemiro (o Amrabat), Bruno Fernandes; Messi, Julián Álvarez y Mbappé.