THE IDIOTS (and Kilarney) FROM THE USA ARE BACK, PANIC!
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?
Nope.
is one game really sufficient to determine a "champion"?
Yup. It's football, part of the course. Last time we won with 3-2 or something like that against Spain. If you fail to cash in on your shots at goal, you won't score, if you do, it's easy to score several goals.
You're free to enjoy "Kick the Ball into the Net Monopoly," but we have a more refined palette for games. We require randomness to be mitigated by tests of skill.
You're free to enjoy "Kick the Ball into the Net Monopoly," but we have a more refined palette for games. We require randomness to be mitigated by tests of skill.
Immediately following this statement, he slapped his butler with an ermine glove, for bringing him a Montrachet 1978 that was two degrees too cold. The butler was offended, but he kept quiet and smiled a thin smile to himself, because unbeknownst to him, the Montrachet had been shared between the rest of the house staff, and the bottle was actually goon that cost four bucks for a four litre box, kept under the sink when not in use. That had been a good night, that night, and be damned if he hadn't given that perky little maid who took care of the ornaments a night to remember.
You guys forget that the teams that make it to the world cup have played many games before and came out victorious in all or most games. After the cup starts the competitors may only loose about one game and in the first round. So if you get to the finals it means you won at least 8Th, quarter and semi-finals in a row. So you can compare that result to all teams instead of focusing on a 1x1 match. It is no lucky shot to play a world cup final. Does that make sense at all to anyone else but me?
Previous performance has no bearing. The actual champion is determined by the one final game only. This just backs up my point. A one game championship for soccer is absurd.
I understand that the weak teams can't get to the final game. My point assumes two strong teams in the final game.
Previous performance has no bearing. The actual champion is determined by the one final game only. This just backs up my point. A one game championship for soccer is absurd.
Sports Caveman calls Sports Spaceman Idiot, more at 11.
Not really, more like two sport cavemen grunt at each other, suspected to be calling each other stupid. Only fans of Either the latter caveman or the sport they're grunting about give any sort of shit.
Previous performance has no bearing. The actual champion is determined by the one final game only. This just backs up my point. A one game championship for soccer is absurd.
I understand that the weak teams can't get to the final game. My point assumes two strong teams in the final game.
I think you are crazy. The champion is not determined by one game like I said. At least 4 games. Same goes for the Olympics.
I agree that it's a tournament, you have to win many games in a row without losing to be the champion. Plenty of tournaments work on the single elimination mechanism, and it's not a problem as long as the field is large enough. The fact that they even have a group round rather than having the entire tournament be single elimination makes it even more fair.
That being said, if the final championship was best 2/3, it would be fucking epic.
You do realize the problem with these two statements in the same context, right?
Sports Caveman calls Sports Spaceman Idiot, more at 11.
Actually, it's an idiot stating he knows nothing of the thing discussed and then continues to talk about the thing while claiming he's right and knows how to improve it. Scrym's basically saying that bananas have orange coloured skins that have to be peeled with knives, boil for 20 minutes and serve with a barbecue sauce, then they claim that serving it with two slices of wine makes it better. I mean, for fuck's sake, in Rym's mind football is in the same class as Monopoly, does that not tell you enough about his understanding of the game?
I mean, for fuck's sake, in Rym's mind football is in the same class as Monopoly, does that not tell you enough about his understanding of the game?
I don't know, some of those ref decisions seem poor enough that you'd almost do better with a pair of dice.
He's a broken record. This whole thread he's been saying the same thing, but never "corrects" them on what they don't understand. Sounds like a no true scotsman argument to me.
He's a broken record. This whole thread he's been saying the same thing, but never "corrects" them on what they don't understand. Sounds like a no true scotsman argument to me.
Correct, but he's also right in that Scrym are essentially talking gibberish. It's a stalemate of stupid at this point.
Shit, I've packed up my life into boxes and bags, Moved back to my home country, unpacked, and settled in - all in less time than they've been in this goddamn stupid stalemate where both parties are equally convinced of their superiority over the other, also, that they're right.
