Soccer Thread 2021-2022

[miami_fan]

As U.K. sanctions oligarchs, the question on social media is how Chelsea FC will stick to the travel budget - MarketWatch

From the article.

As the U.K. sanctioned seven oligarchs worth some $19 billion, the big question on Twitter had to do with travel budgets.

As part of the sanctions, the U.K. gave a temporary license allowing the Premier League soccer giant Chelsea Football Club to continue to operate even as its owner, Roman Abramovich, has his assets frozen.

In the fine print, however, the sanctions state: “Reasonable costs of travel to and from Fixtures (or for the purposes of training or practice) by any of the Club teams for players and essential staff (including the reasonable cost of any travel company making such arrangements and necessary security staff or contractors) not exceeding the value of £20,000 per game per Club team.” At current exchange rates, £20,000 is equal to $26,325.

That limitation could be a problem. Hugo Sheckter, the founder and managing director of the Player Care Group who worked at U.K. soccer clubs West Ham and Southampton, estimates it costs at least £30,000 for a flight, security, food and hotels. In fact, he said, that’s a conservative estimate.

“Going abroad, don’t see how they can do anything other than either commercial flights or drive their bus and significant drop in standard of hotel,” he wrote over Twitter.

Chelsea next week face Lille, in France, in a vital Champions League match, and will progress in the tournament if they win, draw, lose by one goal, or lose by two goals but also score.

I doubt it will happen but the idea of the team traveling via Ryanair to get to a Champions League away match is hilarious.

[miami_fan]

Chelsea's club credit cards temporarily suspended by Barclays | Football News | Sky Sports

Chelsea has to use cash, check, or cash app for the time being.

[miami_fan]

Wow, thought that should have been red on the goalkeeper.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, that's a head-scratcher, because it looks a lot like Serious Foul Play (Law 12.3) to me (which is a red card):

Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

The best I can guess is that it's down to a glitch in the VAR rules. As I understand it, VAR cannot rule on whether a foul should be either a yellow or red card, but must pick one and then rule if the foul merits that card.

This would mean that VAR checked to determine if it was a red card and somehow decided it didn't meet the "excessive force" criteria, but then couldn't downgrade it to, say, "unsporting behavior" (commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence) which would result in a yellow.

(NOTE: There's no red for Denying a Goal or Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity here since the ref played advantage and the goal was scored.)

If this is the case, then the VAR rules need to be revised.

Though, so be clear, I feel the challenge merited "excessive force" (red) vs. "reckless manner" (yellow).

[AlexB]

Red card all day long FWIW

Just seen Neves’ goal against Watford from Thursday - literally made me applaud in an empty house. Quality goal

[miami_fan]

Who told Cristiano that SI lowered his ratings due to his play over the first half of the season?

[molson]

I'm not a big soccer fan, but, North Macedonia knocking Italy out of the World Cup qualifying just now was unexpected I think.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not a big soccer fan, but, North Macedonia knocking Italy out of the World Cup qualifying just now was unexpected I think.

A bit.

Outshot, 32-4, on the road, too. Italy is ranked sixth in the world, but was also the highest-ranked squad not to qualify in 2018.

[molson]

I see you could have gotten North Macedonia at around 16-1 odds to win.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not a big soccer fan, but, North Macedonia knocking Italy out of the World Cup qualifying just now was unexpected I think.

That's a massive upset. Last October, Italy saw an end come to a sensational 37-match unbeaten streak, lasting 3 years and including a streak of 11 without a goal allowed. North Macedonia played a so-so qualifying campaign, winning just 5 of 10 matches, with a negative goal difference.

[miami_fan]

We can't forget that less than nine months ago, Italy won the EUROS.

[bob]

Certainly this isn't a harbinger reminding us that things could go cataclysmically wrong Sunday against Panama after running our best players for 60-90 minutes at 7300 feet altitude less than 70 hours before kickoff. Surely we will avoid any issues in the critical second and third games in this window.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by bob

Certainly this isn't a harbinger reminding us that things could go cataclysmically wrong Sunday against Panama after running our best players for 60-90 minutes at 7300 feet altitude less than 70 hours before kickoff. Surely we will avoid any issues in the critical second and third games in this window.

I don't know what the odds are tonight (surely better than North Macedonia's), but given the US team's historic inability to win in Mexico City and the simple need to avoid finishing fifth among the five teams that still have a chance to advance (I don't think fourth-place will have much trouble with the team from Oceania, given the low rankings and the cancellation of just about every qualifying match due to COVID) I wonder why they're not going with a B squad tonight, or at least a maximum-youth one.

[flere-imsaho]

Looking at the stats, North Macedonia clearly looked to park the bus and hope they could score on the counter when Italy got desperate, a plan which worked to perfection.

It helped that the GK (5 saves on 5 Shots On Target) and the defense (16 blocked shots and 54 clearances) stood on their head, but Italy's lack of clinical lethality shows in only 5 shots on target and an xG of 1.98.

Definitely exactly the kind of results you see complaints about on Reddit from Football Manager fans. Mancini clearly should have ticked the "Work the ball into the Box" option at halftime.

By way of comparision, when Man Utd beat Southampton last year 9-0, they had 24 shots, with 14 on target for an xG of 5.23.

