Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mongoose on June 21, 2014, 07:43:42 pm
-
A headline on my homepage described Ghana playing Germany to a "thrilling draw"...which at least in this sports fan's mind is a pretty huge oxymoron.
-
A headline on my homepage described Ghana playing Germany to a "thrilling draw"...which at least in this sports fan's mind is a pretty huge oxymoron.
Do you need to have a winner and a loser for it to be interesting to you?
-
...yes.
-
...yes.
Why?
-
Because if it's possible for neither team to come away with a victory both teams are disappointed.
-
Because if a game finishes in a tie, it's essentially the equivalent of saying, "Woo! We just played 90 minutes and nothing of consequence happened!" You go in the same way you come out, and it feels like everyone wasted their time. Scotty and I aren't alone in this feeling: there's an old American colloquialism that a tie is like kissing your sister. :D
-
Because if a game finishes in a tie, it's essentially the equivalent of saying, "Woo! We just played 90 minutes and nothing of consequence happened!"
A tie in football can be just as important as a victory or defeat in a tournament setting. When you look beyond individual games and see the progression of the cup as a whole, a tie can actually make things a lot more exciting than playing every match to a win-loss conclusion. But in the end it's all just down to the tournament setting. Football tournaments traditionally allow ties in knock-out stages with 1-1 point distribution, while for example ice hockey tournament matches are played to a conclusion: A draw on full time yields both teams one point, and victory on overtime or penalties adds one point. It's just a different way to distribute the points.
Clearly, any actually important football matches are played to a conclusion, finding a winner either on overtime or penalties. And I prefer that - I think if they started playing overtimes and penalties on every game that ends in a draw, that would somewhat diminish the excitement and special characteristics of both overtimes and penalty kicks.
there's an old American colloquialism that a tie is like kissing your sister.
Does this colloquialism originate from Union or Confederate states
-
By all accounts it was coined by a Michigan State University coach, so a Union state, surprisingly. Or perhaps not surprisingly, depending on your perspective.
-
What I don't understand is how anyone can claim a game can't be thrilling just because it's a tie. What, if two teams are tied at 90 minutes and the game ends the whole thing was boring, but if they're tied for 90 minutes and one team scores a goal that somehow renders the whole game exciting? Or vice versa.
A game is so much more than just the outcome, that's why people like to watch them, not just check the results online. And ties can have great consequences in a tournament, as Herra Tohtori pointed out.
-
What I don't understand is how anyone can claim a game can't be thrilling just because it's a tie. What, if two teams are tied at 90 minutes and the game ends the whole thing was boring, but if they're tied for 90 minutes and one team scores a goal that somehow renders the whole game exciting? Or vice versa.
A game is so much more than just the outcome, that's why people like to watch them, not just check the results online. And ties can have great consequences in a tournament, as Herra Tohtori pointed out.
Yeah, I don't get it. Preferring winners and losers is one thing, I know American sports all seem to have winners and losers, and ties get broken, but how a tie can render a game not entertaining I don't get.
@ Scotty / Mongoose
Also, often both teams are not unhappy with a draw. An underdog will be happy with a draw, a team on a similar level to another team might well be happy to come out of an away fixture with a draw, and occasionally, a draw can suit both teams. If it sees both advance from a qualifying group for instance.
I would say you can even have a thrilling goalless draw. Not often, but it happens. If Messi hadn't scored, and it finished Argentina 0 Iran 0, while thrilling would have been going too far as the first half was drab, it would still have been an entertainng game for me, and easily in the top half of games when it pertains to entertainment value that have been played in this tournament so far for me.
Do you think Iran would have come out of the Argentina game feeling they'd wasted their time with a draw?
-
I don't really want to derail the discussion any further, but suffice it to say that I think it's very much a cultural thing. In the US, a given team perceived as playing not to lose, instead of playing to win, would be viewed as cowardly (and from a practical standpoint, playing not to lose is often the very best way to wind up losing). Case in point: our men's national team coach took a lot of public flak last week when he stated that the US "can't win a World Cup right now." It's certainly factually true, but it was viewed by many as an almost un-American sentiment (the coach is of German nationality), because it goes against the whole idea of "any given Sunday." America loves an underdog, and our best sports movies are full of "little teams that could" defying the odds and winning a big game or championship. To say up front that you don't expect to have any chance at winning seemed like a very defeatist attitude to most people. I think that's the same light in which we'd look at being excited about a tie and be left scratching our heads.
-
I'd like to talk more about it if you don't mind. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions, I'm just interested in talking about the differences in the way we see it. You could split the thread and we can chat about it, or leave it, and I'll stop talking. Up to you.
-
I'm definitely feeling a split, because this is an interesting topic.
EDIT: Now that that's done:
The particular gripe I have about ties with regards to the World Cup is actually in the group stage. If the ties were eliminated, the groups could move easily to double-elimination style play (which it already effectively is) and eliminate the arcane and (to a resident of the US) almost hilariously detailed tie breakers. This also has the advantage of giving a team that wins two games outright in the group an effective bye round as a reward, and spares a team that has already been functionally eliminated the extra humiliation of playing another game that means nothing except for the other team (or as a chance to spite your rivals in the worst way).
-
I've played around in my head before with the idea of double elimination in the group stage. However, I dislike the fact that teams would be going home after only two games. I'm still looking forward to England's game against Costa Rica despite the fact England are finished. I talked about the massive significance to the seeding it has, but even if that wasn't the case I'd still be very interested in the game, we'll see an unusual lineup of England players against unusual opposition. And other teams I like the unusual matches and double elimination would reduce the number of such matches.
Double elimination in my mind only just comes up short to what we have now though.
-
Double elimination is so much more... robust, though. The team that wins two games and loses none is the first seed, and has an effective bye. The team that wins two games and loses one is the second seed. Granted, this can result in two teams playing each other twice in the elimination stage, but that can be either a bonus or a penalty depending on how you look at it.
