FIFA does something good

Loyal readers will remember this 2018 post about the 2026 World Cup in which I pointed out the flaws of the proposed 3-team groups.

Luckily, FIFA reads Hoagie Central and they have decided to adopt my plan of the 4-team groups. 

USA Advances

Just like in 2010 and 2014, the USA advanced to the Round of 16 with a thrilling/nervous 1-0 victory over Iran. They advanced despite only scoring two goals in three games. But it counts. 

I made a chart to show what kind of teams have advanced in 3 of the last 4 Cups. 

First thing that leaps out at me. Italy zero. USA three.

Okay, let's do a proper deep dive. 

Over the last 4 World Cups, here are the teams to advance to the Knockout Round at least twice, sorted by tiers:

4 Times

Argentina

Brazil

3 Times

England

France

Japan

Mexico

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

Switzerland

Uruguay

USA

2 Times

Belgium

Chile

Colombia

Croatia

Germany

South Korea

That's absolutely wild. By this measure of recent and consistent World Cup success, Brazil and Argentina stand alone. Then there are 10 countries in the next tier. And then another 6 in the conversation. 

USA doing better than Germany, Belgium and Italy. That's nuts.

We'll be longshots against Netherlands, but that's okay. I'll take this over not making out of the group any year. 

World Cup 2022: Who I'm Rooting For

Tier One

USA

I'm a US Soccer fan first and foremost. In things like Olympic Basketball, it's not really fun to root for USA because it's typically a forgone conclusion. But in Olympic Curling or the World Cup? Yes, it is absolutely fun to compete with the best on an international stage. 

Tier Two

Spain

Belgium

Croatia

Serbia

Ecuador

Tunisia

Qatar

These are my Calcutta teams for this year. So I'm absolutely rooting for my teams to bring me a title that only comes around every four years. 

Tier Three

I did my 23 and Me and my ancestry results give me in this order:

Germany

Poland

Sweden

Denmark

England

The only team that didn't qualify from this list is Sweden, so there's four more countries I'm rooting for. 

My three favorite countries I've visited are Italy, Jamaica and Argentina. Of these, only Argentina qualified. 

So including Argentina that's 13 out of 32 countries that I have a reason to root for. 

Of course, I think Brazil is going to win. If that happens it would prove me right, but it would mostly sting that I didn't have the balls to bid them up all the way.

Knockout Round Update: My original 13 is down to 6.

USA

Spain

Croatia

Poland

England

Argentina

World Cup Big Board

I didn't want England because they always choke.

I didn't want France because it's hard to repeat. 

The only time Argentina did well in the WC was 2014 when it was in Brazil. Messi is 8 years older (now 35) so despite my affinity for them, I didn't think they had the best odds of winning it all. 

So I had Brazil in the Top Tier by themselves. 

I had Argentina, Spain, Belgium and Netherlands in the next tier with Netherlands being the best value pick. 

My next tier was Germany, Portugal and Denmark. 

My bottom tier was Croatia, Uruguay and Senegal. 

- - -

My plan was get Brazil no matter what. Then get the Netherlands. Then see how it shakes out trying to get as much of the other teams I had marked. 

I went up to $11.50 on Brazil but thought if I went up to $12 that I would only be able to get one other decent team. So I let Kirat have Brazil at $11.61. 

Instead I was able to get Spain and Belgium for just over what Kirat paid for Brazil. But then when it was time to get Netherlands, I went up to $6.70—my max at the time—even though they were supposed to be a value pick, and Matt still outbid me.

- - -

Happy to get Spain and Belgium, but the only other team that I had marked that I ended up getting was Croatia. 

- - -

Mark spent most of his money on the two teams I didn't want. But they'll still get to the quarterfinals. France could lose in the title game, I thought they would go for more. 

Kirat is top heavy but comparing rosters, probably has the best 1st team and the best 2nd team. Kirat did well. But we'll have to see.

2022 World Cup: First Thoughts

I remember watching the announcement that this World Cup would be in Qatar. It was December 2010. I was in Denver for a job interview. A month later we'd find out we were having a baby. Eight months later, I'd actually get hired at the same place I interviewed at in December and we'd be moving to Colorado. 