Allow me to summarise the entire argument, both previous and in the future for you, no matter how long it goes on -
*Scrym make a stupid statement* Nine - No, You're stupid! Scrym - No, You're stupid! We're clearly superior to you! Nine - No, You're stupid, and wrong. Scrym - No, You're stupid! We're clearly superior to you! Nine - No, You're stupid, and wrong. Scrym - No, You're stupid! We're clearly superior to you! Nine - No, You're stupid, and wrong.
Repeat till one side loses interest in this boring, pointless farce, and both sides retire to their respective dressing rooms absolutely convinced they won.
Correct, but he's also right in that Scrym are essentially talking gibberish. It's a stalemate of stupid at this point.
Then you clearly have no understanding of game theory.
My point remains uncontested: that subjective and imperfect refereeing, coupled with the lack of an ability to correct verifiable referee mistakes, reduces the weight of skill in the core test of soccer, in favor instead of luck.
No one has contested this, and this is the core of my argument.
Or heavy heavy biases. The fact that a ref can call a penalty and not have to explain himself - and the fact that decisions are not reversed - allows the ref to effectively decide the game independent of the players.
It's like having a GM who just railroads the PC's. Your decisions are rendered meaningless.
Or heavy heavy biases. The fact that a ref can call a penalty and not have to explain himself - and the fact that decisions are not reversed - allows the ref to effectively decide the game independent of the players.
It's like having a GM who just railroads the PC's. Your decisions are rendered meaningless.
This is a good point. What if a group of refs decided to be evil and make a particular team win? They'd be punished after the fact, but there is no way for FIFA to render an objectively incorrect decision invalid for the game itself? What if all of the refs just agree to red card a random player on one team every few minutes? What if they just choose to never call offsides on one team?
Then you clearly have no understanding of game theory.
And my prediction is so far bearing out, and as always, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that you're a Pretentious, self-important jackass. If you want a more relevant statement, it is thus - Game theory doesn't matter a thin streak of pelican piss unless you know what you're talking about in regards to soccer too, in this case. What's next, Rym, That you understand more about the stock market than I do means that you're better with a rifle?
My point remains uncontested: that subjective and imperfect refereeing, coupled with the lack of an ability to correct verifiable referee mistakes, reduces the weight of skill in the core test of soccer, in favor instead of luck.
I can't be bothered to turn your three way dick measuring competition into a four way, and thus, I'm not really willing to go back and gather enough materiel(if there is any) to form an argument against this, so I'll just say this - Uncontested doesn't mean Correct.
Game theory doesn't matter a thin streak of pelican piss unless you know what you're talking about in regards to soccer too, in this case. What's next, Rym, That you understand more about the stock market than I do means that you're better with a rifle?
Soccer is a game. Soccer, by all definitions, limits the influence of skill by allowing subjecting officiating. Do you disagree with this statement?
You can argue all you want that you personally want something particular from soccer. Your utility is different. I prefer a test of skill. My utility is a skill contest. If your utility doesn't match mine, then we won't like the same games. That's fine. There's no point in arguing over utility if multiple people are seeking different things.
My only argument is the statement above, that you continue to fail to address. You keep making emotional arguments stemming from your own personal utility, which isn't even contested. You're conflating all sorts of irrelevant arguments. I don't disagree with you on anything but personal utility (which is fine) and you haven't addressed the fact that soccer's core test diminishes skill in favor of randomness. That's the only argument I'm making. The rest is personal preference.
Soccer is Monopoly. Fundamentally, they do the same thing. You choose to attach cultural baggage to it. You choose to also care about tradition and all of these other things. I care only about the game. The game itself does not test the skill I'm interested in. The game itself is skewed to luck. The game itself is flawed if your utility is an even, practically stateless contest of soccer skill.
My point remains uncontested: that subjective and imperfect refereeing, coupled with the lack of an ability to correct verifiable referee mistakes, reduces the weight of skill in the core test of soccer, in favor instead of luck.
