Round of 16 matches

[Pothas]

Found it in the book and according to the guy that had done all the number crunching it is the 1st and 4th. Don't really have a clue how the maths work and if it really makes a huge difference but there you have it.

They were certainly important in the one we just saw.

Something the book does consistently point out is how much more you are likely to score if you are kicking to win rather than to stay in the shoot-out.

 

[sledger]

Found it in the book and according to the guy that had done all the number crunching it is the 1st and 4th. Don't really have a clue how the maths work and if it really makes a huge difference but there you have it.

They were certainly important in the one we just saw.

Something the book does consistently point out is how much more you are likely to score if you are kicking to win rather than to stay in the shoot-out.

Yeah, I don't have any trouble believing that whatsoever.

 

[Uppercut]

I definitely wouldn't have the best taker take 4th, because the whole thing could be over by then.

You don't actually give up any edge by having your best penalty takers go last. I don't think I've ever heard a commentator who didn't commit that fallacy, though.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah going first is a huge advantage in shootouts. Since so much of the whole thing is psychological anyway, given that most professional footballers can obviously take a somewhat decent penalty. The added pressure of knowing you have to score vs scoring giving you an advantage is huge. I feel like the vast majority of shootouts I watch are won by the team going first. As long as that team isn't England.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You don't actually give up any edge by having your best penalty takers go last. I don't think I've ever heard a commentator who didn't commit that fallacy, though.

Wouldn't the "edge" you're giving up be that your best penalty takers might not take penalties at all? Like with Greece today if one assumes Samaras is their best penalty taker and he was going to be 5th.

 

[Uppercut]

It's pretty funny how unpopular Greece are with everyone. It's like they forfeited their right to be considered support-worthy underdogs in 2004.

 

[sledger]

You don't actually give up any edge by having your best penalty takers go last. I don't think I've ever heard a commentator who didn't commit that fallacy, though.

Only if you make it to the 5th one, that is.

 

[Uppercut]

Wouldn't the "edge" you're giving up be that your best penalty takers might not take penalties at all? Like with Greece today if one assumes Samaras is their best penalty taker and he was going to be 5th.

Nah makes no difference. Not outside of psychology anyway.

 

[sledger]

Nah makes no difference. Not outside of psychology anyway.

Why not?

 

[Uppercut]

Why not?

The team with the most scorers wins. Shuffling the order can't change that.

You can make the shoot-out go on longer by putting your scorers first. But you can't change the result.

 

[Cabinet96]

The team with the most scorers wins. Shuffling the order can't change that.

You can make the shoot-out go on longer by putting your scorers first. But you can't change the result.

But you're more likely to score if your best taker is within that four or five than not in it, no.

 

[Uppercut]

But you're more likely to score if your best taker is within that four or five than not in it, no.

I don't really understand what you mean. Saving your best taker for sudden death would be really stupid. But as long as the five who take the penalties are the five best takers, nothing else matters, except for psychology.

 

[sledger]

Yeah, but some takers will be better than others. They might be your best 5, but 1 or 2 of those 5 might be significantly better than the remaining 3, who might be the best of a bad bunch.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Actually yeah just had that moment when someone points out something that should be really obvious that you had just never realised. Yeah Uppercut is right but psychological factors still play a part of course.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The only way it doesn't make a difference is if you assume the result of each shooter would be exactly the same regardless of the situation in which they took the shot. Seems a bit of a stretch given the randomness of the whole thing. If you put your best taker 5th you increase the chance that they won't get a chance to take a penalty and thus the likelyhood of you losing the shootout. Now yeah if your #4 guy was going to miss anyway and everyone on their team is going to score you'll just turn a 5-3 loss going second into a 5-4 loss, but in reality I don't think you can be that certain of anyone's chance of successfully taking a penalty, so you want your best penalty taker(s) going earlier on in your first 5 rather than, say, last.

Either way it's a small difference but the logic of putting your best guy 5th in the order makes no sense to me.

edit: Or I should say, I understand that it's because they think the 5th shooter will be under the most pressure, but I think the benefit of having your best penalty takers guaranteed to take a penalty with the result still on the line is more significant.

 

[Tangles]

Glad Greece lost. That missed hand ball would have been 2 nil. Costa Rica vs Holland should be much more entertaining than Greece would ever have been. The Dutch were super lucky today and I feel another performance like that and they will go out. Will we get to the Dutch we saw in game 1 again?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

So glad the better games seem to be first each night. 4am KO a stretch too far

Toughen up princess. Some of us do this every week.

Nowhere near the frequency and the hilarity that it does on soccer.

Haven't watched the NBA in a while, have you?

 

[Nate]

I don't like angry Smittens.

 

[silentstriker]

U.S. becoming fan favorite of other World Cup team nations

 

[GIMH]

Toughen up princess. Some of us do this every week.

I'm an old man