By 2014, I had two kids and was watching the World Cup at that same Denver agency. My life had changed between 2010 and 2014. And then it's changed a couple times since then too. 

- - -

By the way, for all the authenticity nerds, I'll be pronouncing it Qatar and not Qatar for the remainder of the post. You'll just have to deal with it.

- - -

I've gone in-depth before, so here's the abridged version of where I was for every World Cup that's mattered to me:

1998: Peoria, high school. Fell in love with the World Cup.

2002: Peoria, college. Didn't really pay attention.

2006: Chicago, 1st agency. Watched games at Timothy O'Toole's.

2010: Chicago, same agency, different building. Watched at office watch party.

2014: Denver, 2nd agency. Watched at office watch party.

2018: Kansas City, 3rd agency. USA missed tournament, watched mostly at home.

2022: Kansas City, 4th agency. USA is back

In 7 lines of text about a soccer tournament, there's a pretty good snapshot of my life from high school to present. From one World Cup to the next, I've been in a different office building for every one. The four agencies I've worked at are all represented. 

- - -

Here's how the USA has fared at these World Cups:

1998: Finished 4th in group.

2002: Finished 2nd in group, beat Mexico 2-0 in round of 16, lost to Germany 0-1 in quarterfinals.

2006: Finished 4th in group.

2010: Finished 1st in group, lost to Ghana 1-2 in extra time in round of 16.

2014: Finished 2nd in group, lost to Belgium 1-2 in extra time in round of 16.

2018: Did not qualify.

2022: Qualified

- - -

Here's the history of the Finals over this time:

1998: France defeated Brazil in France

2002: Brazil defeated Germany in Japan

2006: Italy defeated France in Germany

2010: Spain defeated Netherlands in South Africa

2014: Germany defeated Argentina in Brazil

2018: France defeated Croatia in Russia

- - -

Two years ago, I did my 23 and Me, so in addition to the USMNT, I have dna ties to these countries:

Germany (Group E)

Poland (Group C)

Sweden (Did not qualify)

Denmark (Group D)

England (Group B)

Because of the Qatar heat, the 2022 World Cup starts in November instead of the traditional summer schedule. 

The first game will be on the Monday before Thanksgiving.

- - -

Here's Group B of the 2022 World Cup:

England

USA

Iran

tbd (one of Scotland/Ukraine/Wales)

- - -

Here's USA's Schedule

Game 1 vs tbd: 10pm local time / 1pm Central on Monday, November 21 (day before my birthday)

Game 2 vs England: 10pm local time / 1pm Central on Friday, November 25 (day after Thanksgiving)

Game 3 vs Iran: 10pm local time / 1pm Central on Tuesday, November 29 

- - -

For us folks in central time, the first two group stage matches will be played at these times:

4am

7am

10am

1pm

The final group stage matches are simultaneous per group, and will be at 9am and 1pm, starting on 11/29. 

The knockout round continues in December culminating with the final on December 18 at 9am central.

Croatia's Path to their First World Cup Final

Heading into the final matches in Group G, there was a lot of discussion around the Belgium-England match and the incentive to lose. The bracket was already mostly set, and the powerhouse teams were in the top half. Specifically the winner of Belgium-England would likely face Brazil in the quarterfinals while Sweden awaited the loser. Belgium would defeat England 1-0 to win the group and go on to face Brazil. England would face Sweden. But perhaps, the biggest winner in the whole situation was neither Belgium for winning the group nor England for dodging Brazil, but instead...Croatia.

Croatia's first knockout game was vs Denmark, the second place finisher of Group C. Denmark took the early lead but Croatia equalized and advanced on penalties.

You'd have expected their next game to be against Spain, but instead faced Russia, the second place finisher of Group A. Russia was outclassed by Spain but was given a penalty via handball that was definitively not intentional (though he shouldn't have had his hand up). Russia again had a first-half lead but Croatia equalized and advanced on penalties.

And that brings us to today. Before the Cup, everyone expected Germany to win Group F. Instead it was Sweden after the Germans flamed out in the group stage. The other Group winner on this side, Group H, was Columbia. Their star, Rodriguez was injured and couldn't play against England. So England advanced against a depleted Columbia and avoided Germany. Croatia didn't have to play Belgium or Germany or Columbia, they faced England, the second place finisher of Group G.