No one has contested this, and this is the core of my argument.
Ultra cheap trick, Rym. You're posing a far weaker form of your argument as the point you want people to argue against.
I definitely agree that subjective refereeing introduces an element of luck into the game, and that this element is undesirable and should be fixed by making refereeing more objective. Nonetheless, the question remains - how large is this element of luck?
You're saying that Soccer equals Monopoly, which implies that luck makes up the majority of the game. That is what people should be arguing against, not just "reducing the weight of skill", no?
Soccer is a game. Soccer, by all definitions, limits the influence of skill by allowing subjecting officiating. Do you disagree with this statement?
The stock market is a market. People buy and sell quantities of things there. Do you disagree with these statements?
So tell me, Rym, Where do I set up my stall?
It's got a lovely awning, I really think it'd pretty up the trading floor. Oh, Maybe it's not that sort of market. In that case, where do I put my cattle so people can see them? Can I sell train-cars there, too? Seems a little small to display a train car for sale, to me. After all, it's a stock market. Stock is bought and sold there. I want to sell my stock, specifically, livestock and Rolling stock, and this is a stock market.
What you're forgetting, it appears, is that Game theory is essentially applied mathematics, and is the study of rational behaviour broken down into strategic decisions. The more I look up and learn about game theory, the more it appears that you are rather misapplying game theory - and it doesn't matter how big and fancy your hammer is, if you should be using a spanner. And considering that Game theory is the study of how people interact and make decisions, and how to capture, describe, predict and/or optimise player behaviour in strategic situations, I think it's time to put the hammer away, Rym, at least till you know how you can actually apply it to soccer, if you even can.
I mean, seriously, Rym, I can't remember if you studied game theory at RIT or if you picked it up as you went along in fits and spurts - but I'm leaning toward the second option, because you don't seem to grasp that the word Game in Game theory doesn't mean that it's just perfect to be thrown at every single game(in the sense of, say, a board game, or a sport) in ever sense from the broadest to the narrowest as some sort of perfect fix-all for anything you don't like about a game, let alone that it's a particularly poor theory to apply to a Sport, since game theory has the problem of assuming every player in the game is essentially an identical robot, with no personality or emotions, and no consideration to physical limitations, or skill.
Now, enough of that, time for the bit where I'm in my element - the bit where I insult you and make fun of you a little. Pay attention, there are some valid points buried in here which you should pay attention to.
My only argument is the statement above, that you continue to fail to address
I never even attempted to address it in the first place, because I wasn't making an argument, I was making fun of you, Scott, Nine, whoever else was involved, and the argument itself. Unless you chose to take "Rym, You're a pretentious, self important jackass" as an argument, and if that is the case, one I defy you to disprove.
You keep making emotional arguments
I've pretty much made no arguments, kemosabe. I've made fun of you, and told you that you don't know anything about soccer, and the obvious, in that just because something is uncontested, doesn't mean that it's right - a statement I'd love to see you try and make a bullshit argument to refute. Or, to put it in the style of a hokey old martial arts movie, you're trying to cut the wind, grashoppah. You swing and swing and swing, but there's nothing there to hit.
Fundamentally, they do the same thing.
So, Oh great master - What do they actually do? What is the function they perform that is identical? Please, Tell me EXACTLY AND IN DETAIL how Monopoly and Soccer are the same thing, Other than that they share the distinction of your pretentious disdain. No, I'm not kidding, really do tell me exactly how they are the same.
You choose to attach cultural baggage to it. You choose to also care about tradition and all of these other things.
Oh! Alas! Your Rapier like wit and keen observational skills have failed you again, as you forgot two important facts! Firstly, you seem to have forgotten that I'm an Australian, Not european, and Second of all, you seem to forget that the rest of the world is not "Europe" and "Asia" you pretentious, ignorant American. The only cultural baggage that comes with soccer within my culture, is that you barrack for the Australian team customarily, and the kiwis if we get knocked out. Amusingly, out of all the nations in the world cup you could have picked other than you own, I think you'd struggle to find a nation that gives less of a fuck about soccer as anything other than a fun sport to play or watch. Cultural Baggage? You Ignorant, presumptuous idiot, I don't even have a cultural passport case for soccer. You are literally thinking of a large area that is on the other side of the planet, for the most part.
