This is weird, as I actually have never had these conversations with soccer views, as they either have known more than me or an equal amount over the years. We've always had better things to discuss, like how much America sucks and how Americans suck and well you get the idea. Also learned some of the "American" traits like score tracking and highlights, which if you didn't get the gist from the previous post is bad. Ah, the beauty of the college years (which probably lasted a few World Cups too many and left me none the wiser!).
We've arrive at the Knockout Stage of the tourney, a source of contention for soccer fans. If at the end of extra-time (or after extra-time) there is still a tie, they then go for a tiebreaker by each side kicking 5 penalty kicks one-on-one w/ the goalie. At the national level, a win by penalty shots is considered less than a victory and a loss on penalty kicks is considered equal to a tie. How much has changed recently, to a victory by penalties counting for 2 points and a loss by penalty kicks counting, you guessed it if you've had your morning coffee, 1. Basically, TV & Newspaper folks bitched at FIFA after the last World Cup to the point where they dumbed it down. I like this new system, because A) for the first time, I don't have to reference a chart to remember it and make a bunch of fancy calculations and B) it's no less inaccurate than previous systems. So focusing, the teams draw (w/ exceptions which really aren't pertinent to any World Cup cherries), just the tiebreaker instead of being in the game arbitrary broken by factors relating to a team's soccer abilities (e.g. goals scored while playing soccer, goal-differentials), is arbitrarily decided by a sensationalized really cool televised climax.
Why I like it: it gives the under-dog a chance. Since in general, I root for a nation based on the nations wealth-standing, from bottom-up, and since generally, wealthier nations have better teams (not this tourney! ha!), it's no surprise that I'd like this aspect. Beyond though it gives better odds to the the teams I like to advance?
Why I dislike it: it's not a soccer competition as much as a craphoot. When that Libran sense of fairness kicks in, they just don't balance out, or perhaps I'm just a Debby-downer. Nothing really gets the blood pumping these days (just go ahead and ignore my explicatively titled past
post please).
So basically, PKs are unfair way of deciding unless they serve a greater fairness.
Recently though, there was a major shift, resulting in the infamous Doherty-Mal bet that somehow ended with me naked in front of about 14 people futilely arguing my point. I befriended a kraut, and started rooting for the Germans. Now obviously, they are not at the bottom of the national socioeconomic totem pole, and I did feel really guilty and strung-up inside when they beat Portugal in the Euro 08. Still, we all realize I think that I have no conscience. Oh yea, the shift, so I'm in class class ethics switching to emphasizing the unfairness again.
Traditionally, many of the players I'd like to see shooting can be banned from the game. (Note: Any dipshit that wants to pull a Zidane, deserves to help their team loss.). With the new yellow cards have having to go 5 games in a row w/out collecting two means we're probably going to be seeing more of this come into play during the finals. It also means though that THE final and semi-final it's going to be less.
Alright, I lied, I am going to contribute something to this ENDLESS debate: a game theory analysis of ties and eliminations in soccer. Don't worry, this is not technical: zero-sum games and non-zero-sum games.
A zero-sum game is an easy concept. I win, you lose. In fact, one even says it like that in explanation unless they're uber-sensitive-conscious, in which cause it's "Say you win and I lose, then..." The notion is there is a limited amount of the pot and we're all in cut-throat competition for it. There is no point where are interest match. So, if I take a point, you have to lose a point, so that it equals zero.
Most games rely heavily upon this. Poker is my fav.
A non-zero-sum game is the "win-win" scenario, where we both have something to gain, and we can even cooperate so that while one player wins more, the other player can win less but still not lose. This affects strategy in unexpected ways.
Now, most sports are a combination of the two, soccer is most definitely more of the latter than most Americans are familiar with. Still, most Americans are familiar with watching a game their team is not directly involved in, but hoping that a team with so many losses wins or losses say so that it'll affect the bracket that their team is playing in. With soccer, this is exasperated. For example, they mentioned in the Algeria game in 1982 W Germany v. Austria qualifier they colluded to exclude Algeria from the World Cup by fixing the match. I think the commentator called it the "odious Germany v Austria game". This being the second big game for this to happen, FIFA came along and ruled that group finals have to be played simultaneously.
So, all fine and dandy, what about shootouts? Obviously, in a single elimination, a draw is unacceptable, you have to have a tie-breaker. Ah, never mind. I just realized where I was going with this went back to the traditional argument of shootouts aren't soccer, making the analysis superfluous. Just go for sudden-death and long-term repercussions be damned!
No comments:
Post a Comment