Yep, three knockout games all against teams that finished second in their group. (Meanwhile, France defeated two group winners in Uruguay and Belgium plus Argentina.)

Could Croatia had beaten Spain in the quarterfinals or Belgium/Germany in the semifinals? It would have been tougher, that's for sure.

But it is worth recognizing how Croatia earned the spot on this side of the bracket. They won their group. They beat Argentina 3-0 on June 21. Flip that result and Croatia would have faced France in the round of 16.

Belgium and Croatia were the only two teams to secure 9 points in the group stage. So Croatia is the only team that's won all 6 games they've played.

World Cup 2026

So the World Cup is coming to North America in 2026. Great!
They're expanding from 32 to 48 teams to be more inclusive. Great!
They are going to have 16 groups of 3 teams each, 2 group matches instead of 3 for every team. Oh no.

- - -

3 teams in 16 groups, where the top 2 teams advance to a 32-team knockout round?

The first thing this instantly robs fans of is the simultaneous matches to conclude the group stage.

Let's look at a scenario involving a fictional Group with Brazil, Croatia and Tunisia.

Brazil play Croatia first and win. Now it's Croatia vs Tunisia. If you're Tunisia, you know that two draws will get you in. So your best shot is to play super conservative against both Croatia and Brazil, keep 11 guys back and allow zero goals. That's not great soccer or fair or good for anyone.

- - -

Here's another group: Spain, Australia, Senegal.

Spain beats Australia. Senegal and Australia tie. Now it's Spain vs Senegal. They both know that a tie is great for them. Spain gets to win the group, Senegal advances. So they both play conservative and it ends 0-0. That seems super realistic, right?

- - -

So 16 groups of 3 teams is shit. What's the alternative? The obvious is 12 groups of 4.

The top 2 teams advance, that's 24. Then you sort the 3rd place teams and the 8 teams with the most points advance. If that seems familiar, it's what the World Cup 1986 to 1994 when they used the group stage to narrow 24 teams down to 16.

But leagues and clubs are concerned with the total number of matches. So instead of fairness, we're left with money determining the result. Sounds like FIFA after all.

World Cup Math

In 4-team groups, there are 6 matches and a maximum of 18 points, with a minimum of 12 points, that can be earned.

It's impossible for two teams in the same group to each finish with 9 points each. (In 2002, Brazil won all three group matches and all four knockout matches to win the Cup.)

It is possible for three teams to finish with 6 points each, which means a team could get first place with 6 points while another team gets eliminated with 6 points. (In 1994, there were two instances where three teams finished with 6 points each, but because there were only 24 teams with 16 advancing, all teams with 6 points advanced.)

It is possible for three teams to finish with 5 points each, if three teams win one game and draw the other two. This has not happened as far as I know.

It is possible for all four teams to finish with 4 points each, if each team gets exactly 1 win, 1 draw and 1 tie. This happened in 1994. It was the only time every team had the same points and same goal difference.

It is possible for all four teams to finish with 3 points each, by tying each game. This has never happened.

Scoring in Soccer

The very first live post on this site was a bunch of stupid suggestions under the title, How to fix soccer. I rightfully got a scolding from pre-twitter soccer fans. I'll hopefully do better with this post.

- - -

Every World Cup since 1962 has averaged between 2 and 3 goals per match. (The 2010 and 2014 World Cups averaged a combined 2.47 goals per match. That's 1.23 per team per match.)

In 1958, 3.6 goals per match.
In 1954, 5.38 goals per match.
From 1934 to 1950, every World cup averaged between 4 and 5 goals per match.

- - -

I'm not saying that the game is broken or needs fixing. But it's worth noting that scoring is half of what it's used to be. Goals are exciting and important. In doing research for this, I found this from a Slate article:

I agree that fans want close games, of course, but I also think fans like scoring. Not too much, mind you. For example, Portugal just played Spain to a 3-3 draw and I think most people found it very exciting. 12-9 would have been too much, but 3-3 is great. 5-4 is fun every now and again. 