Tradition? FUCK tradition. I couldn't give two shits about the tradition of soccer. The most care and attention I've paid to it was researching the traditions of soccer to make sure I was getting it correct, in making fun of and pulling apart a particularly bad argument, made by someone else, about three pages ago. I don't even chose to watch the fucking game most of the time, which is even less concern than the "Pay attention at big, special events" level of concern you seem to show. I'm just here to make fun of things, mostly poor arguments, and the people arguing them, but also soccer and the world cup, when I could be bothered.
I care only about the game. The game itself does not test the skill I'm interested in.
I point out that these two statements are contradictory - You don't care about the game. You care about some other, fantasy game that DOES test the skill you're interested in, but since soccer is the closest thing to your fantasy game, you pay attention to that instead.
The game itself is skewed to luck.
Define Luck. Say, if a goalie misses a shot from a striker, is that the bad luck of the goalie, or is it that his skill is lesser than the striker, or just that his skill failed him on that occurance? Or if it's the striker's luck overwhelming the goalie's, giving him the result? Furthermore, show how to eliminate luck without it becoming a different game, how it is randomness over skill to the point where skill is less relevant than luck, and how to actually reduce the amount of luck in a game where so many of the variables are human, and can be affected by outside factors that don't relate to the game, to the point they aren't even really metagame - for example, your players are not locked in boxes when you finish the game, and are only taken out at training and games.
So, pop quiz, hot shot. Your best striker broke his leg in a car crash while driving back to the hotel after having lunch on one of his off days. Your Goalie? Hit by a car crossing the street. It's not part of the game, not something you can control. But it's had a direct effect on your chances in the game. Bad luck ruining your chances in the game? Or can you surmount that with another bout of game theory, and make it work in the real world? Time's ticking away now, hotshot, what do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?
Look, you know what I think? I think you don't actually like or care about soccer at all. You like and care about some fantasy game in your head that uses the skills of soccer, but has nothing to do with the game, or honestly, even reality. But soccer is close enough that you'll watch it, and then bitch about how it's not the fantasy game that you want, when you forget that there are other solutions, such as don't watch soccer, invent your fantasy game, watch the fucking soccer and stop complaining about something that you have no power to change, and really, you won't ever. Calling your fantasy game soccer, and using soccer skills, doesn't make it the same as the soccer that everyone else watches, nor does it make your arguments reasonable or useful.
As a final note to head off any arguments about emotion or getting angry, or whatever else - I don't give a damn about soccer, or this argument. You don't seem to quite grasp the immensity of the fuck I do no give, here. This is purely idle amusement for me, mostly just in taking the piss. This is nothing more than showboating, grandstanding to stave of boredom, with a dash of the dozens thrown in for luck.
Highlight Below for the TL:DR version: There is no TL:DR version, you lazy bastard. Read the fucking thing if you're interested, don't go looking for easy summaries.
I agree that getting to the finals involves substantially less luck. The odds of winning several games in a row by luck is obviously less than winning a single game by luck.
But the point still stands. What happened in the past has no bearing on what "luck" may happen during the next game. It's the same with a coin. If you've flipped "heads" ten times in a row, your odds of flipping "tails" on the next flip is still 50%. The past has no bearing on the next flip. I suppose with the World Cup, the only relevance is that the teams that tend to make it to the final are amongst the best teams in the tournament. But so what? My whole argument assumes two very qualified teams. I'm not suggesting that the teams are not deserving of the finals. I am merely pointing out a problem between two well qualified teams.
So, again. You have two teams. Team A should score against Team B every 120 minutes. Team B should score against Team A every 130 minutes. Team A is the better team. Period. Nonetheless, the winner of that single 90 minute game may merely be the team that was lucky enough to score before the statistical average.
