[Mongoose]

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.

[Lorric]

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?

[Scotty]

...yes.

[Lorric]

...yes.

Why?

[Scotty]

Because if it's possible for neither team to come away with a victory both teams are disappointed.

[Mongoose]

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.

[Herra Tohtori]

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

[Mongoose]

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.

[FrikgFeek]

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.

[Lorric]

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?

[Mongoose]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[Scotty]

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).

[Lorric]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Lorric]

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?

[Scotty]

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.

[Lorric]

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?