In the NHL this year, teams averaged 2.97 goals per game. That's per team, so we're talking 6 goals per game. Some games you get 1-0 nailbiters, some are 7-6 barnburners and some are 5-0 blowouts. But six goals a game works nicely. The arena explodes every time there is a goal. At 6 per game, the rarity does not diminish the excitement. (A good example is a NBA basket. There are 40 made per team per game. So you're not exploding out of your seat or crying if your opponent makes a shot. Likewise in tennis.) 

In the NFL, teams average about 2.5 TDs per game. Same story as hockey. Every TD matters a lot. Games are fun when there are 4 and 5 touchdowns per team, and still fun for the rare 14-7 game too. 

So for soccer teams to be averaging 1.3 goals per game...it's a little weak. Especially when you throw in that there are straight draws after 90 minutes. The possibility of a 0-0 draw is thoroughly present. 

I think the numbers show that increasing from 2.5 goals to around 5 goals per game would be healthy for the game. And it would actually keep it in line with its historical roots. 

- - -

And one more thing...the Penalty. 

I tried to find out how many goals are typically scored via penalty. Hard to find, but I found a video showing "all 12 penalty goals from world cup 2014". So if you take out the 12 goals scored via penalty, the average for 2014 drops from 2.67 to 2.48 per match. Goals via penalty account for 7% of all goals at the last World Cup. 

Here's the thing. Goals scored in the run of play are beautiful and exciting and either well-earned or a huge mistake from the opponent. Goals scored via penalty are not beautiful, not that exciting because 76% are converted and often come down to a judgement call—where well-earned or mistakes may not even come into it. 

It also often just doesn't make sense. A little push or trip that five feet away would be given a difficult contested shot from 25 yards is now given a gimmie uncontested shot from 12 yards. Combined with the overall low-scoring nature of the current game, one judgement call can decide the whole game. 

So if I was in charge, which I'm not, I would try to increase scoring in the run of play and decrease the impact of goals via penalty. 

- - -

Let's start with the penalty. In the NFL, there used to be two kinds of face mask penalty. A severe penalty for intentionally grabbing the face mask and a milder penalty for accidentally grabbing the face mask. It worked pretty well. Let's bring that idea to soccer. Instead of the current 12-yard spot, let's have 2 spots. One from 10-yards for obvious, blatant penalties (intentional handballs, reckless slide tackles) and one from 16-yards for more inadvertent fouls (unintentional handballs, pushes and trips that were attempts on the ball but missed). 

The exact distances would warrant testing but the goal of this is simple. The odds of converting a penalty should be commensurate with the odds of scoring on the play when the infraction occurred. If a defender wipes out a player on a breakaway, the offense should be given a kick with 90% conversion rate. If the defender was going for the ball in a normal offensive set, the offense should be given a kick with a 50% conversion rate. 

This 16-yard spot would become more exciting as goalies would be able to wait longer before diving. It's a more challenging kick and would have more inherent drama on each kick. 

- - -

As for increasing scoring in the run of play...there are lots of possible solutions. The obvious is to increase the size of the goal, even by just a foot on each side. It's currently 24 feet. A 25 or 26 foot goal might be perfect. 

The game is good and doesn't need radical changes. But any game warrants looking at ways to make it better. 

Until 2018...

Four years ago, this was how it ended. 

Yesterday Belgium dominated the match. Fifa's stats show US had possession 52-48, but for scoring attempts Belgium had 38. US only 14.

Tim Howard had a record 16 saves. The Belgian goalie, 4.

Belgium had chance after chance, in great space, and couldn't get it by Howard. Honestly, it seemed that most of them were not the best of finishes, mostly going right at Howard. There were a couple that Howard got just an inch of boot on, enough to redirect it. Moving forward it is worrisome how much our team was consistently outplayed and had to rely on superb goalkeeping.

After all that, right at the end of normal time, Wondolowski had a point blank chance at an open net and pushed it over. It happens.

And then in Extra Time, Belgium had two quick goals and it was all over. Might as well put in Julian Green, the 19-year-old who was often cited as someone who should have been left off the roster in favor of Donovan. Two minutes in, his first touch finds the back of the net.

And suddenly, after the game was all over, the US side unleashes their best attack yet. Ten minutes of pressure and excitement. Jones had a chance in front of the net and pushed it wide. Dempsey was on the receiving end of a brilliant set piece and should have, could have, sent the game to penalties.