Plus, then you wouldn't have to have nine different tie breaking clauses for seeding.
-
It's the fact that the tournament is the big one, with so many unusual matches and only once every 4 years that turns me away from double elimination. I could go for it otherwise.
I'm watching the US / Portugal game right now. Would it be not entertaining if it stays 1-1? 1-1 would put the US into a great position going into the final round of fixtures.
-
Even if it meant a US loss, I would rather have a game played to completion than end at 1-1 (which is still admittedly superior to 0-0). There's something that sticks sideways when a contest isn't finished.
-
Even if it meant a US loss, I would rather have a game played to completion than end at 1-1 (which is still admittedly superior to 0-0). There's something that sticks sideways when a contest isn't finished.
Oh I think I get it now, rather than the game not be entertaining while it's in progress, the tie ruins it afterwards for you, is that it?
Here's one for you, what if there is a game where a tie is literally as good as a win for one of the teams? Does it still mess the game up for you if it's a tie, or is it different since the tie is a victory?
-
If a tie is literally as good as a win I would still not like it. If anything it's actually worse because it incentivizes playing to tie, rather than playing to win. The idea isn't the points of it, or the tournament standing, it's the result on the field. In a head to head contest of skill, if there is no winner than there is no contest.
EDIT: See, just like this. There's no winner here, all it did was muddy the field and muddle the standings.
-
If a tie is literally as good as a win I would still not like it. If anything it's actually worse because it incentivizes playing to tie, rather than playing to win. The idea isn't the points of it, or the tournament standing, it's the result on the field. In a head to head contest of skill, if there is no winner than there is no contest.
Right. Well, it's kind of a pity what just happened, that is a very good result for the US on paper, but aside from the annoyance of the late concession, it's going to be annoying because it's a tie.
Do you watch any MLS games? I know in the early days they tried to "Americanise" it by eliminating ties. Would you prefer that kind of thing in all football matches?
-
I certainly would, personally. I know there was a "golden goal" sudden-death concept tried in certain international tournaments, but for whatever reason it didn't stick. And for me soccer is the absolutely ideal sort of sport for a sudden-death setup: scoring is (relatively speaking) a rare event, so the first team to do so should get to walk off right then and there.
And yeah, no one was saying that the act of being tied at some point during a game was a bad thing; that would just be silly. It's the result that counts, and like we just saw, a tie result at the end makes me feel like I just wasted 90 minutes of sitting there with no conclusion. Probably my main overall gripe with soccer as a sport is that scoreless ties are an extremely-regular occurrence...which at least as far as I'm concerned means that there's something fundamentally broken about its mechanics.
-
Everything I've said until now should point to that, yes. Ties are one of the great frustrations in major sports from my perspective.
Also, did anyone else notice that the judges added an additional minute to the injury time a little while in?
-
Oh yeah. I could start a whole other rant on the concept of injury time, though. :p
-
It's funny, a tie between Germany and US will send both through now... and with a German manager in charge of the US, tongues will be wagging if the game is tied... :D
Everything I've said until now should point to that, yes.
I expected you would think so, yes. I wonder why MLS dropped those reforms if the American public want winners and losers. All I know is they tried it for awhile and then dropped it.
There are complaints about tiredness over a season these days, especially here in England in the Premier League. A Premier League season is simply the most gruelling in Europe, so I imagine they'd have to have a penalty shootout straight after the 90mins in all tied games in a league, and give 2pts to the winner of that shootout and 1pt to the loser.
Hell, bring it on in the Premier League, it will give the English players lots of practice in penalty shootouts! :D
It probably wouldn't bother me if such a thing was done. I don't mind ties at all, but that doesn't mean I WANT them, I simply don't mind them. And penalty shootouts are fun when you're not an England fan watching England. :)
Oh yeah. I could start a whole other rant on the concept of injury time, though. :p
Go ahead. I'd be happy to discuss that too if you want another split. I don't know how you'd fix it in football though if you brought in a stop the clock while the ball is out of play system. 45min halves would have to be replaced by a new time, but injury time can be very inaccurate. It would be jarring to lose the 45min halves and injury time, but I wouldn't mind if the new time made matches last a similar length to what they do now, it would do a lot to combat time wasting.
-
No we're not splitting another thread out just for that. :p
It's such a blindingly-simple solution, though: just stop the damn clock when there's an injury or other random stoppage of play, like every other time-based sport I can think of. You restart it when play resumes, and so when the clock hits 45 or 90 on the nose, the half is over. Nothing else about the game needs to change; you'd just be eliminating the nonsensical hand-waving over how much time should or shouldn't be arbitrarily tacked onto the end.
-
There, now we don't need another topic. :P
And I'm in 100% agreement with Mongoose on this one. It's such a silly thing to have in this day and age of video replays when you can determine to the tenth of a second when the ball went out of play or a player got injured.
-
There, now we don't need another topic. :P
:lol: :yes:
I suppose it would work if only applied to substitutions and when someone was down, rather than having to do it for all stoppages. I guess it's just that I'd like to see all time wasting eliminated by going the whole way, necessitating a change in the minutes as then you'd be stopping the clock for all times when the ball was out of play. There would be the complication of syncing up the time though, the referee would have to stop the clock and this would have to sync up with the TV broadcasts and the scoreboard showing the clock. Other sports that stop the clock afaik stop the clock for every stoppage, so it's simple, the clock stops when the whistle blows. But if you stopped the clock for every stoppage in football, then you'd need a new match time, as injury time doesn't count the likes of throw ins and free kicks.
I wish football would come out of the stone age and embrace technology. They seem to have loved playing with their new goal-line technology toy at this World Cup though, and they brought in the spray even though it's been around for a while, so hopefully this will encourage future change. All these refereeing controversies we've had, I would LOVE a vid ref to be next on the agenda.
