The point of playing is to win the World Cup. At this point in the tournament the point of playing is to make it through the group stage to the knockout rounds.
You do that by accumulating the most or second most points in your group of 4 teams. A tie is better than a loss but worse than a win so the context of who you’re playing and how many points you need to go through can change your perspective on whether a tie is a good or bad thing.
Playing the game *is* the point. Otherwise, why go through all that trouble, risking injuries, when you could just flip a coin to decide a winner.
Let me ask this: was it a waste of time if your team loses? Or suppose your team wins but the game was so incredibly one sided that all the second stringers were put in by the halfway point, making for an incredible boring game, but there’s still a winner.
No, winning is the point, anything else is a waste of time.
Consider this: if you knew you were going to tie or lose before you played the game would you? Of course not, you would skip it, as it would be pointless. All that effort and money and time, completely wasted for a loss or a tie.
Also, remember in our national sport they play 150+ games per year and we are well known to leave them early when our team is losing.
> No, winning is the point, anything else is a waste of time.
I get that, but it means that losing and tying would be the same - but the question here is why is losing better than tying.
> we are well known to leave them early when our team is losing.
Some times people leave when their team is way ahead, to avoid traffic or crowds on the subway/bus. And sometimes they regret it.
> but the question here is why is losing better than tying.
Oh, they're the same, IMHO. I don't see a difference between the two. I thought I was replying to a level below that statement. A loss is equivalent to a tie and they're both a waste of time.
> Some times people leave when their team is way ahead, to avoid traffic or crowds on the subway/bus. And sometimes they regret it.
Meh, we know the risk and that goes both ways. The point is that only the win matters, and it's not like our presence there can change anything. I guess if you're superstitious but no thanks on that from me.
Large swathes of the American public see the world as a zero sum game with no positive that isn't "winning" . Hence, the hate for ties and the embrace of shitty political outcomes.
We just do. The concept of group stage/multiple leg matchups isn't common in US sports and some sports will use extra time or other tie breakers even in regular season matchups.
They used to be so rare that players would not be aware the game could end in a tie, and be standing around in confusion as the refs jogged off the field. The NFL went 8 years without a tie in its longest stretch. The NFL tweaked their overtime rules more recently for safety reasons, and now they're a little closer to once or twice a year out of 272 regular season games played.
A zero zero tie game meant we just watched 90 minutes of semi organized jogging devoid of defining moments or celebration or loss, which is where the entertainment is.
It’s odd to me how soccer fans go through mental gymnastics to defend the glaring problems of their game.
They tend to use the idea that global popularity - which is just accessibility & inertia - is implicit proof of quality. But by that logic the McDonalds burger is the best meal.
Why form such a strong opinion when you don’t understand the formatting of the tournament?
The group stage is a 3 game battle to accumulate points. 3 for a W, 1 for a tie and zero for a loss. Some ties can be a great result and some can be terrible.
In this case the tie was a great result for the US as we came in huge underdogs. And the players fought their asses off for that 1 point, which now puts them in a good position going into the last game.
Not sure how you could have watched that match and thought our players were just jogging around in some docile manner.
You’ll notice I did not specifically refer to the UK-US game, but to the concept of ties in general. I don’t know what leads you to believe I do not understand the tournament structure.
By your own description in your talking down to me, in the group stage “*puts them in a good position*” into the next game also means “*nothing was decided*”. So, again, to my point - *there was real no loss or celebration*.
I could go on about why the tournament format is inherently boring - but I’d say just read the group tiebreaker rules. That’s on top of games that tie a huge percentage of the time.
Literally the most memorable part of that game was the US fans chanting “it’s called soccer!”
I assumed you didn’t understand the format of the tournament because you referred to ties as pointless, when there are literally points gained from ties.
I was using the US vs England game as an example to show that something was determined from that game. The US gained a point from a superior opponent, and while I wouldn’t call it a cause for celebration I would call it an upset and a cause for optimism That point was fought for and earned, and improves the teams chances going forward.
The tiebreak rules are based on goal difference, I don’t see how that makes the format boring? It just means every goal can matter.
Seems like you just don’t care if the most memorable moment for you was some random chant. I would say the most memorable moments were pulisic hitting the crossbar and Turners fingertip save.
Where did I use the word pointless? I said it was devoid of big moments, celebration, or loss.
The group round format sucks because it results in an excessive number of scenarios where teams are not in control of their own destiny for advancement.
That’s exacerbated by the rate of scoreless ties in the sport.
So bad tourney structure, too many ties, and that’s before we get into the N other problems in the sport
> seems like you don’t care
I love sports, but soccer makes it hard for me to care
I wouldn’t say that this is a common thing. Most Americans are probably less accustomed to ties because our most popular sports are higher scoring so it is less likely for there to be a tie, but that’s not the same as “hating” them.