Perhaps a comparison is in order. In basketball (and I am no fan of professional basketball for other reasons), the winner of any particular game is almost always the team that played better that night. You can't get "lucky" and score 100 points. You have to earn the vast majority of them. I understand that you have to earn a goal in soccer too. But when teams score so infrequently, there seems to be an unacceptable windfall given to the team that scores before the statistical average. Is that skill or luck? Seems like too much luck to me.
As for the referee, there are many sports that share the same problem. You can always study the referee and adapt your game accordingly. Other than that, it just goes with the territory. Basketball, hockey, football, baseball all suffer from the same problem. I'm willing to accept the problem, since it is a necessary evil to give us some great sports. As much as I love curling, not every sport should be just like curling. ;-)
One other observation. One of the most dramatic times in sports is when a clock is ticking down to zero. Soccer needs to reconfigure the implementation of injury time.
To be clear, I am not saying that soccer is a terrible sport. I think it's got a ton of potential. I just see some problem areas that prevent me from becoming a fan of the sport.
Comments
>still doesn't understand football
OHUIDIOT.jpg
I understand that the weak teams can't get to the final game. My point assumes two strong teams in the final game.
That being said, if the final championship was best 2/3, it would be fucking epic.
Shit, I've packed up my life into boxes and bags, Moved back to my home country, unpacked, and settled in - all in less time than they've been in this goddamn stupid stalemate where both parties are equally convinced of their superiority over the other, also, that they're right.
Allow me to summarise the entire argument, both previous and in the future for you, no matter how long it goes on -
*Scrym make a stupid statement*
Nine - No, You're stupid!
Scrym - No, You're stupid! We're clearly superior to you!
Nine - No, You're stupid, and wrong.
Scrym - No, You're stupid! We're clearly superior to you!
Nine - No, You're stupid, and wrong.
Scrym - No, You're stupid! We're clearly superior to you!
Nine - No, You're stupid, and wrong.
Repeat till one side loses interest in this boring, pointless farce, and both sides retire to their respective dressing rooms absolutely convinced they won.
My point remains uncontested: that subjective and imperfect refereeing, coupled with the lack of an ability to correct verifiable referee mistakes, reduces the weight of skill in the core test of soccer, in favor instead of luck.
No one has contested this, and this is the core of my argument.
It's like having a GM who just railroads the PC's. Your decisions are rendered meaningless.
If you want a more relevant statement, it is thus - Game theory doesn't matter a thin streak of pelican piss unless you know what you're talking about in regards to soccer too, in this case.
What's next, Rym, That you understand more about the stock market than I do means that you're better with a rifle? I can't be bothered to turn your three way dick measuring competition into a four way, and thus, I'm not really willing to go back and gather enough materiel(if there is any) to form an argument against this, so I'll just say this - Uncontested doesn't mean Correct.
You can argue all you want that you personally want something particular from soccer. Your utility is different. I prefer a test of skill. My utility is a skill contest. If your utility doesn't match mine, then we won't like the same games. That's fine. There's no point in arguing over utility if multiple people are seeking different things.
My only argument is the statement above, that you continue to fail to address. You keep making emotional arguments stemming from your own personal utility, which isn't even contested. You're conflating all sorts of irrelevant arguments. I don't disagree with you on anything but personal utility (which is fine) and you haven't addressed the fact that soccer's core test diminishes skill in favor of randomness. That's the only argument I'm making. The rest is personal preference.
Soccer is Monopoly. Fundamentally, they do the same thing. You choose to attach cultural baggage to it. You choose to also care about tradition and all of these other things. I care only about the game. The game itself does not test the skill I'm interested in. The game itself is skewed to luck. The game itself is flawed if your utility is an even, practically stateless contest of soccer skill. I defy you to argue against it.
I definitely agree that subjective refereeing introduces an element of luck into the game, and that this element is undesirable and should be fixed by making refereeing more objective. Nonetheless, the question remains - how large is this element of luck?