-
I still don't see double elimination being fair, as with the current format it's possible for 3 teams to win 2 games and lose 1. Winning 2 games shouldn't give you a bye. And you keep saying that a tie isn't a conclusion, which is something I don't understand. Wouldn't that imply that 2 teams can't be equally strong at any given moment? And especially in a tournament setting, getting a tie in a game everyone expects you to lose is a big achievement. I don't know how much you know about ancient literature, but wrestling a tie against a force much greater than you has been a concept since the Epics of Uruk, around 2000 B.C.
And speaking of underdogs, ties give them a chance against big teams, as smaller teams usually have shorter benches and can't handle playing for over 90 minutes. Overtimes are a luxury that small teams simply can't afford.
And sudden-death golden goals were used in the same way overtime is used now. The reason it didn't stick is because players are exhausted during overtime, and having 1-2 fresh players run offensively is much easier than getting your 5 exhausted defence players to run. Offence is naturally stronger during overtime, putting an even greater emphasis on it just makes the whole thing extremely volatile.
In a head to head contest of skill, if there is no winner than there is no contest.
I simply don't understand how a tie can render the whole contest invalid, and I probably never will. You're welcome to try to explain it to me though.
-
It admittedly has far more to do with the fans than it does the sport itself (though that isn't absent). Putting it in as plain a terms as I can: I am not personally satisfied in the event of a tie. It reeks of anticlimax, and if you're going to have a contest to determine who is better at <insert sport> then having a result where neither team is proven to be the better (even if only for <time of gameplay>) annoys me.
I can handle losing. I don't like neither winning nor losing.
-
Ah, but surely both teams can be about equal level in skill. Going until one of them wins may simply prove who was luckier. Especially when you consider how that would be decided if extra time fails to yield a victory for either team.
I certainly would, personally. I know there was a "golden goal" sudden-death concept tried in certain international tournaments, but for whatever reason it didn't stick. And for me soccer is the absolutely ideal sort of sport for a sudden-death setup: scoring is (relatively speaking) a rare event, so the first team to do so should get to walk off right then and there.
Actually the golden goal is a perfect example of why ties should be a feature of football. They were introduced for exactly the reasons you suggested, to make games into sudden death competitions. Instead however they had the effect of disincentivising players to go forwards because the risk of a break and a game winning goal was far too great. Games with the golden goal rule in place quickly became boring because both teams preferred to take no chances with the main game and instead go for a penalty shoot-out.
And that would be the biggest problem with going for a double elimination route. You'd end up with half the teams going home on penalties rather than the quality of the actual game. It just doesn't seem like a good way to resolve things.
-
Actually the golden goal is a perfect example of why ties should be a feature of football. They were introduced for exactly the reasons you suggested, to make games into sudden death competitions. Instead however they had the effect of disincentivising players to go forwards because the risk of a break and a game winning goal was far too great. Games with the golden goal rule in place quickly became boring because both teams preferred to take no chances with the main game and instead go for a penalty shoot-out.
Now see, that's exactly the attitude that I (and I suspect most of my countrymen) find so disdainful. It just feels completely foreign to me. When you go out there on the field/court/pitch, you play to win, period. Otherwise why even bother? Intentionally sitting on your heels for a whole overtime just because there's a chance the other team would score seems like the height of cowardice.
And yeah, I know that's probably shading towards the whole 'MURIKA! stereotype, but I think it applies well to sports.
-
Agreed. If you're not playing to win you shouldn't be playing.
EDIT: Note, when I say that I'm talking about professional competition. A friendly pick-up game or even something like intramurals it's totally fine to not be cutthroat.
-
What Kara's describing sounds exactly like playing to win. They're adjusting their tactics to game the new rules. It's just like bunting or an onside kick.
-
I think there's a fundamental difference between playing to win and playing to not lose. What Kara's describing sounds significantly closer to the latter than the former.
-
There's a different reason I don't like the golden goal, and that is the possibility that the team that kicks off can potentially go and score straight away without the other team touching the ball.
EDIT: I suppose that could be solved though by starting things off with a drop ball.
-
What Kara's describing sounds exactly like playing to win. They're adjusting their tactics to game the new rules. It's just like bunting or an onside kick.
Except in both of those cases, the actions in question are done with the intent to score. You bunt to advance a runner into scoring position, and you attempt an onside kick to get back on offense. That's pretty much the exact opposite of sitting back on your heels.
There's a different reason I don't like the golden goal, and that is the possibility that the team that kicks off can potentially go and score straight away without the other team touching the ball.
What are the odds of that, though? I mean I know goals can get scored early, since the US just did it, but soccer is a sport in which possession changes occur very frequently.
-
There's a different reason I don't like the golden goal, and that is the possibility that the team that kicks off can potentially go and score straight away without the other team touching the ball.
What are the odds of that, though? I mean I know goals can get scored early, since the US just did it, but soccer is a sport in which possession changes occur very frequently.
I put an edit into that post to say it could be solved with a drop ball to start things off, and if they did that, it would solve the problem. But if they don't do that, I'm opposed to it simply because even though it's rare, it's possible, and thus gives the team which kicks off a slight advantage.
I'd also consider this to count for until the other team is in control of the ball, not just touching it. Say for example the first team kicks off, and there's a tackle but the loose ball still goes to a member of the attacking team. Then there's a foul and a free kick, and the free kick is knocked out for a corner, the corner is then headed out for another corner, and then the team scores off that corner and wins the game. This could be the third minute by this time, yet the other team has been on defence the whole time.
EDIT: Oh and there are other factors, like if you're playing against a strong wind and rain in your face in that first half, so that's an advantage to the other team.
-
Well, that's just part of playing the game. One could easily make the argument that the defending team should have played better and taken possession.
-
Well, that's just part of playing the game. One could easily make the argument that the defending team should have played better and taken possession.
It's still unfair though. They might have defended as well as they possibly could.
