Why Round 1 draws in World Cup?
June 12, 2010 1:37 PM Subscribe
Why are draws allowed in Round 1 of the World Cup but not in subsequent Rounds?
Seeing as 3 out of the first 5 match ups (so far) have ended in a tie, I'm not sure I see the point (it is an elimination-style tournament after all).
Thanks for any enlightenment.
Seeing as 3 out of the first 5 match ups (so far) have ended in a tie, I'm not sure I see the point (it is an elimination-style tournament after all).
Thanks for any enlightenment.
Not in the group stage. The group stage is played with a league system, where teams get zero points for a loss, one for a draw, and three for a win. The top two teams in each group advance to the next round. If necessary, there's a set of criteria used as tiebreakers.
After that it's a standard single-elimination tournament.
posted by tellumo at 1:42 PM on June 12, 2010
After that it's a standard single-elimination tournament.
posted by tellumo at 1:42 PM on June 12, 2010
As above -- Round 1 is not elimination/knock-out, but a essentially 8 mini-leagues, the top two of each progressing into the knock-out rounds.
posted by modernnomad at 1:48 PM on June 12, 2010
posted by modernnomad at 1:48 PM on June 12, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks. I understand the rules, but I don't understand the rationale in a competitive sense? Group A is right where it started from.
So far the tied matches have slowed down quite a bit after the game is tied and/or after the 80th minute rolls around. There's no urgency since neither team wants to risk a loss.
Is the mini-league format more of a tradition?
posted by DavidandConquer at 2:02 PM on June 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
So far the tied matches have slowed down quite a bit after the game is tied and/or after the 80th minute rolls around. There's no urgency since neither team wants to risk a loss.
Is the mini-league format more of a tradition?
posted by DavidandConquer at 2:02 PM on June 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
The reason FIFA organises it this way is so that every team that qualifies can play at least three games, there's a marketing angle as they want to have global marketshare. If your local team is just good enough to qualify, but not good enough to have much chance of making it very far, you'll still watch the three first round games.
posted by atrazine at 2:34 PM on June 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by atrazine at 2:34 PM on June 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
If they were all elimination games then half the teams would play one game and go home, then we would be down to the last 16 on the second game and effectively at the last 8 (quarter final stage) on the third game.
This way everyone gets to see their team play at least 3 matches before they get knocked out and go home, which makes the whole thing a lot more fun and inclusive in my book. And makes for better marketing opportunities too (cynical? moi?).
I think the sudden death element later on gives a sense of raised stakes, which I think is as it should be as the tournament progresses.
I also think you'll see more teams taking risks on a level scoreline as the group stage draws to a close as the opportunities to get the points necesssary to progress will start to dwindle.
On preview: what atrazine said.
posted by Chairboy at 2:36 PM on June 12, 2010
This way everyone gets to see their team play at least 3 matches before they get knocked out and go home, which makes the whole thing a lot more fun and inclusive in my book. And makes for better marketing opportunities too (cynical? moi?).
I think the sudden death element later on gives a sense of raised stakes, which I think is as it should be as the tournament progresses.
I also think you'll see more teams taking risks on a level scoreline as the group stage draws to a close as the opportunities to get the points necesssary to progress will start to dwindle.
On preview: what atrazine said.
posted by Chairboy at 2:36 PM on June 12, 2010
Also, who wants to travel potentially halfway around the world just to play one game?
posted by madcaptenor at 2:37 PM on June 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by madcaptenor at 2:37 PM on June 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
In my opinion, and I'm not a football fan, for any of its forms really, I like this way much better. Playing to a sudden death would be bloody, well, not literally but it would be devastating in subsequent games to both sides (as it is in tennis, and American football, and baseball often), and the whole penalty shot idea seems absurd, not really based on the skills important to the real game at all.
Being able to say, "Yes, you matched up to our skills equally (or, "you got the benefit of a keeper flub and a mobile goal post), but our skills were much better against the skill sets of team C," seems like a better argument, than saying, "OK, guess our fullbacks got a stronger leg than yours does".
At some point things do have to came down to head-to-head, but (to me) limiting that seems like a better way to compare the whole teams to each other.
posted by Some1 at 2:38 PM on June 12, 2010
Being able to say, "Yes, you matched up to our skills equally (or, "you got the benefit of a keeper flub and a mobile goal post), but our skills were much better against the skill sets of team C," seems like a better argument, than saying, "OK, guess our fullbacks got a stronger leg than yours does".
At some point things do have to came down to head-to-head, but (to me) limiting that seems like a better way to compare the whole teams to each other.
posted by Some1 at 2:38 PM on June 12, 2010
The marketing angle that atrazine mentions is correct. Everything FIFA does is geared towards making sure the "big" countries with the most marketable players make it through as far as possible in the tournament. If you started with a single elimination tournament there would be a much greater chance that say, the US would have knocked out England today in penalties which, globally, would have been disastrous for their marketing purposes.
