While it is commonly accepted that the first game of the Cup is important, I decided to check the results of the two Cups with 32 teams to test the notion's validity. In 1998 and 2002, only 1 team, or 3% of all 2nd Rd participants, lost its first game and still advanced. In that case, Turkey lost to Brazil who swept all the teams anyway. In a balanced group, it is even more unlikely that a team who loses the first game will advance. It is clear that we MUST get points off the Czechs. Furthermore, roughly 2/3ds of the 2nd round qualifiers won their first game while roughly 1/3 tied their first game. From a conditional perspective: Of the teams that won their first game (23 total), 87% advanced. Of the teams that tied their first game (18 total), 61% advanced. If you win the first game, you are a virtual lock to advance. In the 3 cases in which teams won their first game but failed to advance (all 2002), Argentina, Costa Rica and Russia present some interesting questions although there are too few data points to draw any meaningful conclusion. Again, in a very unbalanced group such as the one Costa Rica had with Brazil on one end and China on the other, winning the first match doesn't mean as much as it comes down to the rubber match (Turkey) and GD. Argentina was in a GoD so it's easy to understand why winning the 1st game could still yield difficulties. While you should attack and play to win in the first game, the bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with tying the Czechs or closing things down at the end of the game if we're tied and if there are too many chances created on both sides in a loose game. The risk of a loss at the end of the game isn't worth it when you can walk out with one.
The boys have to get off to a good start period. Also let's hope they get the Czech's off their toes early like we did to Portugal in the first match of the last World Cup. If they get unhinged then later on they will get un-nerved, then ticked off.
Short answer: no, they don't. It's tougher to say, because in 1994 and 1990, some 3rd place teams advanced, but we can look at it pretending that only 1 and 2 finishers move on, and it still doesn't work. 1994 results according to: http://www.worldcup.isn.pl/en/cups/1994.htm (I'm hoping the games listed actually are in chronological order) -Bulgaria lost their first game to Nigeria, but they finished 1 and 2. -Saudi Arabia lost first to Holland, but they finished 1 and 2. -Most importantly, Mexico lost their first to Norway, but Mexico qualified (won the group, even), and Norway did not (finished dead last). (Of course, everybody in that group finished on 4 pts, so it was almost a coin flip.) Bulgaria had the most remarkable turnaround. They lost their first game game 3-0, but then beat Greece and Argentina by a combined 6-0. http://www.worldcup.isn.pl/en/cups/1990.htm In 1990 - Yugoslavia lost their first to Germany, but they finished 1-2. Yugoslavia also lost that first one 4-1, but then beat Colombia and UAE a combined 5-1. That's still only 4 of 24 1st-or-2nd finishers. But it's enough to triple the cumulative figure to 9%.
Is that going to affect our mindset against the Czechs? Are we going to play conservatively in the hopes of avoiding defeat, or do we press hard for the win?
That's an interesting question, especially since our match with Czech will take place several hours before Italy v Ghana. Had our game followed Italy v Ghana, and say Italy beat Ghana pretty handily, I expect Bruce might play the Czech match rather conservatively (in anticipation that we might end up with a 9-4-4-0 split of points between ITA, CZE, USA, and GHA). But since our game will take place before Italy v Ghana, I expect we'll play aggressively for the win and let the chips land where they may.
I say balls to the walls boys! None of this conservative crap, give the Czechs all they can handle from the start, keep it going with the Italians and Ghana.
Yep, and let's not forget that our aim should be to win the group, with the 2nd-placed opponent likely facing Brazil.
...IMO the USA beats the Czechs....give the Bruce and his staff 6 months to prepare for an opponent and they can/will beat anyone.....yes, even Brazil...(were they in the USA's group) although I believe the USA will avoid Brazil in the second round by winning the group and turning the football world upside ********in' down.
Any sense of the % of winners of the 2nd and/or 3rd game that move on? It would be useful info to see if the order of wins really matters.