Sudden death overtime works brilliantly for ice hockey, but it just doesn't fit football. In ice hockey, it's an indoor arena, so the conditions are equal for both teams, there's a face off on the ice to start things off so no one starts with an edge, and there are lots of interchangeable players so they can just keep going.
-
What Kara's describing sounds exactly like playing to win. They're adjusting their tactics to game the new rules. It's just like bunting or an onside kick.
Except in both of those cases, the actions in question are done with the intent to score. You bunt to advance a runner into scoring position, and you attempt an onside kick to get back on offense. That's pretty much the exact opposite of sitting back on your heels.
It's the opposite of the opposite! You play to win, not to comply with some code of honor. If you're ahead in American football, you try to run the clock down. If you're ahead in basketball, you play lead protection. If you think you're going to win in sudden death, you play to get to sudden death.
You guys have a weird idea of how competition works.
-
And I think playing to win applies to a tournament as a whole. Getting a tie while not over exhausting your players so that they can perform well in your next game seems smarter than forcing a win when you don't need it.
I think there's a fundamental difference between playing to win and playing to not lose. What Kara's describing sounds significantly closer to the latter than the former.
That's true, but playing not to lose is often smarter. Playing for a good defence and waiting till the opponent opens up for a counter-attack has it's advantages, especially when you're already ahead. You call it cowardice, I call it strategy.
-
I call it less interesting. Sports are in this day and age almost by definition objects of spectacle (almost). It should come as no surprise that I dislike things that make the game less 'action packed', as it were.
EDIT: I feel the need to make the special exception for sportsmanship.
-
If you want the game to be exciting and action-packed, then the rules should be designed to incentivize exciting, action-packed play. The onus to make a game exciting always lies on the designer. The only onus on the players is to play optimally. In good games, optimal play is also exciting and rewarding.
-
EDIT: I feel the need to make the special exception for sportsmanship.
I could not support an unsportsmanlike team. Thankfully for me, England are one of the fairest teams on the planet, so I have respect for them. They're not angels, but the vast majority of the time, they play fair, play "the right way", with great sportsmanship. If they were rolling around on the grass to waste time, or cheating in other ways, like pretending something happened to get a player sent off or diving to win a penalty, then I couldn't respect a win they got, because it wouldn't have been earned. It would have been cheated to. It would be an empty win, and a source of shame to me rather than pride. I wouldn't respect the team, and I wouldn't respect the individuals on that team as men.
-
This is true; that's a good deal of the reason I dislike the ability of a soccer game to end in a tie. It gives much more expansive permission to optimal play being less exciting and rewarding.
Take a look at the Germany/US game coming up. If those two teams tie each other, both of them advance, and Ghana and Portugal are both eliminated. What incentive is there to take any risk whatsoever in that game? The only way German and the US will play each other again after that is in the final match. If either of them loses, they're likely to be eliminated.
Such is not a permissive atmosphere for exciting and rewarding play.
-
For me at least, a good defence can be just as exciting as a good offence.
But I guess that's why Americans like basketball, 100 baskets per game is a lot more exciting for them than the 2-3 goals you get in football. And speaking of basketball, I guess this idea of a "head to head contest of skill" is why man-to-man defence is preferred to zone in American basketball, yet almost all European teams use the team and stamina oriented zone(which leads to 20-30% less baskets per game).
-
This is true; that's a good deal of the reason I dislike the ability of a soccer game to end in a tie. It gives much more expansive permission to optimal play being less exciting and rewarding.
Take a look at the Germany/US game coming up. If those two teams tie each other, both of them advance, and Ghana and Portugal are both eliminated. What incentive is there to take any risk whatsoever in that game? The only way German and the US will play each other again after that is in the final match. If either of them loses, they're likely to be eliminated.
Such is not a permissive atmosphere for exciting and rewarding play.
Funnily enough, due to the extra attention on the game due to the US having a German coach, I think that will incentivize the teams to go for the win, to avoid the scrutiny that would come down on them for a draw, especially a tame one. The World will be paying close attention. No one would bother if they played out a balls to the wall draw like the Germany / Ghana match was. I also don't think it's in the character of either team, both are pretty well known for playing the game the right way. It would be beneath them.
-
Playing for a draw is a stupid tactic anyway. It only takes a tiny mistake to turn a draw into a loss. As a result it's very rare you see a team trying to play for one the entire game. At worst you'll see it in the last 5-10 minutes at most.
Hell, I used to complain endlessly at England's dumb habit of trying to defend a 1-0 lead for 80 minutes. It's lost then numerous games. When the scores are level, it's even more stupid. (Oh and it's not something they only do when a tie is a suitable result for both teams. I've seen them do it in championship games where both teams need to win to advance).
If you want the game to be exciting and action-packed, then the rules should be designed to incentivize exciting, action-packed play. The onus to make a game exciting always lies on the designer. The only onus on the players is to play optimally. In good games, optimal play is also exciting and rewarding.
Exactly, this is why the golden goal is such a poor idea.
And I still haven't seen anyone counter my objection to the increase in penalties this would lead to.
-
Three pages? On this?
I'm just going to do what should have been done on page 1: our American friends don't understand the significance of a tie because they are culturally incapable of sophistication in sport. Now, before you think this is insensitive, I'm going to point out that these are the people who took a game primary played with the hands and named it "football" (just to be bastards about it, seeing as proper football was already the most popular game on the planet), and the national past time of the adrenaline equivalent of watching paint dry, also known as "baseball," whose primary purpose is to bore people to death by forcing the game to take 9 innings without the chance of a tie in the first and calling it a day.
:p
In all seriousness, football/soccer is a game about optimal play in both offense and defense. Refusal to end a game in a tie punishes teams that have exemplary defense but weaker offensive capability, even if their opponent has no defense to speak of and gets by through purely offensive play. It would make for a less exciting game, not more. No one plays for a draw, but its a nice result for the defensive part of the team if a win isn't possible, and it therefore keeps them motivated. It's very similar to hockey in this regard (which only invokes the no-tie rule in tournaments due to the nature of hockey playoff series).
