Group J's General Discussion Thread

This is true. But 2 things can be true at the same time. It was also a pile of bad luck (twice hitting bar + offside vs Egypt in last 10 mins) + Iraq doing 5-0 against Senegal + Austria and Algeria match fixing. And in general literally only 1 3rd place team advancing with 3 points which is rare, you would expect 2-3, at least 2. But yes, this is why you cannot rely on anybody else/luck, you need to get the job done yourself. But again if it was literally any other team instead of Iran they would have advanced. I did not predict/expect this Iran team with a generational talent gap (worst Iran world cup side of all time, though not by that much) and worse Iranian world cup coach of all time to advance, but the circumstances were still cruel. We were lucky to get an easy group but this got cancelled out by all the other shenanigans.

 

Now they’ll be whining about it for the next 40 years

 

and they were not playing for a while already so it would have made no difference to keep doing so till the end.

exactly

 

they stopped playing at 2 - 2 and could have kept it that way till the end, there was no reason to take risks. That 3rd Algerian goal was not necessary.

I'm not putting it on chance, both teams were poor defensively but I can agree that the fair play wasn't there either and I wouldn't want them to advance further in the tournament.

And my sympathy for Iran, I felt sorry alread when that goal was disallowed for a 3cm offside and this group phase ending was really cruel.

 

That is how you know they match fixed. Even if you claim that Algeria did not want to take any risks and scored the 3rd naturally, simply what are the chances of Austria equalizing after 92nd minute. It was clearly fixed. But both teams are clowns, by doing this they overdid it and made it more obvious that they match fixed. It is like 2 young guilty siblings trying to collude to trick their parents yet overdoing it. They will have fooled naive people but for those who know, they know.

Even in the 1% chance that they did not fix it from the beginning, surely you will agree that at the very least Algeria allowed that 3rd goal on purpose. It is simply statistically extremely unlikely for it to have happened organically because A) already, in any match, it is statistically extremely rare for this to happen B) let alone in a match in which Algeria would gain by this happening. When you put these together, there is almost no chance that it was due to chance. But when people resort to such tactics they don't realize that karma exists. They will get beaten by Switzerland regardless (hopefully 9-8 on penalties to maximize the karma lol).

 

But the perfect way to to try to fool people. It is not that high risk, a professional player can convert 9/10 times off a cross with no/feigned resistance especially if they know there will be no resistance.

Also, even in the slim chance it was not fixed from the beginning, surely you agree that Algeria allowed that 3rd goal in?

 

bro that 3rd goal on a cross is hard to stage. even in training there is no guarantee they would have scored it.

for me they didn't play fairly and didn't give their all but they didn't rig the 3 - 3

 

I still don't understand how anybody can not see the obvious match fixing.

Go watch the highlights.

First goal: Algerian defender stops running and starts jogging and puts his hands up for no reason, then Algeria keeper strangely does this weird back and forth movement that seems forced/orchestrated like when you want to act dumb/he did not stay or rush the attacker, just did this weird back and forth movement until attacker got near, then fumbles it and gifts the goal. Even the other Algerian defender was running strangely slow. The attacker was running much faster than both of them, this is strange especially in a must win game. And when Austria scored you could see they had zero surprise or happiness, which is strange in a must win match.

29th minute Austrian player jogs to the ball instead of sprinting, then strangely puts it wide when 1 on 1 with keeper and very close to the goal.

35th minute Austrian defenders let Algerian player get past them easily.

Look at 43:57. Look how strangely the Austria defender does that fake sliding tackle, that tackle had zero chance. And it lets the Algerian player get past, then look at the strange one hand swat by the keeper, not even attempting to save it. perfect time for Algeria to equalize the 1-1 just before half time.

Then 54th minute Austria score what seems like a normal goal, but it is difficult to see, and he was completely unmarked, it seems like the Algerian defenders again were jogging but the TV angle doesn't show that far back. So the goal looks normal on the replay.

59th minute Austrian defender looks way to easily beaten on the wing: this is strange because the wing Algerian player did not trick him, it was obvious he was going to the defender's right and the defender still got beaten easily and then does a strangely mistimed tackle that was nowhere close to the man or the ball, I have not seen this happen this easily this world cup at least. And then Algerian player who receives the pass is completely unmarked and scores.

92nd minute Algeria's 3rd goal, you can see Austrian #3 strangely jogging instead of running to the attacker even though having a clear view of what is going on the whole time, the attacker is then allowed to be 1 on 1 with keeper and scores.

