Interesting scenario, though it's yet to happen in recent years. USA and Japan pulled 0's at WC 98. And Slovenia, China, and S. Arabia pulled 0's at WC 02. But Ghana pulling a 0 would go against the trend of African teams being able to earn at least 1 pt at World Cups: At WC 98 we had: Nigeria, 6 pts Morocco, 4 pts Cameroon, 2 pts South Africa, 2 pts Tunisia, 1 pt And at WC 02 we had: Senegal, 5 pts South Africa, 4 pts Cameroon, 4 pts Nigeria, 1 pt Tunisia, 1 pt
I like what you're smokin'. If the US do actually do this, then I'll smoke with you. Hell, I'll buy you a year's supply. (Standard DEA disclaimer: this is a joke.)
To the thread-starter, thanks for the analysis. Here's a twist I'd like you to consider: if you re-ran the same statistics, but for the second match, would the results be the same? IOW, is it the fact that each match is critically important, or that the first match has premium value? I'd be fascinated to see the analysis on this if you have the time. I think this question doesn't work so well for the third match...since by then, some of the groups are decided, and coaches are 'managing' more.
Just a suggestion if you want the statistics to be meaningful. As others have said, if you look at the teams that won the first/second/third match as to how many go through, you are skewing the results to eventually become meaningless. Teams that win will go through. The place to start is an analysis of the teams that go through and how many of them won the first or second match. In reality, I think it is more meaningful to see how many points generally gets you through and then figure out how to get them. I do believe that 5 is generally enough to make it through with six virtually a guarantee. 4 points is the dicey number where you need to depend on other results at the end (like we did in Korea). This is not what is mathematically possible, but what has happened in the group play. Then the question is - how do you get those points? A loss anywhere means you have to beat the other two teams to get to a comfortable place. Losing to the Czechs in the first game basically means you have to win your next two games to have a very good chance of making it through. Not a great situation.
Clearly, it is valuable to examine the same statistics for game 2/3 to isolate the value of winning/tying game 1 relative to winning/tying games 2/3 as winning in general is very helpful to the cause. Specifically, the hypothesis here is twofold: 1) there is an advantage to winning game 1 because coaches have an advantage in determining how to play (for simplicity's sake aggressive/conservative or attack/counterattack) the remaining games while knowing that losing coaches will be forced to be more aggressive and take the initiative. A game 1 winning coach not only has more tactical flexibility, but, for example, he can feel more comfortable rotating his starting lineup in game 2 to keep his team fresh overall for game 3. 2) Winning game 1 provides a psychological boost to team morale and confidence that carries through to the other games. The results regarding game 2 are as follows. Conditionally, 70% of teams that win game 2 advance to Rd 2 15% of teams that lose game 2 advance to Rd 2 63% of teams that tie game 2 advance to Rd 2. Furthermore, the distribution of performance in game 2 for advancers was 44% won game 2, 47% tied game 2, and 9% lost game 2. This is significantly different from the distribution of game 1 performance for advancers. While clearly this is not a scientific study as there are a number of variables not held constant here such as degree of difficulty of games, it does appear in this general analysis that losing game 2 is not as damaging to one's prospects for advancing as losing game 1. The results regarding game 3 are as follows. Conditionally, 78% of teams that win game 3 advance to Rd 2 23% of teams that lose game 3 advance to Rd 2 50% of teams that tie game 3 advance to Rd 2. The distribution in game 3 performance among advancers was: 56% won game 3 28% tied game 3 16% lost game 3 The results for game 3 tend to support the hypothesis. 97% of advancers got a result in game 1 vs. 91% in game 2 and 84% in game 3. Glaringly, 23% of advancers lost game 3 while only 3% lost game 1. Behind the numbers, it appears that advancers tend to lose game 3 more frequently because many have already wrapped up advancement and either field reserves, lose focus, etc. Therefore, looking at the Ghana/Italy game, it would behoove us to: First, hope for a tie to compress the overall number of points needed to advance, especially as 1st place finishers. Second, root for Ghana to win. In the event they get a result against the Czechs also, they are likelier to succumb in game 3 which could be very important for us. DO NOT ROOT FOR ITALY IN GAME 1. I was not planning to anyway, but that's a subject for another thread. Does anyone want to face Italy in game 2 if they have 3 points, we have none, and we MUST get at least a tie to have a chance of advancing. Let's be aggressive against the Czechs but do so in the 1st half to see how the game is progressing. By all means, 1st foul, 1st shot, 1st goal so if we can catch an early lead, we'll have a good shot at a win. If we play loose and go down a goal in the 1st half, at least we'll have time to come back for the tie. However, if we hit the 70th minute, and the score is tied, let's skew the plan toward the status quo rather than going for the jugular. Live to fight another day.