-
Who are you, and what have you done with MP-Ryan? :D
-
But MP-ryan, you're from America too, just not the US. The Americanised spelling makes it obvious. :P
-
Who are you, and what have you done with MP-Ryan? :D
Have I neglected to mention that I played soccer (as it's called here) for 12 years? In sunshine/rain/sleet/snow (2 inches of snow one game), while the pansies masquerading as "players" in the supposed "sport" known as baseball called their games off if they got so much as 3 drops of rain on the field? ;) I have marginally more respect for "football" players since they at least don't run for their mommies if the weather isn't 25°C and sunny, but let's face it, they're still way outclassed by rugby :p
-
Wait, how do you even play football in snow? You've got virtually no traction and the ball behaves more like a bowling ball than a football one. Long shots and hope the goalie trips up?
-
Let's have our American friends show you. The blizzard gets going later into the video... :)
-
Wait, how do you even play football in snow? You've got virtually no traction and the ball behaves more like a bowling ball than a football one. Long shots and hope the goalie trips up?
First off, you spend most of the time on your face or your ass, because cleats are not designed to be used on snow-covered grass (when its deep enough to stick between the cleats, anyway). Second, you quickly realize that short airborne passes are the only way the ball is getting anywhere productive. Third and last, it is considerably easier to score if you do get in range of the goal, as goaltenders have a great deal of difficulty with a cold, wet, slippery ball.
But MP-ryan, you're from America too, just not the US. The Americanised spelling makes it obvious. :P
If there is a way to get a Canadian up out of his house, march him/her halfway across a continent through an army in the field, all to look you in the eye and burn down the fanciest house in sight, it's to suggest that s/he is an American. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington)
-
I must say that's quite amazing, although the pace was a bit slower and they went for a lot of attempts hoping the goalie would slip up(which is what happened on that 1st goal). The real problem with snow isn't the cold temperatures, it's the lack of traction. Also that line judge accurately calling the offside through the blizzard, he must have some very good eyes. We could use more good line judges at the world cup.
-
Now just to carry this cultural impasse further, I'm a rather fervent baseball fan who considers it far more engaging than soccer. Hell, I find golf far more engaging than soccer, but then again we didn't invent that one. :p
-
Now just to carry this cultural impasse further, I'm a rather fervent baseball fan who considers it far more engaging than soccer. Hell, I find golf far more engaging than soccer, but then again we didn't invent that one. :p
Baseball actually originated in France, and was played throughout northern Europe some few hundred years before Cartwright brought it over to the states. So... yeah, you didn't "invent" that one either, you just popularised it. And while I'm on that topic, basketball was invented by a Canadian, James Naismith. Most sports that came from the US are just variations on already existing sports(like American "football" is modified rugby).
-
If we want to pick nits, basketball could probably trace its roots to the Mesoamerican ball game, so just consider everything tagged "in its modern-day form."
-
Regarding ties, do Germany and the USA have any reason to do anything other than shake hands and have a seat for 90 minutes in their final group game? Looking for winning-related reasons here, not pride or other extrinsic factors.
As I understand it, Germany gains nothing by a win (compared to a tie) and could potentially be eliminated with a loss. America could improve its seeding with a win, but how could that possibly be worth taking the risk of elimination, especially given that they would be challenging a better team?
Am I missing something? Do they just address this with a "you have to look like you're trying" rule or something stupid like that?
-
Throwing the game is unsportsmanlike behaviour, and can mean serious trouble for a team. Playing extremely safe and only going on the offence only when it's 100% safe is perfectly legit though, just a tad boring to watch.
-
So it's totally extrinsic then? Their only reason to try to win is that they will be punished if they fail to convince FIFA that they were trying to win? That's some crap game design there.
-
They don't have to try to win, they just have to play. But if they intentionally don't go for a goal that's 100% safe that's throwing. Or if they just shake hands and park their asses on the grass. They're free to play as defensively as they want as long as they're PLAYING. They don't have to convince FIFA that they're trying to win, just that they're actually playing.
-
It's always weird to see americans bashing football's intrincacies... that last page was hilarious especially the OP.
People who don't understand football should be a little quieter about it. You don't see me bashing baseball for instance. Or cricket.
Yes, Germany and the US could just play boring and tie the game, except it's very rare for teams to do "just this" for 90 minutes. Eventually one team scores and all hell breaks loose. You have to understand that while this "we all tie" is the prison's dillema best outcome, you only need a "cheater" to ruin it altogether, and teams like to win. Both the US and the Germans have shown they have the spirit to win games, not "tie games".
Of course, if the clock is running 75 mark and they are still tied, it's quite likely the game will become really boring with mutual unwillingness to do much about it.
-
As an avid watcher of sports in the US, baseball is boring as sin. Bash baseball all you damn well please.
I think perhaps that part of my position has gotten lost in the talk: I don't like games that end in ties. This isn't to say that everyone should hate tie games, or that someone cannot find tie games interesting. That's to say that I don't like tie games, and wish there was a provision for handling them in such a way as to render a tie a non-beneficial outcome. :P
-
That already happens in the tournaments, where wins give you 3 points and ties only 1. It used to be that wins gave you the usual 2 points and if you tied, then the points would be shared between the teams. There's nothing wrong in ties, some of them are memorable, and they add some interesting maths to ponder in these tournaments. What I admit can be frustrating is watching boring teams playing and tieing the game, but that's it. Even swash's scenario is extremely unlikely. I used to wonder about that 20 years ago but then I got to watch many games of football and it just doesn't happen that way, it so happens that teams really want to win the games more than draw.
-
So it's totally extrinsic then? Their only reason to try to win is that they will be punished if they fail to convince FIFA that they were trying to win? That's some crap game design there.
It's more crap tournament design than game design. The tournament should never be devised so both teams benefit equally from a tie.