In the end, Belgium got the win they deserved. But the last gasp of the Americans showed promise for the future.

I've been a fan of the World Cup since 1998. 2010 was really the first time that I got into the US team. (I really blew it in 2002) But now I'm in.

In July 2015, the USA will play in the CONCACAF Gold Cup. (The US have won this 5 times, most recently in 2013.)

In June 2016, the USA will play in a special 100th anniversary (of CONMEBOL) tournament called the Copa Americao Centenario, hosted in the US, featuring the best teams from North America and South America.

In June 2017, there is the Fifa Confederations Cup. This is an 8-team tournament held a year prior to the World Cup, in the World Cup's location. This features the current champions of the 6 regions, the reigning World Cup holder, and the host nation. (For the record, in 2013 Spain was both the reigning World Cup holder (2010) and the champion of Europe (Euro 2012). As the runner-up of Euro 2012, Italy represented the European spot.) The CONCACAF spot is determined by a play-off game between the winners of the 2013 and 2015 Gold Cup. Since the USA won the 2013 contest, winning the 2015 Gold Cup would secure their spot in the Confederations Cup. (Also for the record, something I knew nothing about in the lead-up to the 2010 World Cup, the US actually finished second at the 2009 Confederations Cup and had a 2-0 lead at half-time over Brazil, before losing 2-3. They beat Spain 2-0 in 2009, in the middle of Spain's run of three consecutive major trophies (Euro 2008, World Cup 2010, Euro 2012).

And then of course in June 2018, the US will have another shot at the World Cup. Which is really the only trophy that matters for international teams. The US team will likely look much different and may not be prepared yet for a deep run. But based on recent success of advancing out of the group stages, I suspect that a deep run will be coming in the next 20 years. Perhaps 2022, perhaps 2026 when the US could be a potential host nation. It may not be coming soon, but I believe it is coming.

The World Cup teams that have impressed me so far (highlights)

I tried to watch every goal of the World Cup that I could, if not live at least the highlights. In case you missed one, here's a supercut of all 136 group stage goals. 

This year's tournament has been fantastic. United States success aside, the games have been high scoring, we've had great goals from Messi, not that many ties, plenty of surprises. It's been a joy.

Coming into it, I already was a fan of the USMNT. And I also like Argentina, both for Messi and I really enjoyed my time there (plus their uniforms are snazzy).

Some other teams have impressed me.

First, the Netherlands for their dismantling the reigning world champions. Just watch. After giving up a questionable penalty early, van Persie scoring a diving header that was the early goal of the tournament. Also, van Persie is really fun to say in a soccer announcer voice. Then Robben showed world-class touch and finish. After another Dutch goal, it was van Persie who scored again by picking the ball off the goalie and Robben's turn again to show speed and then control. Those are beautiful goals.

Then, Switzerland. In their first game against Ecuador it was 1-1 in the 92nd minute in a 93 minute game. Ecuador had the ball in the box. And Behrami on the Swiss team makes a slide tackle in the box, dribbles it out is knocked to the ground but without a whistle, so he gets up and continues dribbling. He passes it to Seferović who swings it wide and then is on the receiving end of a low cross. It's an end-to-end goal to win the game in stoppage time. Watch at the :42 mark. My favorite part is that Behrami wasn't looking for a whistle, he just keep running. In their third game, a Swiss defender make a brilliant kick save on the goal-line against Honduras.

And then we get to Costa Rica, the CONCACAF team that nobody gave a chance. They came from behind to beat Uruguay 3-1 with a nice range of goals. And then they beat Italy (which eventually gave Costa Rica 1st place and knocked out the Azurri) with a goal that was correctly called, where it was a good thing that goal-line technology existed.

I mentioned that van Persie had the early goal of the tournament. Well, I think he was on the field for the goal that deserves that title. Australia earned 0 points but this volley from Cahill will live on.

I can't overlook Argentina. Or should I just say Messi. There was his marvelous goal in the first game, his game winner over Iran in stoppage time, and two goals against Nigeria including a free kick.

And of course, the United States. The game winner from Brooks that would outrank Donovan's 2010 goal if it was the last game in the group stage and the equalizer from Jones that I could stare at for hours.