You're saying that Soccer equals Monopoly, which implies that luck makes up the majority of the game. That is what people should be arguing against, not just "reducing the weight of skill", no?
So tell me, Rym, Where do I set up my stall?
It's got a lovely awning, I really think it'd pretty up the trading floor. Oh, Maybe it's not that sort of market. In that case, where do I put my cattle so people can see them? Can I sell train-cars there, too? Seems a little small to display a train car for sale, to me. After all, it's a stock market. Stock is bought and sold there. I want to sell my stock, specifically, livestock and Rolling stock, and this is a stock market.
What you're forgetting, it appears, is that Game theory is essentially applied mathematics, and is the study of rational behaviour broken down into strategic decisions. The more I look up and learn about game theory, the more it appears that you are rather misapplying game theory - and it doesn't matter how big and fancy your hammer is, if you should be using a spanner. And considering that Game theory is the study of how people interact and make decisions, and how to capture, describe, predict and/or optimise player behaviour in strategic situations, I think it's time to put the hammer away, Rym, at least till you know how you can actually apply it to soccer, if you even can.
I mean, seriously, Rym, I can't remember if you studied game theory at RIT or if you picked it up as you went along in fits and spurts - but I'm leaning toward the second option, because you don't seem to grasp that the word Game in Game theory doesn't mean that it's just perfect to be thrown at every single game(in the sense of, say, a board game, or a sport) in ever sense from the broadest to the narrowest as some sort of perfect fix-all for anything you don't like about a game, let alone that it's a particularly poor theory to apply to a Sport, since game theory has the problem of assuming every player in the game is essentially an identical robot, with no personality or emotions, and no consideration to physical limitations, or skill.
Now, enough of that, time for the bit where I'm in my element - the bit where I insult you and make fun of you a little. Pay attention, there are some valid points buried in here which you should pay attention to. I never even attempted to address it in the first place, because I wasn't making an argument, I was making fun of you, Scott, Nine, whoever else was involved, and the argument itself. Unless you chose to take "Rym, You're a pretentious, self important jackass" as an argument, and if that is the case, one I defy you to disprove. I've pretty much made no arguments, kemosabe. I've made fun of you, and told you that you don't know anything about soccer, and the obvious, in that just because something is uncontested, doesn't mean that it's right - a statement I'd love to see you try and make a bullshit argument to refute. Or, to put it in the style of a hokey old martial arts movie, you're trying to cut the wind, grashoppah. You swing and swing and swing, but there's nothing there to hit. So, Oh great master - What do they actually do? What is the function they perform that is identical? Please, Tell me EXACTLY AND IN DETAIL how Monopoly and Soccer are the same thing, Other than that they share the distinction of your pretentious disdain. No, I'm not kidding, really do tell me exactly how they are the same. Oh! Alas! Your Rapier like wit and keen observational skills have failed you again, as you forgot two important facts!
Firstly, you seem to have forgotten that I'm an Australian, Not european, and Second of all, you seem to forget that the rest of the world is not "Europe" and "Asia" you pretentious, ignorant American. The only cultural baggage that comes with soccer within my culture, is that you barrack for the Australian team customarily, and the kiwis if we get knocked out. Amusingly, out of all the nations in the world cup you could have picked other than you own, I think you'd struggle to find a nation that gives less of a fuck about soccer as anything other than a fun sport to play or watch.
Cultural Baggage? You Ignorant, presumptuous idiot, I don't even have a cultural passport case for soccer. You are literally thinking of a large area that is on the other side of the planet, for the most part.
Tradition? FUCK tradition. I couldn't give two shits about the tradition of soccer. The most care and attention I've paid to it was researching the traditions of soccer to make sure I was getting it correct, in making fun of and pulling apart a particularly bad argument, made by someone else, about three pages ago. I don't even chose to watch the fucking game most of the time, which is even less concern than the "Pay attention at big, special events" level of concern you seem to show.