-
So it's totally extrinsic then? Their only reason to try to win is that they will be punished if they fail to convince FIFA that they were trying to win? That's some crap game design there.
It's more crap tournament design than game design. The tournament should never be devised so both teams benefit equally from a tie.
Well the idea is that the group winner gets an easier match in the last 16. In theory.
-
Wait, how do you even play football in snow? You've got virtually no traction and the ball behaves more like a bowling ball than a football one. Long shots and hope the goalie trips up?
Soccer on snow (http://www.suopotkupallo.fi/en/snow+soccer/) is still relatively easy. Try swamp soccer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It9kBjW_nQs) for added randomness with completely unpredictable support.
It's probably the most popular soccer around here. And from what I've heard, it's darn fun to play!
This "sport" originated actually from here as far as I can tell, and seems to have spread around the world relatively quickly.
-
i've played swamp soccer. in temperatures juuuuuuusssst high enough to prevent it from being snow soccer. it seriously blows. somehow, someone got a shot into the air. when i tried to jump for the save, my feet stayed firmly planted (beneath) the ground. damn near pulled my legs out of their sockets. it was like when you stand at the edge of the surf for a long while at the beach and your feet slowly get buried in the hard sand. luckily the shot went over. then on the goal kick, it was like kicking a bowling ball. that had been glued to the ground. kicked the **** out of it, it moved maybe an inch in the bog. hurt like hell.
edit: i wrote this before watching the video. i should note, the game described here was not intended to be swamp soccer. it was an honest to god tournament.
-
So it's totally extrinsic then? Their only reason to try to win is that they will be punished if they fail to convince FIFA that they were trying to win? That's some crap game design there.
It's more crap tournament design than game design. The tournament should never be devised so both teams benefit equally from a tie.
Tournaments/seasons are also games! Potentially super cool games. In this case though it seems that the greater game should probably ruin the individual match if the players actually take winning the tournament seriously.Yes, Germany and the US could just play boring and tie the game, except it's very rare for teams to do "just this" for 90 minutes. Eventually one team scores and all hell breaks loose. You have to understand that while this "we all tie" is the prison's dillema best outcome, you only need a "cheater" to ruin it altogether, and teams like to win. Both the US and the Germans have shown they have the spirit to win games, not "tie games".
Of course, if the clock is running 75 mark and they are still tied, it's quite likely the game will become really boring with mutual unwillingness to do much about it.
I guess I lack an appreciation for these more theatrical aspects of the game. All the potential outcomes for this match just seem embarrassing and awful. Thinking that the teams were operating on an "it's only stupid if we lose" attitude would lessen my respect for them, so I'll just assume they are only playing to appease the backward governing body which I guess is just another element of the soccer theater but oh well.
-
Because if it's possible for neither team to come away with a victory both teams are disappointed.
There are teams who would actually be very satisfied with a loss as long as they felt they gave it all they got and played well... never seen a weak/underdog team cheer after "only" losing 0:1 or 0:2 against a top tier team?
-
I certainly never have, unless you're talking about the platitudes one feeds to little kids when they're bummed about losing a game. Again, if you're not out there playing to win, why are you even out there?
-
If you play your best, trying your hardest to win, and you lose to someone really elite, you'd advocate just...being miserable? Sulking? Developing erectile dysfunction? What would you suggest people do rather than celebrate a great game and a fair loss?
You've never seen teams shake hands after a hard-fought game, in any sport, in any context? You think that's a platitude for little kids?
Handling defeat in a way that drives future success isn't just good for sports, it's a great life skill. If you're not prepared to learn from and appreciate a defeat, why are you even out there?
-
I'm not advocating that you should mope about it for better, but yes, I expect people to feel ****ty for a little while after losing something of major importance. When you invest your heart and soul into something big, and it winds up not going your way, that definitely hurts in the heat of the moment. I don't see how acknowledging that precludes learning from it later, and it certainly doesn't preclude showing graciousness by shaking hands or the like. However, I took Mikes's statement to mean that a team would immediately be happy with a hard-fought loss, which to me is an alien concept.
-
I've never seen a team happy with a defeat. In any sport. No matter the disparity between the two teams.
Claiming a draw with a superior opponent might be something to celebrate, you might be able to walk off with your head up if you know you gave your all in defeat, especially in close defeat to a far superior opponent, but I've never seen anyone pleased with such a thing or even heard of such a thing. The closest I think might be relief that a small team didn't get hammered by a big team.
-
As I understand it, the 'Tie' came into play because of time restraints, and dates back to when football was more aggressive, with a far less rigid set of rules. A lunch break only lasted so long so if no team had a convincing win by the end of it, it was called a 'tie'. Somehow, there's never really been a reason to remove it entirely.
Traditionalism counts for a lot in Europe, and that's where the 'modern' rules were eventually defined.
-
However, I took Mikes's statement to mean that a team would immediately be happy with a hard-fought loss, which to me is an alien concept.
That's weird. It happens all the time. You've never lost a board game at a party and said "Man, that was an amazing fight?" Never finished a multiplayer match and said "Awww, man, we lost but that was so cool." Or, more directly, never watched a postgame interview and heard "They just outplayed us. They brought it and we didn't. It was a great game."
I can't imagine what it's like to think that losing a game means you have to be unhappy.
-
Claiming a draw with a superior opponent might be something to celebrate, you might be able to walk off with your head up if you know you gave your all in defeat, especially in close defeat to a far superior opponent, but I've never seen anyone pleased with such a thing or even heard of such a thing. The closest I think might be relief that a small team didn't get hammered by a big team.
Never seen a team lose a game but still qualify due to goal difference then?
If a 1-0 loss still means you qualify then a loss is still a victory in the overall scheme of things. Not as good as winning or even drawing but still something to be happy about. Cause you could have lost the game and the competition.
-
However, I took Mikes's statement to mean that a team would immediately be happy with a hard-fought loss, which to me is an alien concept.