It's interesting to note that in the 3 games you mention, the team that lost ended up finishing last in their group in a pretty miserable fashion. Argentina beat Nigeria, who with just 1 pt at WC 02. Costa Rica beat China, who ended up with 0 pts. And Russia beat Tunisia, who ended up with 1 pt. So unless we beat Czech, and the shock of that causes them to totally collapse for the remainder of the tournament, a first game win should stand us very well.
If we get a result against the Czechs and Ghana knows this going into their game with Italy will that change their mentality? If they came out and tied Italy then we would still have our own destiny in our hands. US 2-1 Czechs and Ghana 1-1 Italy Then US 1-2 Italy and Czechs 1-0 Ghana or 0-0 or 0-1 Point total Italy 4 USA 3 Czechs 3 or 1 or 0 Ghana 1 or 2 or 4 Final day If the US wins it will have 6 points Ghana can have a max of 4 so they can't beat us, the Czechs could tie us with a win over Italy and and 6 points leaving Italy out. If Italy won they would have 7 points and we would play Brazil. If Italy and the Czechs tie Italy is through in second. My dream first day is a US win and a tie in the other game.
I think the first match will be the most important for both sides. Psychologically very important. If USA win, it will increase your motivation and fight spirit. And to win against Czechs would be great success. After this USA will go to game against Italy with much more self-confidence. bltleo germany
agree.See Portugal, Jun 5 2002, if you want to see how the USA will play.After 35 minutes the Portos were so rattled that their hair started to get messy.
ach, I remember this famous game against Portugal. By the way I made bet that time that USA would win and it happended. After this I started to like US boys from USMNT. Sorry we Germans did not allow you to play in quarter finale in 2002..But this time we don´t play against each other. So you can come to semi-finale, I think it is earlierst we can meet. Bltleo GERMANY
if ghana pulls a zero, then 5 points will probably end up in a tie breaker deciding who advances. if ital and the czechs draw...
Great analysis, thanks for taking the time to post it. Your data basically reinforces what I have always thought about the opening group match. "It is great to win it but it is absolutely imperative that you don't lose it" If the odds on a draw are quite generous for the opening matches it may offer some value to take a bet on the draw. A draw is usually considered an acceptable result, whilst not being ideal, it keeps the world cup dream alive for both teams who live to fight another day.
A draw against the Czechs would certainly be nothing to complain about, especially if the Ghana-Italy match (which will be over by the time the US-Czech game starts) ends in a draw. In that scenario (both of the initial games end in a draw), the U.S. is guaranteed to advance with a draw and a win from its remaining two games, i.e., 5 points puts the U.S. through to the round of 16. Nobody would suggest that the U.S. play for a draw-- or alter its style of play or personnel used-- against the Czechs just because the earlier game between Italy and Ghana has ended in a draw. However, one can certainly feel very good about a draw against what will arguably be the strongest team in the group, the Czechs, if Italy and Ghana split the points available from their game.
I won't argue over the importance of winning games, statistically or psychologically, but I have a probability-related question: Isn't it likely that some of the teams that advanced would have advanced regardless of if they won or lost their first game? In other words, shouldn't the pool for comparison be between teams that finished 1-1-1 with the loss first against teams that finished 1-1-1 with a win or tie first; teams that went 2-1 with the loss first against teams that finished 2-1 with a win or tie first, etc? In other words, teams with 2 or 3 wins were going to advance anyway and also have a greater likelihood of having won their first game. The fact that teams with more wins are more likely to advance doesn't reflect on the first game versus the second one bit. Where's voros?
I think you're making things too complicated. Win your 1st match, and you're in very good shape -- unless that 1st game turns out to be against a very weak sister. And Czech isn't likely to earn just 0 or 1 pt at WC 06. Tie your 1st match, and that's a good start, though there's plenty of work left to do. Lose your 1st match, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to make those reservations for an early return flight back to the States.
it's possible 2 wins isn't good enough IF 4th place loses ALL it's matches, and the other 3 do... usa beats czechs czechs beat italy italy beats usa... back to tiebreakers here..