But the most telling indication was that outside of the goals, there were 0 meaningful/close chances by either side. This was the biggest give away. Because even if you are match fixing, there is nothing stopping you from scoring organically either, yet despite this, not a single meaningful chance outside the goals? Come on. This is because when you fix so many goals, there are overall less organic chances on balance. Statistically it is very rare for there to be 0 meaningful chances outside goals. So this fits statistically speaking: if you fix 6 goals, that reduces the chances of other close chances. And 0? That is a big indication.

The only indication that it was not fixed was the late nature of Austria's goal. It was risky. And at least on the surface it looked like it could be an organic goal. But overall it is all too suspicious.

 

The actual goal is not difficult to achieve, it is simple training ground crosses. They are professionals who can do this 9/10 times without resistance. The only thing is that it came very late. It was indeed difficult/risky to stage something that late. But the fact that Austria scores on the literal next play following Algeria's goal is also highly suspect. I mean Algeria knew Austria would have another chance. And they could not make it look too obvious, a cross is the perfect way to make it not obvious at that time, and crosses usually look normal, so maybe that is why Austria's goal looked normal. I think they planned for a late goal exchange, but these things cannot be done exactly on cue otherwise it would look too obvious, maybe they messed up by having Algeria score the scripted 3rd goal too late. I don't think both teams planned it too intelligently: I think their guilt conscience made them nearly trip up. If they did not match fix, they would have kept it at 2-2. But they knew that would arouse suspicious. So they tried the late goal exchange to remove all doubt. If they did not match fix, passing around at 2-2 would look crummy but normal. It is likely their guilty conscience/fear of getting caught that made them do this illogical exchange at the end. Emotions can make people do irrational things.

EDIT: Austria had one other chance before their goal, which also makes it suspect. There were 4 algeria defenders but they allowed Austrian striker to brings the ball down and pass to open man, but the angle was impossible so it went wide. Then on the next play Austria scored. So I think it was fixed, but they lost left it for too late. They tried to leave it late to make it less likely to be suspect, but at the same time their guilty conscience and fear of getting them caught made them stumble and leave it TOO late and nearly messed up their plan, but in the end the plan still worked.

If you see Austria's goal, again the Austrian player was all unmarked in the box. But the cross happened to be a bit long. But the Austrian player was able to header pass it back into the box for the goal. Isn't it suspect why Austrian player is all unmarked in the box at that crucial stage in the game? Seriously. Look at the highlights, there are 4 Algerian players, and the Austrian striker is miles offside, The Algerian players are jogging looking at the Austrian winger with the ball and continue to leave number 11 Austria player wide open. Look at Algerian number 21, he realizes Austria number 11 is wide open, and uses his hand to tell Algeria number 15 to cover him, but number 15 just continues jogging. This is not normal. And with all that time in the end why are there only 4 Algerian players near their goal? It is the last play of the game, why are 6 players all the way to the side near the player who is crossing and only 3 players are in the central box area to defend when you are already winning and it is the last play, allowing a 4 on 3 advantage for Austria in the box? Highly suspect.

 

Now the following unlikely, but not impossible: it could also be that FIFA was in on it (which would explain why such a late scripted goal happened. Normally FIFA would have no incentive for this, but this time it was more convenient for Iran to get knocked out in USA, and also it makes the game more exciting/more money for FIFA. With Infantino the infantile is possible.

 

Argentina with another penalty awarded to it. I saw this posted online:

In Messi’s first 4 World Cup tournaments:
2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018, Argentina played 21 matches and was awarded a grand total of 1 penalty.

In 2022 and 2026, Argentina has played 10 matches and has been awarded 7 penalties. That is just hard to believe, much less explain.

 

Another indication the match was fixed. after Sweden 5-1 Tunisia and Germany 7-1, this Algeria vs Austria game had the highest difference between xG and actual goals scored, when combining both teams, meaning that an unusually high amount of goals compared to dangerous chances were scored. Notice how Sweden and Germany game were one-sided blowouts. But Algeria Austria game was a 3-3 even draw. Hmm...

Algeria had 1.67 xg, Austria had 1.49. Both scored double their xG.

 

This reminds me of Sweden vs. Denmark 2-2 in the 2004 Euros where there were allegations about match-fixing to oust Italy .

 

I was out and just checking the scores. When I saw Algeria scored third I thought yeah! They screwed Austria over. But then just like the other 2 times it gets conveniently leveled. Just got home and saw the highlights, and it was indeed very suspicious. No effort to defend at all on the goals.

 

Algeria had 1.67 xg, Austria had 1.49. Both scored double their xG. So overall around 3 goals higher than xG.

For context, let us look at the other draws:

Cape Verde vs Saudi 0-0 had 1.2 vs 0.5 xg, so around 1.5 goals LESS than xG (compare this to +3 for Algeria vs Austria).