That's weird. It happens all the time. You've never lost a board game at a party and said "Man, that was an amazing fight?" Never finished a multiplayer match and said "Awww, man, we lost but that was so cool." Or, more directly, never watched a postgame interview and heard "They just outplayed us. They brought it and we didn't. It was a great game."
I can't imagine what it's like to think that losing a game means you have to be unhappy.
I've also never played a boardgame that had implications beyond itself and the game table. :P There's a gravitas that accompanies professional competitions wherein having fun is not the only criteria for a good or happy game.
-
However, I took Mikes's statement to mean that a team would immediately be happy with a hard-fought loss, which to me is an alien concept.
That's weird. It happens all the time. You've never lost a board game at a party and said "Man, that was an amazing fight?" Never finished a multiplayer match and said "Awww, man, we lost but that was so cool." Or, more directly, never watched a postgame interview and heard "They just outplayed us. They brought it and we didn't. It was a great game."
I can't imagine what it's like to think that losing a game means you have to be unhappy.
You're talking about two very different levels here, though. Obviously if you're playing a board game with some friends, or a random multiplayer match, or a beer-league softball game, it's much more about the camaraderie and socializing than the outcome. You're playing for fun, and the whole purpose is enjoying yourselves. But in the world of professional sports, with multi-million dollar contracts at stake, and tens of millions of people watching your every move, and the potential to obtain essentially immortal fame? You bet your ass that you're upset about losing. Those "great game" spiels in interviews are by and large just so many words. To be a truly-legendary athlete, you need to have that killer instinct, to remember every time you failed and use that as motivation to succeed, to never accept anything but victory. You read stories about people like Michael Jordan hanging onto every negative article written about him, just so he could dwell on it and use it as motivation to get better, and then throw it back in his detractors' faces later. That's the attitude I mean.
And really, I think all of this is magnified when you're part of the most-followed sporting event in the world, where you're literally representing the hopes of your entire nation, when even in the most impoverished nations on the planet people huddle around TVs and radios to follow your exploits. You're telling me that losing shouldn't gnaw at you in that sort of situation? Then you're just not human.
-
Let's side aside the 'all elite athletes are lying in those postgame interviews because of some articles about Michael Jordan thesis' and clarify something. Are we talking about professional athletes with mega contracts, or the field of all competition implied by:
I certainly never have, unless you're talking about the platitudes one feeds to little kids when they're bummed about losing a game. Again, if you're not out there playing to win, why are you even out there?
Any ideology that compares Rocky Balboa taking pride in going the distance to lying to little kids is clearly un-American!
-
Well, I can tell you Polish team is usually pretty unhappy after losing again... They don't really show that to public, and certainly not to international public, though. Also, you should've seen Norway during Winter Olympics, their skaters lost to friggin' Poland by some millimeters. That Norwegian skater who got the second place literally had a breakdown, though he got better (or managed to hide it well) by the time of the medal ceremony. Noone is saying they didn't fight well, but Mongoose is right about this. Professionals can be bitter about losing, especially if it's a sport considered important in their country. Showing this isn't considered very sportsmanlike, but many times, it's there, mostly once they're home.
-
This discussion needs the clarification I asked for above.
-
My clarification would be that even within the amateur sphere, there are different levels at play. If you're talking about your average Little League team losing a game, then yeah, it should be more about enjoying the activity and doing as well as you can. But if you happen to, say, make it to the Little League World Series, then I see nothing wrong about being upset at getting knocked out, even if in the long term you view the experience as a positive one. To extend the analogy to gaming, getting pissed at a solo queue DOTA2 match is just plain stupid, but being angry at yourself for losing in The International semifinals is natural. The stakes involved in the particular competition weigh heavily on one's reaction to the outcome, and while we rightly tell young kids that they should be having fun in a recreational league, if they're skilled enough to make it to a high-profile tournament, obviously they're going to want to win it.
-
So is the claim 'there is nothing wrong with feeling bad' or 'there is no point in being there, and you will be hurting your chances of success, if you do not feel bad when you lose'?
You seem to be deploying the claim 'it's natural' to mean 'it's universal'. That's going to be very difficult to substantiate.
You also say 'obviously they're going to want to win it', but your original claim was that nobody could competitive could take pride in going the distance (the Rocky Balboa example). These are not mutually exclusive claims.
I think you need to clarify your claims on these three points.
-
And I think that this doesn't need to be a structured debate in order to voice opinions.
-
Then you can step out. We're having a conversation here. I'm asking questions so I can understand his position better.
-
You seem to think that going out on the field with the intention to win is the only sporting and honourable thing to do, yet to me, it seems more like sheer arrogance. A team should be striving to play their best or improve on it. There's no shame in losing a game you never had a chance of winning, and thinking differently could seriously hurt a team's mental strength.
It's much more frustrating to lose a game where the competitors are close in skill because you know you had a chance and feel that you underperformed.
And I think that this doesn't need to be a structured debate in order to voice opinions.
I'm guessing you've never been to or participated in an actual structured debate. This is just a structured conversation, because one simply doesn't have the time to decode vaguely phrased ideas when you can expect 4-6 messages per hour at best.
could competitive could
Holy crap. There's a grammatical error in a post Battuta wrote.
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with the assertion that it's a good idea to always enter a competition with the intent to win (even if I don't necessarily agree myself). I'm more curious about the idea of how you feel afterwards if you end up losing.
A lot of people take real pride in having put up a hell of a fight. This is something you see a lot in the aftermath of major wars.
