As my chosen scapegoat, Paul can go drown in a barrel of monkeys. Never mind that the German team played like a bunch of nervous amateurs against Spain, it's Paul's fault. Here's hoping he's wrong this time, go Holland!
Spain will be victorious. If we are not, we will turn the octopus in delicious tapas to serve with arroz negro made from his ink. That is a fact.
Funny you should mention that. We were contemplating something quite similar with as of yet unnamed Teutonic dishes and a proxy octopus since getting the genuine article to Orlando would be quite a hassle.
I think Germany just "won" third place in the world cup. I'm not sure though, because the group of German's I watched the second half of the game with seemed even less interested than me.
That game was full of violence and slightly dull, which one would think was impossible. The flying kick to the chest was both unexpected and evidently went unnoticed by the judges. But hell, Viva Spain!
Well deserved for Spain, Netherlands tried nothing in the game except kick as much as possible.
Oh, bullshit. Half the yellow cards for the Netherlands were no-contact schwalbes by Spain starting with the card given to van Bommel. Regardless of that, both teams played well and made for an exciting match. Both teams created great chances that barely missed and both teams had moments where they lost ball possession as if they were 5 year olds on a kickfield. Spain continuously played off-side all the way to the goal (yes, the first shot was off-side, the rebound into the goal should've never occurred with a flawless ref) they managed to make, enjoy your tainted cup. Bottom line, highly enjoyable.
I've decided that World Cup Soccer shares a common concern with boardgames. The concern: how much luck is acceptable for an event that should solely reward strategic play?
The World Cup champion was decided by a single "final" game. Only one game. Given that scores of 1-0 are entirely common, it is reasonable to believe that two equally skilled teams would have many 1-0 games. If each team should, on average, score against the other team every 120 minutes, it really boils down to who was lucky and scored before the statistical average. Even worse, what about a situation where Team A should score every 120 minutes whereas Team B should score every 130 minutes? Team A is the better team, but it is entirely possible for Team B to win a single 90 minute game by a score of 1-0. Not by better play, but by pure luck. To be sure, Team B could also win by playing better on that particular day. For this example, I am assuming that the teams played to their ability.
This is very oversimplified, but hopefully you see my point. With scoring this low, if teams are of similar skill, does the luck factor increase to an unacceptable level? Any contest that determines a champion with only one game is problematic, but it appears to be even more problematic with an extremely low scoring sport. Since Spain and the Netherlands appeared to be so darned evenly matched, is one game really sufficient to determine a "champion"? I suppose you have to make do and draw a line somewhere, but it makes a lot more sense to have a single game for sports like cricket.
This is why the Stanley Cup consists of a best four out of seven system. It would take a hell of a lot of luck to ruin the skill test of hockey.
The World Cup, were it a board game, would be in the same class of games as Risk or Monopoly in my opinion. Fun, popular, but pointless if you want a real test of skill and understand what's going on.
If they fixed the offsides rule and the officiating, the single game would be sufficient.
For some reason, that just brought to mind a game with ALL of the teams in the world cup, on a giant field, with multiple goals and balls, playing against every other team simultaneously.
For some reason, that just brought to mind a game with ALL of the teams in the world cup, on a giant field, with multiple goals and balls, playing against every other team simultaneously.
Actually, that might not be a bad game.
Have one ball and four goals. Each country sends just one player. There's one ball. First to score wins.
For some reason, that just brought to mind a game with ALL of the teams in the world cup, on a giant field, with multiple goals and balls, playing against every other team simultaneously.
Actually, that might not be a bad game.
Have one ball and four goals. Each country sends just one player. There's one ball. First to score wins.
For some reason, that just brought to mind a game with ALL of the teams in the world cup, on a giant field, with multiple goals and balls, playing against every other team simultaneously.
Actually, that might not be a bad game.
Have one ball and four goals. Each country sends just one player. There's one ball. First to score wins.
Actually, I'd watch that.
Never mind. I realized a great flaw. Let's say you block someone's shot. Just turn around and put it in the net. You win! Each player would have to have one goal assigned specifically to them. It wouldn't really work unless the number of goals were equal to the number of players.
That last game was bullshit. The Ref was a yellow card handling Hitler who gave yellows for sneezing (The Rider Kick? Sure that's a Red but sometimes he was just handing them out for being Spanish/Dutch) and then he fowls up a corner call just in time for Spain to win it?!
Fuck this game, seriously, it's the Big Brother of Sports and it's frightfully unfortunate that Football ain't getting cancelled this year.
Each player would have to have one goal assigned specifically to them. It wouldn't really work unless the number of goals were equal to the number of players.
Comments
Well deserved for Spain, Netherlands tried nothing in the game except kick as much as possible. Congrats to my motherland :P
The World Cup champion was decided by a single "final" game. Only one game. Given that scores of 1-0 are entirely common, it is reasonable to believe that two equally skilled teams would have many 1-0 games. If each team should, on average, score against the other team every 120 minutes, it really boils down to who was lucky and scored before the statistical average. Even worse, what about a situation where Team A should score every 120 minutes whereas Team B should score every 130 minutes? Team A is the better team, but it is entirely possible for Team B to win a single 90 minute game by a score of 1-0. Not by better play, but by pure luck. To be sure, Team B could also win by playing better on that particular day. For this example, I am assuming that the teams played to their ability.
This is very oversimplified, but hopefully you see my point. With scoring this low, if teams are of similar skill, does the luck factor increase to an unacceptable level? Any contest that determines a champion with only one game is problematic, but it appears to be even more problematic with an extremely low scoring sport. Since Spain and the Netherlands appeared to be so darned evenly matched, is one game really sufficient to determine a "champion"? I suppose you have to make do and draw a line somewhere, but it makes a lot more sense to have a single game for sports like cricket.
Full disclosure - I am no statistician.
The World Cup, were it a board game, would be in the same class of games as Risk or Monopoly in my opinion. Fun, popular, but pointless if you want a real test of skill and understand what's going on.
Have one ball and four goals. Each country sends just one player. There's one ball. First to score wins.
Fuck this game, seriously, it's the Big Brother of Sports and it's frightfully unfortunate that Football ain't getting cancelled this year.
2. Four nets.
3. One ball.
4. Two players per country.
5. First score wins.
=P