Evaluating FiveThirtyEight's Predictions

Before the World Cup started, FiveThirtyEight posted predictions of each team's chance to win the Cup, finish first or second, and even percentages to win each game. Some of their odds were reviewed in the comments as obvious, others seemed to be off. I knew from their NCAA tournament that they would update the odds as they went along, which is very helpful. And yet it erases their pre-tournament predictions, something that important for judging their model in the first place. 

The trick for evaluating their odds is obvious. If you say that Germany has a 69% chance of beating Ghana and a 20% chance of tying them, and then they tie...is your model correct and this was a 1 in 5 scenario...or did the model undervalue the chance of a draw? With small sample sizes, there really isn't a good answer. The best I can do is to measure how often they were accurate and make a subjective evaluation if that seems within a margin of error, considering the sample size. 

I captured screenshots of Group G (because Group of Death and USA) and Group D (because they predicted England would advance while the comments seemed certain that Italy would advance). 

Germany took first place. They were given a 69% chance of doing so.
USA took second place. They were given a 25% chance of doing so.
Portugal was eliminated. 55% chance of that.
Ghana was eliminated 70% chance of that.

This group is interesting in that the three non-Germany teams each had the most likely odds of not advancing. (This is always an interesting conundrum. See also: That the favorite to win the NCAA tournament only has a 14% chance of doing so.) Basically, whoever got 2nd place was going to be unlikely, and yet we know it had to be someone.

Let's look at the individual matches.

USA-Ghana. Highest odds were a USA win at 38%. Correct. (Again, the USA win should only happen, according to the model, less than 4 out of 10, but it was the model's most likely outcome.)
Germany-Portugal. Highest was Germany win at 63%. Correct.
USA-Portugal. Highest odds was a Portugal win at 39%. Incorrect. Draw was 29%.
Germany-Ghana. Highest odds was a Germany win at 39%. Incorrect. Draw was 20%.
USA-Germany. Highest odds was a Germany win at 67%. Correct.
Portugal-Ghana. Highest odds was a Portugal win at 41%. Correct.

4 out of 6 correct in this group.

Costa Rica took 1st place. 9% chance of that.
Uruguay took 2nd. 28% chance of that.
Italy was eliminated. 53% chance of that.
England was eliminated. 36% chance of that.

FiveThirtyEight was really down on Costa Rica. It seems like this was a genuine surprise run. And 30% chance of advancing seems to reflect a puncher's chance.

Without typing out all the matches, 538 was only assigned 2 of the 6 matches the highest odds correctly.

My net conclusion is that 538 has reasonable odds predictions, but aren't really any better than just a soccer fan's common sense. They claim to offer specific percentages but they don't really mean anything.

USA advance to the Knockout Round

in consecutive World Cups for the first time ever.

We had a World Cup party where about 20 people gathered to watch the US get zero shots on goal. But I just realized...what if the games had been in reverse order.

After the first game this would have been the table:

Germany 3 gd+1
Portugal 3 gd+1
Ghana 0  gd-1
USA 0 gd-1

Our hopes would have been slim. A loss to Portugal would have eliminated us. That early Portugal goal would have been a dagger. And then we would have been ecstatic to take the lead (as we were on Sunday) and then heartbroken with the final goal.

Germany 4 gd+1
Portugal 4 gd+1
Ghana 1 gd-1
USA 1 gd-1

So for our final game, here's what we would have needed. Beat Ghana AND require that either Germany or Portugal win AND make up the goal differential.

In the first minute, Dempsey scores. USA looks good. Then we see that Germany is pulling away from Portugal. By halftime, it's clear: just hold on to the win and we're through. And then Ghana ties it in the 85th minute. Those motherfuckers. The ensuing Brooks goal would have been the biggest highlight in U.S. soccer history. It would have been incredible.

And really, all of that happened. Just not in that order. So yeah, we're through and it's awesome.

Spain. Italy. England. Portugal. All of them are at home.
The United States lives to play another day alongside Brazil, Germany and Argentina.

In 2010 we had a better result than Italy, and the same as England and Portugal. So by advancing in 2014, the USA has outperformed Italy, England and Portugal over the last two World Cups combined. These are countries where soccer is everything. That feels pretty nice.