If you even look at the qualifying for this tournament, Portugal, France, Argentina to name a few of the major countries honestly should not have even qualified for the World Cup but due to some creative seeding issues were allowed to get through on a ludicrous play off system (which France actually had to still cheat their way through to progress). The answer, with any business, is always: money. A mini-league system in the beginning usually guarantees the big teams to get through even with a disappointing result.
posted by the foreground at 2:43 PM on June 12, 2010
If you even look at the qualifying for this tournament, Portugal, France, Argentina to name a few of the major countries honestly should not have even qualified for the World Cup but due to some creative seeding issues were allowed to get through on a ludicrous play off system (which France actually had to still cheat their way through to progress). The answer, with any business, is always: money. A mini-league system in the beginning usually guarantees the big teams to get through even with a disappointing result.
posted by the foreground at 2:43 PM on June 12, 2010
Best answer: We all want to sound smartly cynical and make out that everything's about money -- and maybe it is! -- but the fact is that the tradition of groups followed by knockout stage goes back to the World Cup's low-key beginning in 1930. Then, as now, the main reason for this, as several people have pointed out above, was to ensure that teams didn't travel across the world only to play one game.
posted by cincinnatus c at 3:03 PM on June 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by cincinnatus c at 3:03 PM on June 12, 2010 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I believe it was the journey. Though there hadn't been groups in the Olympics prior to that. From what I understand a lot was done on the fly at the 1930 World Cup. The 1934 and '38 World Cups were straight up knockout tournaments. 1950 was supposed to have 4 groups of 4 teams in the first stage, but three teams withdrew and so there were 2 groups of 4, 1 group of 3, and one group with just 2 teams. The winners of those groups advanced to a final group, which Uruguay won. It wasn't until 1954 we got again the familiar group stage followed by a knockout stage. The reasons are probably somewhere in FIFA minutes, which I can't find online.
posted by Kattullus at 3:51 PM on June 12, 2010
posted by Kattullus at 3:51 PM on June 12, 2010
Fairness.
Penalty shoot outs are considered by many to be deeply unfair and unfortunately there is no alternative that is a satisfactory and fair way to decide a match. Since each team in a group stage plays three games, it is fairer to qualify a more consistent team than one that might have a single good/lucky game. In the event of a point tie, the largest goal difference will determine which team goes through to the next round.
FIFA wants to avoid penalty shoot outs as a way to decide matches where ever possible. This is why extra time is always first. Golden goal was banned years ago as it isn't fair to both teams unless they both run in each direction for the same amount of time. Other ways of deciding could be used, but part of what makes this the beautiful game is that the same rules and equipment are used by both the highest skilled pros and the youngest kids.
My not-very-serious solution is a multi-ball challenge where an extra ball is added every 10 minutes after extra time. An alternative is to remove a player from each team every 10 minutes until there is a goal difference after an even number of extra periods.
posted by dantodd at 6:52 PM on June 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
Penalty shoot outs are considered by many to be deeply unfair and unfortunately there is no alternative that is a satisfactory and fair way to decide a match. Since each team in a group stage plays three games, it is fairer to qualify a more consistent team than one that might have a single good/lucky game. In the event of a point tie, the largest goal difference will determine which team goes through to the next round.
FIFA wants to avoid penalty shoot outs as a way to decide matches where ever possible. This is why extra time is always first. Golden goal was banned years ago as it isn't fair to both teams unless they both run in each direction for the same amount of time. Other ways of deciding could be used, but part of what makes this the beautiful game is that the same rules and equipment are used by both the highest skilled pros and the youngest kids.
My not-very-serious solution is a multi-ball challenge where an extra ball is added every 10 minutes after extra time. An alternative is to remove a player from each team every 10 minutes until there is a goal difference after an even number of extra periods.
posted by dantodd at 6:52 PM on June 12, 2010 [1 favorite]
What cincinnatus c said sounds right to me.
Incidentally did you know FIFA (208) has more member states than the the UN (192)? Now that is a "world" cup!
posted by Paleoindian at 7:25 PM on June 12, 2010
Incidentally did you know FIFA (208) has more member states than the the UN (192)? Now that is a "world" cup!
posted by Paleoindian at 7:25 PM on June 12, 2010
Also, consider it this way - groups allow the best teams to go through.
Imagine in the luck of the draw you had Brazil v Argentina, and Iran v Iraq. In the knock-out format, one of Brazil or Argentina would be knocked out. But Iran or Iraq would go through. This is patently unfair, in that clearly both Argentina and Brazil would absolutely spank both Iran and Iraq.
So in the group format, Brazil might go through first, and Argentina second. Argentina would have a tougher route to the final (they would play the winner of another group, whereas Brazil would play a second-placed team), but they could still do it.
It's therefore better for the tournament as a spectacle if, when whittling down the teams initially, they take into account three matches.
This is why you'll hear of groups with three or four strong and comparative teams called the "Group of Death" - one strong team, who had they been in a weaker group, is going to get knocked out.
posted by djgh at 8:40 AM on June 13, 2010
Imagine in the luck of the draw you had Brazil v Argentina, and Iran v Iraq. In the knock-out format, one of Brazil or Argentina would be knocked out. But Iran or Iraq would go through. This is patently unfair, in that clearly both Argentina and Brazil would absolutely spank both Iran and Iraq.
So in the group format, Brazil might go through first, and Argentina second. Argentina would have a tougher route to the final (they would play the winner of another group, whereas Brazil would play a second-placed team), but they could still do it.
It's therefore better for the tournament as a spectacle if, when whittling down the teams initially, they take into account three matches.
This is why you'll hear of groups with three or four strong and comparative teams called the "Group of Death" - one strong team, who had they been in a weaker group, is going to get knocked out.
posted by djgh at 8:40 AM on June 13, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by fire&wings at 1:39 PM on June 12, 2010