AGREE 100%!!! We now have the talent and constitution to play with ANYONE in the world, and we should do so ... EVERY time!
This writer agrees with the sentiments here about how important the first match is for the U.S. http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/5195040
If we can put the entire group on their back foot we can go through. We need to take points from every game.
While Mark Bechtel on CNN/SI has the US tying the Czechs, and needing Ghana to beat the Italians; as opposed to your scenario, essentially, the key game for both his scenario and yours is the Ghana-Italy game.
Nice data. I've got to agree with england66... this looks a lot like portugal '02 to me. the first game is our best shot to come out swinging against a team that probably underestimates us. the momentum from beating portugal really carried us through the difficult south korea and poland games in '02...
USA will be lucky to get a draw in that group.Beating Ghana will be your dream.If you want to see Ghana play, check the African Nation Cup from 1/20/06 to 2/10/06 on DISHNETWORK (3A TELESUD channel) or when they play in Dallas on 3/1/06 against Mexico.Check them out,and you'll know what i am talking about.
I will be at that game and I'm looking forward to it. Who is Ghana's coach ? what nationality is he ?
Was wondering, looking back through your stats, the team that scores first in the first game, any statistical significance showing they are the ones that advance?
I don't remember the exact quote from Arena but it was something to the effect of: The US doesn't have enough experienced players to only play for a tie like some of the countries (Italy, England, Germany, etc). We have to play to win. It's what we do in the US and in MLS. I tend to agree. I don't think we can ever go onto the field looking for a tie. We did it in Mexico City in the Hex and look what it got us. We only looked decent when we were playing to win. The makeup of the team is high pressure and quick attacks. Not a deliberate hold the ball and hope for a tie style. That's why I love to watch them play. If it hadn't been for South Korea's "we have to win all our games" attitude, the US would have been watching Portugal play Mexico in 02. I say let loose the thoroughbreds and get it done in the first game. If it's late in the game and it's till tied, go for the jugular. Chexico will probably be playing for the tie at that point, like most European teams would. We've had success late in games the past couple of years so why stop now. It also gives the opponent less time to come back with a response.
This is why I love the USA team. We give everything we have for every game were in and we never say die. I hate to watch teams that just sit back and wait and dont attack and dont want to win. We're gonna take down Italy and Czechs , and Ghana next summer. I can't wait.
you must have really hated watching the USA do just that in Holland a year or so ago.....I hope and believe that the Bruce learned his lesson in that game.
That's good analysis, but the numbers aren't quite as impressive in the previous two world cups. If we look at the 1-2 finishers (because some third placed teams qualified) from 1994 and 1990, the corresponding numbers were: % with result in game. . . 1: 20/24 - 83% 2: 18/24 - 75% 3: 20/24 - 83% These figures combine with those still seem to show that game 1 is more important than the other two, if by not quite as much.
Yes, but in '90 and '94, the top three teams advanced from each group. The dynamic was totally different so those results have to be excluded.
That's not quite true. Most 3rd place teams advanced, but not all of them (4 of the 6). But most teams probably wouldn't have known they could get in on 3rd before the last game, so the numbers probably have some relevance.
Coming back to this thread after a couple weeks, the point someone made that most stood out to me was the difference between having 6, 5, and 4 points out of the group play. Given that 4 points means you're counting on another result to go your way, I see how either two wins or points from every game are so crucial. Seen that way, I'm more strongly in the camp of needing to win against Czechia. Of course, no opinion is more important than Bruce's and that quote about lacking the discipline/talent to play for a draw pretty much says it all.