-
Note, in a war, it's pretty much the whole point to have the enemy hopelessly outmatched. A fair fight is a crapshoot in that case, and in fact, most battles are decided before they even begin. Competition isn't the point, Sun Tzu had a lot to say about this. And indeed, prevailing even against overwhelming odds, or complete enemy superiority, even if it fails, can be a point of pride, especially for the soldiers themselves (though their generals should be ripping hair off their heads because of that, as their job is not to let that happen). And similarly, steamrolling over the enemy will be mostly a point of pride for one man, namely the strategist who orchestrated the whole thing, while for the soldiers it might be "just another day", and nothing to write home about. And it's tales of soldiers that survive in the folk stories, while strategists' exploits are generally known to other strategists and military historians (unless it's a particularly pivotal battle, that is).
On the other hand, in sports, you're supposed to be pretty much evenly matched. Here, unlike in a war, the "battle" itself is the whole point, and it's always ultimately decided "here and now", when it occurs. For all the planning and calculations, it all comes down to what your players can do. That's why it's generally more common to feel bad about a lost match. Barring extreme circumstances, if you're playing with someone, it's generally someone that you should have even a slightest chance of beating. Otherwise, why play at all? If you're in World Cup, it'd be expected that your team is World-class. Of course, if all teams in your country are shoddy, then it might be hard to get a World-class team out of them, but that is rare. Before a match, you don't know if you'll win or not. You go in intending and wanting to win, even if the opponent happens to have a better record. There are worse teams and better teams, but there are hardly situations in which you can't even hope to win.
-
Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with hoping to win, but there's a difference between hope and intent. I'm not sure if this is a difference of opinion or a cultural and lingual one. When I said: "intention to win" I meant absolute determination to the point of not even considering other options. Maybe there isn't a word in the English language that signifies what I was trying to convey, or maybe it's not in my vocabulary.
And I'm not sure it's good to compare sports to wars. I'm not really offended by it, but I don't think trying to put up a hell of a fight in a war is something admirable. And those who take pride in it are usually the ones who haven't been shot at.
-
I'm not sure I agree on the latter. Shared pride in - and regret for - actions in war is often a bridge for understanding and reconciliation between veterans from opposing sides, and it's probably most common among actual combat veterans. (Not, of course, by any means universal.)
To combat the drift from the central point here, what I'm most interested in is the idea that it's impossible to take pride in anything but victory.
-
Yeah, this thread's been derailed 3 times already, and I don't think I'm very comfortable writing about it anyway(I find it hard to express myself on the matter in English, I don't have any real problems reading about it).
I don't think anyone apart from Scotty and Mongoose will oppose you on that point. I think that not only is there pride to be found in defeat, but there's also shame to be found in victory. It all depends on how you performed relative to your physical limits.
-
To combat the drift from the central point here, what I'm most interested in is the idea that it's impossible to take pride in anything but victory.
I believe I have identified the misunderstanding. I fully believe that it's possible to take pride in things other than victory. Actions or performance during the contest are absolutely worth it. I do not believe that one should take pride in the outcome of a defeat (following the theme of the original splitpost, that includes ties :P). A defeat is a defeat is a defeat (on a sports field), and if there's any pride on the losing team it's in spite of this and not in addition to/because they lost.
-
So Rocky's just an idiot? I don't buy that and I don't buy the worldview behind it.
-
Quip about Rocky being an idiot aside:
Was Rocky proud because he didn't win? Did the outcome of losing the match make him prouder of his performance? I highly doubt it.
-
You're not proud that you lost, you're proud that you only lost slightly. This applies to ties too, as a team should be proud of being able to play as well as a much stronger team. There are definitely some losses(and especially ties) that you can and should be proud of.
-
Quip about Rocky being an idiot aside:
Was Rocky proud because he didn't win? Did the outcome of losing the match make him prouder of his performance? I highly doubt it.
I don't think the counterfactual matters. He's proud that he went the distance against a really good challenger - he put up a great fight, giving it his all, and it came down to the wire.
-
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that the very people who couldn't understand the point of a draw in football because it would encourage a team to not go out and try to win are now arguing that the desire to win is a major driving force in professional athletes?
Also, if it helps just think of it this way. A draw isn't an outcome where both teams won, but one where both teams lost. :p A pyrrhic victory is something to be both proud and sad about at the same time after all.
-
Coming from another sport, chess, where the top players draw at a rate of about 60%, I can't figure out why one should feel bad with playing a draw.
Especially at top level, if both players had equal (often perfect) play, why should one of them get more out of the same game than the other?
-
To be fair, chess draw rate is 60% only for games. Draws are a bit rarer in 5 or 7 game matches. Though I think it's still decently high.
Also, 100 replies for this - holy crap.
-
To be fair, chess draw rate is 60% only for games. Draws are a bit rarer in 5 or 7 game matches. Though I think it's still decently high.
Also, 100 replies for this - holy crap.
Matches are normally played until one side is victorious. But every other sport I can think of has ways to force a decisive result. Football has penalties for instance.
Hell, in armageddon tiebreaks in chess, if the black pieces manage to draw, they win!
-
I thought round-robin chess qualifications play for a set number of games. Most organizations simply don't have the money or space to organize a tournament with potentially unlimited gametime, and tie-breakers only happen in absolutely top-level play.
Then again I don't follow modern chess that much, so I'm not really sure about that.
EDIT: fcking autocorrect caught me off-guard. Well played.
-
I'm though round-robin chess qualifications play for a set number of games. Most organizations simply don't have the money or space to organize a tournament with potentially unlimited gametime, and tie-breakers only happen in absolutely top-level play.
Then again I don't follow modern chess that much, so I'm not really sure about that.
Until 1986, world championship matches were played for an unlimited number of games or until one player had 6 wins. From then on, until somewhere in the 90's they decided to play a fixed number of games, and ended the match when one of the players had the required number of points to win (i.e. if one of the players had 5.5/7 out of 10 games, the remaining games wouldn't be played). These matches were still required to have a decisive result, so in case of draw, the champion won. In recent times, they play a fixed number of games, and in case of a draw, they'll go on to faster and faster time controls and ultimately armageddon.
Tie breakers can happen at all levels.
But this is a different issue altogether, what was being discussed was the result of a game, not of the tournament.