I'm just here to make fun of things, mostly poor arguments, and the people arguing them, but also soccer and the world cup, when I could be bothered. I point out that these two statements are contradictory - You don't care about the game. You care about some other, fantasy game that DOES test the skill you're interested in, but since soccer is the closest thing to your fantasy game, you pay attention to that instead. Define Luck. Say, if a goalie misses a shot from a striker, is that the bad luck of the goalie, or is it that his skill is lesser than the striker, or just that his skill failed him on that occurance? Or if it's the striker's luck overwhelming the goalie's, giving him the result? Furthermore, show how to eliminate luck without it becoming a different game, how it is randomness over skill to the point where skill is less relevant than luck, and how to actually reduce the amount of luck in a game where so many of the variables are human, and can be affected by outside factors that don't relate to the game, to the point they aren't even really metagame - for example, your players are not locked in boxes when you finish the game, and are only taken out at training and games.
So, pop quiz, hot shot. Your best striker broke his leg in a car crash while driving back to the hotel after having lunch on one of his off days. Your Goalie? Hit by a car crossing the street. It's not part of the game, not something you can control. But it's had a direct effect on your chances in the game. Bad luck ruining your chances in the game? Or can you surmount that with another bout of game theory, and make it work in the real world? Time's ticking away now, hotshot, what do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO?
Look, you know what I think? I think you don't actually like or care about soccer at all. You like and care about some fantasy game in your head that uses the skills of soccer, but has nothing to do with the game, or honestly, even reality.
But soccer is close enough that you'll watch it, and then bitch about how it's not the fantasy game that you want, when you forget that there are other solutions, such as don't watch soccer, invent your fantasy game, watch the fucking soccer and stop complaining about something that you have no power to change, and really, you won't ever. Calling your fantasy game soccer, and using soccer skills, doesn't make it the same as the soccer that everyone else watches, nor does it make your arguments reasonable or useful.
As a final note to head off any arguments about emotion or getting angry, or whatever else - I don't give a damn about soccer, or this argument. You don't seem to quite grasp the immensity of the fuck I do no give, here. This is purely idle amusement for me, mostly just in taking the piss. This is nothing more than showboating, grandstanding to stave of boredom, with a dash of the dozens thrown in for luck.
Highlight Below for the TL:DR version:
There is no TL:DR version, you lazy bastard. Read the fucking thing if you're interested, don't go looking for easy summaries.
But the point still stands. What happened in the past has no bearing on what "luck" may happen during the next game. It's the same with a coin. If you've flipped "heads" ten times in a row, your odds of flipping "tails" on the next flip is still 50%. The past has no bearing on the next flip. I suppose with the World Cup, the only relevance is that the teams that tend to make it to the final are amongst the best teams in the tournament. But so what? My whole argument assumes two very qualified teams. I'm not suggesting that the teams are not deserving of the finals. I am merely pointing out a problem between two well qualified teams.
So, again. You have two teams. Team A should score against Team B every 120 minutes. Team B should score against Team A every 130 minutes. Team A is the better team. Period. Nonetheless, the winner of that single 90 minute game may merely be the team that was lucky enough to score before the statistical average.
Perhaps a comparison is in order. In basketball (and I am no fan of professional basketball for other reasons), the winner of any particular game is almost always the team that played better that night. You can't get "lucky" and score 100 points. You have to earn the vast majority of them. I understand that you have to earn a goal in soccer too. But when teams score so infrequently, there seems to be an unacceptable windfall given to the team that scores before the statistical average. Is that skill or luck? Seems like too much luck to me.
As for the referee, there are many sports that share the same problem. You can always study the referee and adapt your game accordingly. Other than that, it just goes with the territory. Basketball, hockey, football, baseball all suffer from the same problem. I'm willing to accept the problem, since it is a necessary evil to give us some great sports. As much as I love curling, not every sport should be just like curling. ;-)
One other observation. One of the most dramatic times in sports is when a clock is ticking down to zero. Soccer needs to reconfigure the implementation of injury time.
To be clear, I am not saying that soccer is a terrible sport. I think it's got a ton of potential. I just see some problem areas that prevent me from becoming a fan of the sport.