Iran vs Egypt 1-1 was 1.6 vs 1. Again, in the negatives (xG is higher than actual goals, let alone +3 (3 more goals than xG as per Algeria vs Austria match).

Uruguay 2-2 Cape Verde was 2.32 vs 0.88, again in the negatives, let alone +3.

Czechia 1-1 South Africa was 1.02 vs 1.39, again in the negatives, let alone +3.

Portugal 1-1 Congo was 0.65 vs 0.87, again in the negatives, let alone +3.

Iran 2-2 New Zealand, 1.5 vs 1.24, only around +1 (about 0.5 for both teams), far cry from +3, far cry from around +1.5 for each team.

Netherlands 2-2 Japan was .78 vs .59, around +1.5 combined for both teams, half that of +3.

Switzerland 1-1 Qatar was 3.2 vs 0.6, again in the negatives, let alone +3.

Brazil 1-1 Morocco was 1.26 vs 1.37, again in the negatives, let alone +3.

Canada 1-1 Bosnia was 1.23 vs 0.96, around 0, let alone +3.

So there you go. I included every draw. See the MAJOR discrepancy between Algeria vs Austria nad all the other draws? The only other one that came somewhat close was Netherlands vs Japan.


Let's even look at high scoring blow outs:

Spain 4-0 Saudi was 2.3 vs 0.15. Even if we just look at Spain, the actual goals were only around 1.5 higher than xG, which is similar, not significantly higher than Algeria and Austria.

Even Senegal 5-0 Iraq where it felt like every Senegal shot was a goal, xG was 3.01 vs 0.14. Even if we just look at Senegal, that is around 2 goals more than xG. Only slightly higher than Austria vs Algeria.

Japan 4-0 Tunisia, 2.13 vs 0.05, again Japan's is less than 2 goals more than xG, again only slightly higher than Austria vs Algeria.

Netherlands 5-1 Tunisia, 2.61 vs 1.01, around 2.5 compared to either of around 1.5 for Austria and Algeria, but again this was a blow out.

Argentina 3-1 Jordan was 2.13 vs .76, again in the negatives.

Norway 4-1 Iraq where Norway was super clinical and was gifted a goal by Iraq was 2.52 vs .08, again just taking Norway, that is around 1.5 more goals than xG, Similar to Algeria vs Austria.

Germany 7-1 Curacao was 4.22 vs 0.41, just taking Germany, that is 2.5, so that is higher than the 1.5 for each of Algeria and Austria, but I mean it was a 7-1 blow out with Germany being the most clinical.

Also:

Austria's overall (across all matches) xG/game average was 0.78, yet today it was around 1.5. Algeria's overall xG was -0.21, yet today it was around 1.5.

So all this shows that both Algeria and Austria scored an unusually/abnormal amount of goals compared to the number of chances they created, which makes it highly suspicious that their goals were orchestrated/the match was fixed. Of ALL the draws in the entire world cup, they had by far the higher amount of actual goals compared to xG. Only Netherlands vs Japan came somewhat close in this regard. And only a few blowouts in which one team was super clinical and dominated another team had a higher goal to xG ratio than either Algeria or Austria in their draw.

So if anybody still thinks this game was not fixed from the beginning, I don't know what to tell you.

 

I just used AI to calculate it again, and it includes all draws and the difference between goals scored and xG, when combining both teams.

It gave me the following:

1. Algeria vs Austria: +3.05 (this means 3.05 more goals were scored compared to the xG, when combining both teams)
2. Netherlands vs Japan: +1.01
3. Canada vs Bosnia: -0.07 (this means 0.07 LESS goals were scored compared to the xG, again when combining both teams)
4. Japan vs Sweden: -0.17
5. Portugal vs Congo: -0.26
6. Belgium vs Egypt: -0.52
7. Brazil vs Morocco: -.073
8. England vs Ghana: -1.99
9. Ecuador vs Curacao: -2.05.
10. Spain vs Cape Verde: -2.37

Do you not see how abnormally high the goals to xG ratio is in the Algeria vs Austria match compared to all the other draws in the world cup so far? Aside from Netherlands vs Japan they were all in the negatives. This makes it highly likely that Algeria and Austria fixed the match and orchestrated their goals.

And then I got the AI to rank ALL the world cup games so far, same thing: the difference between goals scored and xG, when combining both teams.

1. Sweden vs Tunisia: +4.36.. keep in mind this was 5-1 blowout
2. Germany vs Curacao: +3.20.. keep in mind this was 7-1 blowout
3. Algeria vs Austria: +3.05
4. England vs Croatia: +2.49
5. Switzerland vs Bosnia: +2.10
6. New Zealand vs Belgium: +2.10
7. Morocco vs Haiti: +2.08
8. Senegal vs Iraq: +1.85
...
17. Netherlands vs Japan: +1.01 (this is the next highest draw, after Algeria vs. Austria)
...
21. Mexico vs South Africa: +.0.05
22. Uruguay vs. Spain: -0.06
...
36. Spain vs Cape Verde: -2.37

Again, out of all 36 matches so far, Algeria was 3rd highest, only behind 2 massive blowouts.