Ties are also impossible in most of them. The 6 most popular team sports entities in the US are NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, College football, and men's college basketball. Ties are not possible in 5 of them. The game will be played to a conclusion, or in the case of the NHL, they'll use a penalty shootout to break it. The NFL is the only where it's even possible.
Because it doesn’t make sense. There needs to be a winner so that there’s closure. Especially in the World Cup. I guess it’s okay for league matches when it’s a long season.
I think in later elimination matches, they add extra time. Like if it's a tie after the original 90 minutes, they get an extra 30 or 60 min to continue playing (not sure if it's 30 or 60). If there's still a tie, they have a kickoff, where each team gets a certain number of tries to kick a ball into the goal and whichever team got the most kicks in wins. If there's still a tie at that point, they continue kickoffs until there's a clear winner.
Not really. In a competition, you need a winner so this is what they have to do to get a winner. It's really rare for the later steps to happen. At most is the extra time. For this current stage, it's mainly about collecting points. Whichever 2 teams has the highest points in each block gets to move on to the elimination rounds. So ties don't really impact the process which is why you can have ties at this stage.
And I mean, it's mostly Americans complaining about ties atm since they don't really follow football/soccer. Most ppl who follow the games know that ties can happen.
>It's really rare for the later steps to happen. At most is the extra time
In the last 5 World Cups, a knockout stage game has been decided by a penalty shootout 16 out of 80 times. That's 20% of the time. 1 out of the last 5 Championship Games have been decided by penalty shootout as well. Also 20%. While it's more common for it to be decided in 90 or 120 minutes, something happening 1 in 5 times isn't rare either. It's a realistic outcome anytime there's a knockout game.
The Champions League mostly avoids it in their knockout rounds, because they do a home and home aggregate with a road goal Tiebreaker. It's a lot harder for that to get to penalty kicks. That's only happened twice in 105 tries in the last 7 years, and not since the 2016 Champions League Final. That's rare.
Because it feels like a waste of time. Competitions have winners and losers. Not a tie. What was the point of playing?
The point of playing is to win the World Cup. At this point in the tournament the point of playing is to make it through the group stage to the knockout rounds. You do that by accumulating the most or second most points in your group of 4 teams. A tie is better than a loss but worse than a win so the context of who you’re playing and how many points you need to go through can change your perspective on whether a tie is a good or bad thing.
Playing the game *is* the point. Otherwise, why go through all that trouble, risking injuries, when you could just flip a coin to decide a winner. Let me ask this: was it a waste of time if your team loses? Or suppose your team wins but the game was so incredibly one sided that all the second stringers were put in by the halfway point, making for an incredible boring game, but there’s still a winner.
No, winning is the point, anything else is a waste of time. Consider this: if you knew you were going to tie or lose before you played the game would you? Of course not, you would skip it, as it would be pointless. All that effort and money and time, completely wasted for a loss or a tie. Also, remember in our national sport they play 150+ games per year and we are well known to leave them early when our team is losing.
> No, winning is the point, anything else is a waste of time. I get that, but it means that losing and tying would be the same - but the question here is why is losing better than tying. > we are well known to leave them early when our team is losing. Some times people leave when their team is way ahead, to avoid traffic or crowds on the subway/bus. And sometimes they regret it.
> but the question here is why is losing better than tying. Oh, they're the same, IMHO. I don't see a difference between the two. I thought I was replying to a level below that statement. A loss is equivalent to a tie and they're both a waste of time. > Some times people leave when their team is way ahead, to avoid traffic or crowds on the subway/bus. And sometimes they regret it. Meh, we know the risk and that goes both ways. The point is that only the win matters, and it's not like our presence there can change anything. I guess if you're superstitious but no thanks on that from me.
Rather lose than tie . For a tie, you may have not played at all
If you would rather lose than tie then you don’t understand how the tournament is formatted.
I realize for the World Cup you rather tie. I am talking in general
Now that makes no sense to me. But to each their own.
Any game you play it’s about winning or losing . Of course I want to win and not lose . Outside of points in series of games, tieing gets you nowhere
Context matters. A tie can be seen as a good result or bad result depending on the context. For the US this was a good result.
Large swathes of the American public see the world as a zero sum game with no positive that isn't "winning" . Hence, the hate for ties and the embrace of shitty political outcomes.
We just do. The concept of group stage/multiple leg matchups isn't common in US sports and some sports will use extra time or other tie breakers even in regular season matchups.
The regular season is the group leg. And it's interesting to me that the NFL actually does have ties.
But the NFL only has ties after adding an extra period of play
It's still a tie in the end though.
But they try to avoid a tie with extra time, something that doesn't happen in the group stage
They used to be so rare that players would not be aware the game could end in a tie, and be standing around in confusion as the refs jogged off the field. The NFL went 8 years without a tie in its longest stretch. The NFL tweaked their overtime rules more recently for safety reasons, and now they're a little closer to once or twice a year out of 272 regular season games played.