USA scenarios, updated

with USA WIN
USA 6
Germany 4
Ghana 1
Portugal 0

with USA DRAW
Germany 4
USA 4
Ghana 1
Portugal 1

with USA LOSS
Germany 4
USA 3
Portugal 3
Ghana 1

A win puts the USA through (and not a bad shot of finishing first).

Even a draw tomorrow, sets up the USA well. Germany and USA could settle on a draw to push them both through. If the USA draw tomorrow and then lose by 1 to Germany, Ghana would need to beat Portugal by 2, or Portugal would need to win by 5 to knock out the USA.

A loss means they need a draw or better vs Germany.

Which is expected. I just looked at the last three World Cups. There have been many teams to advance with 4 points, none with 3.

- - -

Also, for the first time I just looked at Group H to see the USA's potential opponent in the the round of 16. Belgium is worst case scenario. Could be South Korea, Russia or Algeria. None of those are particularly scary.

A vs B

The winner of Group A will play the 2nd place team from Group B and vice-versa in the round of 16. I originally noticed that Spain could face Brazil in the Final or as early as the first knockout match. After Spain's first loss that seemed very much in play. Now they're eliminated. But there is a very interesting situation still brewing.

First let's look at Group A.

Brazil 4
Mexico 4
Croatia 3
Cameroon 0

Since Brazil is playing Cameroon you would think Brazil will win and win the group. But you never know. The possibility is there that they could play to a draw like they did against Mexico. Mexico vs Croatia should be for second place, Mexico only needs a tie, Croatia a win.

At this level of analysis, it's not just if you advance, but who wins and who finishes second because of the powers looming in Group B. If Brazil draws, either Mexico or Croatia could win the group and Brazil could finish second. (If Croatia wins by a goal, and Brazil would need to lose to Cameroon by 3 to not advance. So yeah.)

We'll come back to the winner of this group in a moment.

- - -

Here's Group B at the moment:

Netherlands 6
Chile 6
Australia 0
Spain 0

You would think there's no drama here. We know who's advancing. But Netherlands vs Chile is quite important. It determines who wins the groups and therefore, which opponent they'll get in the round of 16. And despite Brazil having less points than either of these two teams, the home country in the knockout round is not your preferred choice. I think either NED or CHI would be favored against MEX or CRO but an underdog against BRA.

So it's simple enough, we'll know who won Group A and assuming it's Brazil, then Netherlands vs Chile will be for the right to avoid them...except it's not.

I'm assuming because of time zones, the Group B matches are before the Group A matches. (3 of the other days are out of order: BA, DC, FE, GH.) So we'll know who wins Group B. And then we get to see the Group A matches.

Which brings strategerie to Brazil. If I'm them, I want to avoid the Netherlands. Perhaps Chile is just as strong, but I think the Netherlands could reach the Finals. If NED wins, extra motivation for Brazil to win their group. Say Chile wins but on a fluke penalty and NED again looks like one of the best teams. I would be very tempted to merely draw with Cameroon to get Chile.

USA scenarios

Germany plays Ghana Saturday. I will assume Germany wins. Here are the three tables following USA-Portugal on Sunday.

with USA WIN
Germany 6
USA 6
Ghana 0
Portugal 0

with USA DRAW
Germany 6
USA 4
Ghana 0
Portugal 1

with USA LOSS
Germany 6
USA 3
Portugal 3
Ghana 0

A win clinches a berth in the knockout round.
A draw doesn't clinch, but is pretty close because USA has a +5 goal differential over Portugal.

A loss leaves work to do, hoping to best Portugal's fate against Ghana.

In short, win or draw vs Portugal and we're sitting pretty.

Way too premature and unrealistic guide to the U.S. advancing

I mean, the US will probably finish the bottom of the table. But still...

With Germany holding at 3-0 lead at halftime and one of Portugal's key defenders being sent off (and therefore will miss the game against the U.S.) here's an optimistic way this could shake out.

Germany. They will get the 3 points against Portugal. They will likely get all 3 against Ghana next.

They're in. That leaves one extra spot.

Let's say the US and Ghana draw today. 1 point each.

Then let's say the US beat the Pepe-less Portugal in the jungle.