Just a coincidence right?

 

^it is AI so it listed 36 instead of 72. But you get the idea. If I have time I can try to redo it with all 72 matches.

 

^AI was acting up so I did it manually.

I did not have time, so for now I only included match day 1, so 24/72 matches, and I also inserted Algeria vs Austria in there. Draws are in bold.

Look at the numbers after the = sign. That is the differences between goals and xg. So if it is in the positives, that means more actual goals were scored compared to xg. It is combining the total goals scored in the match across both teams, and also combining the total xg (so the xg of both teams added together).

As you can see, Algeria vs Austria has an abnormally high xG for a draw, and overall a very high xG, only lower than 3 blow outs. So it is highly plausible that Algeria and Australia fixed their match/orchestrated their goals/did not have any chances outside their goals that were close.

1. Sweden vs Tunisia: 6 1.64 = +4.36

2. Germany vs Curacao: 8 4.63 = +3.37

3. USA vs Paraguay: 5 1.82 = +3.18

4. Algeria vs Austria: 6 3.16 = +2.84

5. Netherlands vs Japan: 4 1.37 = +2.63

6. England vs Croatia: 6 3.51 = +2.49

7. Argentina vs Jordan: 4 1.54 = + 2.46

8. Austria vs Jordan: 4 2.19 = +1.81

9. Iraq vs Norway: 5 3.3 = +1.7

10. France vs Senegal: 4 2.35 = +1.65

11. Iran vs New Zealand: 4 2.74 = +1.26

12. Uzbekistan vs Colombia: 4 2.78 = +1.22

13. Portugal vs Congo: 2 1.46 = +0.54

14. Mexico vs South Africa: 2 1.48 = + 0.52

15. South Korea vs Czechia: 3 2.65 = + 0.35

16. Australia vs Turkiye: 2 2.1 = -0.1

17. Canada vs Bosnia: 2 2.23 = -0.23

18. Belgium vs Egypt: 2 2.43 = -0.43

19. Saudi vs Uruguay: 2 2.53 = -0.53

20. Brazil vs Morocco: 2 2.76 = -0.76

21. Ghana vs Panama: 1 2.06 = -1.06

22. Haiti vs Scotland: 1 2.26 = -1.26

23. Ivory Coast vs Ecuador: 1 2.71 = -1.71

24. Qatar vs Switzerland: 2 4 = -2

25. Spain vs Cape Verde: 0 2.59 = -2.59

Here is the link with the data:

https://soccer.realgm.com/analysis/...Tracker-Results-Expected-Goals-Of-Every-Match

I had to do it manually so I only had time to do based on match day 1. If you have access to a good AI program you can feed it this link and ask it to calculate and rank all 72 games. Ask it to rank the 72 games based on the difference between total goals scored across both teams in each match and the total xg (both teams' xg added together) in each match.

 

A draw a was beneficial for both teams, this was obvious before the match, I don’t think Ai generated stats on xG are particularly needed.

 

It is needed because many people are saying because there were 2 late goals it was not fixed. But this data shows that something is off.

 

The 2026 World Cup scriptwriters deserve Oscar.

 

I love this thread. Pure Gold.

 

Lol wacky conspiracy theory thread. Imagine complaining about Argentina's penalties when they were both stone cold 100% locks. Crazy how they got more penalties awarded when they started playing better and creating more chances. Who would've thought?

And the match fixing.. that's the absolute dumbest way you would do it scoring so late

 

I just redid the calculations. Even if you divide instead of subtract, the difference between goal scored and xG for the Algeria vs Austria game is the 6th highest out of all 72 group stage matches. The only other draw that was remotely close in terms of this value/difference was Japan vs Netherlands. And the 5 matches ahead of Algeria vs Austria for this value were all blow outs.

So how is it in game that neither side can lose, they both have such unusually high scoring efficiency? This makes no sense, in such games one would expect it to be more difficult to score because neither team wants to get eliminated.

And if you watch the highlights you will see that at least3/4 of the goals up to 2-2 were clearly orchestrated, e.g., the defender jogged, let the attacker get through, committed a slide tackle light years away from the ball, etc... Even Austria's last goal was also orchestrated, go watch the replay, e.g., the defender jogged instead of running to allow the Austrian player to get a free header, but the cross was a bit too long, no problem Austria just headed back to the middle then another player scored the header.