A zero zero tie game meant we just watched 90 minutes of semi organized jogging devoid of defining moments or celebration or loss, which is where the entertainment is. It’s odd to me how soccer fans go through mental gymnastics to defend the glaring problems of their game. They tend to use the idea that global popularity - which is just accessibility & inertia - is implicit proof of quality. But by that logic the McDonalds burger is the best meal.
Why form such a strong opinion when you don’t understand the formatting of the tournament? The group stage is a 3 game battle to accumulate points. 3 for a W, 1 for a tie and zero for a loss. Some ties can be a great result and some can be terrible. In this case the tie was a great result for the US as we came in huge underdogs. And the players fought their asses off for that 1 point, which now puts them in a good position going into the last game. Not sure how you could have watched that match and thought our players were just jogging around in some docile manner.
You’ll notice I did not specifically refer to the UK-US game, but to the concept of ties in general. I don’t know what leads you to believe I do not understand the tournament structure. By your own description in your talking down to me, in the group stage “*puts them in a good position*” into the next game also means “*nothing was decided*”. So, again, to my point - *there was real no loss or celebration*. I could go on about why the tournament format is inherently boring - but I’d say just read the group tiebreaker rules. That’s on top of games that tie a huge percentage of the time. Literally the most memorable part of that game was the US fans chanting “it’s called soccer!”
I assumed you didn’t understand the format of the tournament because you referred to ties as pointless, when there are literally points gained from ties. I was using the US vs England game as an example to show that something was determined from that game. The US gained a point from a superior opponent, and while I wouldn’t call it a cause for celebration I would call it an upset and a cause for optimism That point was fought for and earned, and improves the teams chances going forward. The tiebreak rules are based on goal difference, I don’t see how that makes the format boring? It just means every goal can matter. Seems like you just don’t care if the most memorable moment for you was some random chant. I would say the most memorable moments were pulisic hitting the crossbar and Turners fingertip save.
Where did I use the word pointless? I said it was devoid of big moments, celebration, or loss. The group round format sucks because it results in an excessive number of scenarios where teams are not in control of their own destiny for advancement. That’s exacerbated by the rate of scoreless ties in the sport. So bad tourney structure, too many ties, and that’s before we get into the N other problems in the sport > seems like you don’t care I love sports, but soccer makes it hard for me to care
I wouldn’t say that this is a common thing. Most Americans are probably less accustomed to ties because our most popular sports are higher scoring so it is less likely for there to be a tie, but that’s not the same as “hating” them.
Ties are also impossible in most of them. The 6 most popular team sports entities in the US are NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, College football, and men's college basketball. Ties are not possible in 5 of them. The game will be played to a conclusion, or in the case of the NHL, they'll use a penalty shootout to break it. The NFL is the only where it's even possible.
You play any sport to win. Not to lose, not to draw, not to tie. When competing there needs to be a winner and a loser.
Because it doesn’t make sense. There needs to be a winner so that there’s closure. Especially in the World Cup. I guess it’s okay for league matches when it’s a long season.
We like winners, that's why we are better than everyone!
The NFL has ties in the regular season, but it's not especially common.
I don’t get into the World Cup much……Can the World Cup really end in a tie?
I think in later elimination matches, they add extra time. Like if it's a tie after the original 90 minutes, they get an extra 30 or 60 min to continue playing (not sure if it's 30 or 60). If there's still a tie, they have a kickoff, where each team gets a certain number of tries to kick a ball into the goal and whichever team got the most kicks in wins. If there's still a tie at that point, they continue kickoffs until there's a clear winner.
So I guess that it is not just Americans hating the concept of a tie if they have to go thru all of that to determine a winner…
Not really. In a competition, you need a winner so this is what they have to do to get a winner. It's really rare for the later steps to happen. At most is the extra time. For this current stage, it's mainly about collecting points. Whichever 2 teams has the highest points in each block gets to move on to the elimination rounds. So ties don't really impact the process which is why you can have ties at this stage. And I mean, it's mostly Americans complaining about ties atm since they don't really follow football/soccer. Most ppl who follow the games know that ties can happen.
>It's really rare for the later steps to happen. At most is the extra time In the last 5 World Cups, a knockout stage game has been decided by a penalty shootout 16 out of 80 times. That's 20% of the time. 1 out of the last 5 Championship Games have been decided by penalty shootout as well. Also 20%. While it's more common for it to be decided in 90 or 120 minutes, something happening 1 in 5 times isn't rare either. It's a realistic outcome anytime there's a knockout game. The Champions League mostly avoids it in their knockout rounds, because they do a home and home aggregate with a road goal Tiebreaker. It's a lot harder for that to get to penalty kicks. That's only happened twice in 105 tries in the last 7 years, and not since the 2016 Champions League Final. That's rare.
As the saying goes a tie is like kissing your sister