this is what it looked like at end of Japan Poland game and Japan losing 1-0 but set to advance to next round as long as they didn't give up another goal or if Senegal didn't score in other game.
https://twitter.com/_AndyHa/status/1012363382337556482
Yet they advance on "fair play" points. They made a mockery of the game and are rewarded for "fair play"= less yellow cards.
Wish FIFA would kick them out and put Senegal in the next round.
The he'll with Senegal, they made a mockery of it with their cheap goal against Poland.
I don't really understand the fair play tiebreak. Why not just advance whichever team won the head-to-head matchup?
because they played to a draw
the video i posted above is of some other match that was similar.
here is japan - poland
https://twitter.com/AlaminAzahar94/status/1012367656849215488
poland is the one you should be mad about. if poland isn't trying, why should japan when they are in a qualifying position? if poland scores again, japan is out
your quarrel wrote:
poland is the one you should be mad about. if poland isn't trying, why should japan when they are in a qualifying position? if poland scores again, japan is out
I too didn't understand why Poland wasn't going for another goal? I mean they were already eliminated so if you are Polish forward why not be selfish and go for a goal. Who cares if it leaves you vulnerable for a counter?
I was wondering if there was some sort of financial incentive - do POlish players get paid more if they win a game?
rojo wrote:
your quarrel wrote:
poland is the one you should be mad about. if poland isn't trying, why should japan when they are in a qualifying position? if poland scores again, japan is out
I too didn't understand why Poland wasn't going for another goal? I mean they were already eliminated so if you are Polish forward why not be selfish and go for a goal. Who cares if it leaves you vulnerable for a counter?
I was wondering if there was some sort of financial incentive - do POlish players get paid more if they win a game?
Possibly due to the nature of the Poland/Senegal game? Some diving that the Polish didn't like and that second goal, probably wanted Japan to advance over Senegal.
Cards are subjective, some refs are more lenient than others. CR7 should have been red carded against Iran (the other way around, it sure would ahve been a red) in Portugals last game (it might even changed the outcome). This is a typical show of bias towards a more famous player.
There is also the fact that refs can be biased against bigger players, they are (that's my opinion) likely to sanction more reeadily a foul comitted by a bigger player on a smaller on than the reverse.
Japan, in their first match, played one man up against against Colombia during the whole game, because of a Colombian brain lapse with a ridiculous handball, which means that they had no incentives to foul for the rest of the game in order to keep their numerical superiority.
Fouls or yellow cards are not always due to vicious play, sometimes their are tactical and necessary. That's why I think that this mode of selection is obviously very flawed (too much discretionnary power for the ref).
At the end of the day fair play to them, but what we've seen at the end of the Poland's game shows than this mode of selection is a little bit ridiculous and that allegedly "fair play" teams can be ruthlessly vicious
rojo wrote:
your quarrel wrote:
poland is the one you should be mad about. if poland isn't trying, why should japan when they are in a qualifying position? if poland scores again, japan is out
I too didn't understand why Poland wasn't going for another goal? I mean they were already eliminated so if you are Polish forward why not be selfish and go for a goal. Who cares if it leaves you vulnerable for a counter?
I was wondering if there was some sort of financial incentive - do POlish players get paid more if they win a game?
Why would you make yourself vulnerable to a counter when you have a GUARANTEED win and can at least say you won a game, to save face.
So what should the tiebreaker had been? Because if they both had the same number of yellow cards, the only tiebreaker left was a coin toss.
ZidaneValor wrote:
So what should the tiebreaker had been? Because if they both had the same number of yellow cards, the only tiebreaker left was a coin toss.
There are lots of other stats they could use. Number of shots on goal, number of corner kicks, etc...
Yellow card tiebreaker is absurd and way too subjective. And it directly led to farce in the Japan game.
They could easily have a penalty shoot-out the next day. Much fairer.
It's soccer. Who cares?
So what? Everyone knew the rules beforehand. Since they fouled less they were compensated for that, seems fair. Did you see the last 20 minutes of Brazil vs Serbia?
Do you see many 1500m heats going under 3:30? The idea is to spend the least amount of energy possible for the final.
Agreed that the tiebreakers should change.
Disagreed that Japan should be embarrassed or did anything wrong.
I watched both matches at the same time (Sen/Col and Jpn/Pol) and found the drama to be riveting. Poland's (Lewandowski) very near miss for a second goal in the 74th minute is basically what scared the crap out of Japan into a prevent defense (once they found out Colombia scored at about the same time). Frankly, I don't blame them and would probably do the same. It's not like Poland was trying hard to challenge either.
This was disgraceful, as was the lack of effort by England and Belgium, where they didn't even send out their first nine on either side. For foul play detractions, I would take from Germany for its strategy of tackling any players on breakaways.
Just as in track there is a rule concerning effort (fair effort, I just blanked on it), so it should be in soccer, so no starting all or virtually all subs and a genuine effort is required or there is a forfeit and loss of advancement. That is already why they limited passes to goalies and made teams in the same group play at the same time in the third game and in qualifying.
another runner wrote:
ZidaneValor wrote:
So what should the tiebreaker had been? Because if they both had the same number of yellow cards, the only tiebreaker left was a coin toss.
There are lots of other stats they could use. Number of shots on goal, number of corner kicks, etc...
Nearly all tie breakers in all sports are arbitrary. I think the best is better strength of schedule. But that can't be used in pool play (round 1 of FIFA), because tied teams would have the same strength of schedule.
They use goal differential, then number of goals scored, then head to head, then fair play, then coin toss. Each tie breaker has weaknesses and isn't necessarily choosing the better or more deserving team.
zxcvzxcv wrote:
This was disgraceful, as was the lack of effort by England and Belgium, where they didn't even send out their first nine on either side. For foul play detractions, I would take from Germany for its strategy of tackling any players on breakaways.
Just as in track there is a rule concerning effort (fair effort, I just blanked on it), so it should be in soccer, so no starting all or virtually all subs and a genuine effort is required or there is a forfeit and loss of advancement. That is already why they limited passes to goalies and made teams in the same group play at the same time in the third game and in qualifying.
Nah, wrong.
There are 23 players on a World Cup squad. Teams are well within their rights to play any of them.
It's not like a club side fielding their Under 19s for a League Cup match.