The table looks like this heading into the last game:

Germany 6
US 4
Ghana 1
Portugal 0

At that point all the US would need is a draw against Germany, or even it a loss to minimize the damage and advance over Ghana on goal differential, assuming they can earn 3 against Portugal.

Okay...so that requires a win over Portugal... what if...

the US draws instead with both Ghana and Portugal...

The table looks like this heading into the last game:

Germany 6
US 2
Ghana 1
Portugal 1

If Ghana and Portugal draw, it's the same situation for the US. Draw and you're in. Otherwise just minimize the goal differential.

It's totally possible. Both of these scenarios are based upon a draw vs Ghana today. Win vs Ghana and they're sitting prettier. Lose against Ghana and then a win against Portugal is necessary. Here's that table:

Germany 6
US 3
Ghana 3
Portugal 0

At that point, it still doesn't look good. Germany wouldn't even be clinched so they would come out with full intensity.

Basically, it all comes down to today. Draw Ghana and you're okay. Win is great. Lose, means you're looking at 2018.

Was Rooney shit or shite?

In case you missed it, (spoiler alert) Italy defeated England 2-1 and Rooney in particular was awful. I went to twitter to search two strings without quotes: Rooney shit and Rooney shite. I thought that I would be able to do a simple count and compare, say 34 to 16 or something, which adjective people who follow the English team use.

Well there's upwards of thousands of both. But the initial sampling suggests that shit is perhaps twice as popular as shite.

Though this much is clear. Rooney is shit and shite.

My previous post was supposed to be about how I think the Netherlands are always really good in the World Cup and I picked them to advance, while others were picking Chile. They've advanced in the three other World Cups I've watched, and made it to the Finals in 2010 and the Semis in 1998.

How the World Cup intersects life

(I touched on this a bit previously, but let me do a better job...)

The World Cup first mattered to me in 1998. Summer is amazing when you're 14. You're not old enough to have a job, but you are old enough to know what you're doing and appreciate the time off. Virtually every morning that summer, I woke up and watched Patrick and Olbermann do SportsCenter. I listened to Hello Nasty and watched the video for Intergalactic. And I watched the World Cup.

This commercial was the greatest thing I had ever seen.

From the beginning, the World Cup was not about the knockout rounds for me. I fell in love with the group stage. The round robin where wins and ties matter and scenarios unfold over the course of weeks. And each game is on one at a time. So you watch Brazil and France, but also Iran and Japan.

This was my first World Cup. I was just a boy.

Four years prior, I was a ten-year-old who knew nothing. The World Cup was actually in America. I remember being on vacation and for some reason, I was wearing a Germany t-shirt for no reason. I suppose I thought it was neat. Anyways, we were at a restaurant and the waiter asked if we where there for the World Cup.

By the 2002 World Cup, I had already completed a year of college. Perhaps I was still a boy, but I had a summer job. And with the time zone difference between South Korea and Peoria, the games were on at 2 and 4 am. I tried to watch a U.S. game but have little memory.

In 2006, I fell in love with again, for good. And I have Ted Grossman to thank. This was my first year in the workforce. We were working together and he was super into the World Cup. He talked me into cutting out of work for a long lunch to watch some games. We went to this Irish pub down the street. I believe we watched Netherlands defeat Ivory Coast, 2-1. We watched a lot of games. It was pretty fantastic. I watched the U.S. lose twice and draw once.

So 2010 was really only my third World Cup. I was already 26. I had been married for four years. We were trying to have a children. Perhaps I was still a boy in some aspects, but I was also sort of grown up. I was still at the same agency as 2006, but now in a different building. Our company had merged since the last Cup. This agency knew that people wanted to watch, so instead of having hundreds of people stream the games across their network, they happily set up a viewing room. There would always be a few people there, sometimes as many as 20. A lot of Spanish speakers. Watching the World Cup with rabid fans is far more satisfying than watching by yourself. This was the year that the U.S. won their group and it was pretty amazing.

Which brings us to today. Only my fourth World Cup. I'm 30. I have two kids. I have a house.  I've changed jobs and moved across state lines. There's no viewing room here, but we're making it work. It really is a special tournament, that sort of lives outside of sport and in this strange place where the world can come together and agree that even though it doesn't really matter, it's all that matters for the moment.