[RainMaker]

I think the US has to take a shot tonight in Mexico. Azteca is practically empty and that gives you a shot. Mexico has not exactly been good of late. Maybe a win is asking much, but a draw is definitely in the cards.

Also, if you can't beat Panama at home, even with a tired squad, you probably don't deserve to go to the World Cup anyway.

[Solecismic]

Honduras taking a point at Panama is big. But so is Canada getting a rare double-yellow early and looking like Costa Rica will get the full three at home.

So far, not all that impressed with the US effort. I think they're lucky to still be tied at Mexico, though the US has had a couple of decent shots.

[RainMaker]

Holy shit Reyna.

[RainMaker]

I thought the US outplayed them until they put 5 in the back near the end. Pulisic missed a point blank shot that should have been a winner.

Beat Panama at home on Sunday and should be good to go for Qatar. Can't complain about a point at Azteca.

[flere-imsaho]

Honestly, looking at talent alone, Mexico & the U.S. are pretty evenly matched. A whole bunch of journeymen playing in their national leagues with a sprinkling of folks playing in tougher European leagues and a couple of stars/almost-stars each. A draw, especially away, is a good result for the U.S.

[RainMaker]

The good news is that I have finally acquired the footage of yesterday's big upset as broadcast in Macedonia. The bad news is it appears there was not a local broadcast *IN* Macedonian, because this announcer is speaking Serbian. YES, there is a difference. pic.twitter.com/TdZaybcR7h

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) March 25, 2022

[MIJB#19]

Now there's something I've never seen and heared before: the home crowd cheering happily when the visiting team scores a goal. Christian Eriksen scored 2 minutes into his return to the Danish team in a friendly on the road in Amsterdam. It may have helped that the Netherlands was already 3-1 up after the first half.

[JPhillips]

This is great.

OK, let's try this again! Updated CONCACAF outcomes map which correctly shows Canada (and Mexico) more likely to clinch a ticket to Qatar than shown in the previous version in this thread. pic.twitter.com/80odwpD2fq

— Alexander Abnos (@AnAbnos) March 25, 2022

[PilotMan]

Where's Rainmaker at? Is this good enough so far?

[SirFozzie]

USA would have to lose by SIX goals to miss out on direct qualification.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Where's Rainmaker at? Is this good enough so far?

Yes, this is what the most talented team in CONCACAF should do to a vastly inferior opponent at home.

With qualification in the bag, I would really like to see Reyna get an extended run in Costa Rica. I know he's only 19, but there's something very special about him.

Also really happy for Canada. Them turning into a regional power is great for CONCACAF. Makes the Gold Cup and Nations League much more interesting going forward. Gives more high level games for the United States too.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

USA would have to lose by SIX goals to miss out on direct qualification.

I would be curious to find out when the last time the United States lost by 6 goals or more. It has to be many decades.

[PilotMan]

The single most impressive game when we needed it. That 3rd goal from Pulisic was magical. I agree on Reyna, he's incredible on the ball with obscene confidence.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I would be curious to find out when the last time the United States lost by 6 goals or more. It has to be many decades.

1979 Vs France (Friendly)

edit (instead of dola ): I think the reason why this was so good for the US is that Panama had to play for the win and had to go all out (especially after the first PK), so that opened up gaps for the US to take advantage of. We're still vulnerable to bunkerball, but if someone tries to play a fast open game, they're going to be matched by the US at least.

[SirFozzie]

Eh, dola:

The USA have something to play for (well, other than obviously, not losing by 6 to Costa Rica). Depending on the results, the USA have a (very) slim chance to be in Pot 1 of the World Cup Draw on Friday: Here's the scenarios:

Last pot 1 spot:
1) Portugal - with any win (Tue) (incl penalties)
2) Next up Ned - with win over Ger (Tue) (1663.64)
3) Next up Mex - with win over Slv (Wed) (1658.83)
4) Next up USA - with win over CRC (Wed) (1658.71)
5) Next up Ned - with draw v Ger (1658.64)
6) Next up Ger - with win over Ned (1655.55)

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

USA would have to lose by SIX goals to miss out on direct qualification.

As unlikely as that sounds, playing against (and even at) the specific team that needs the result to happen, the USA should still prepare for this game as if they still need a draw. Costa Rica can go into this match knowing they can qualify with a big win and otherwise will get a second chance anyway. It wouldn't be the first time a "only if result x happens" scenario plays out exactly that way.

[Solecismic]

Took Costa Rica 51 minutes to get the first goal... still looking good. No "help" from Mexico, which needed to lose at home to El Salvador by multiple goals to be part of this equation. Watching the Mexico match (up 2-0, 52nd minute) because that's what's on Univision.

[RainMaker]

Well the US is in, even if they had to squeak by on goal differential. Still think this team has way too much talent to be in the 3rd-5th best team in CONCACAF territory.

Good news is they will have an auto-bid in the next World Cup and the expanded field should make it easier in 2030 (assuming no one else makes a jump like Canada did).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

As unlikely as that sounds, playing against (and even at) the specific team that needs the result to happen, the USA should still prepare for this game as if they still need a draw. Costa Rica can go into this match knowing they can qualify with a big win and otherwise will get a second chance anyway. It wouldn't be the first time a "only if result x happens" scenario plays out exactly that way.

Costa Rica sat many of their best attackers since the yellow card suspensions carries over to the playoff for some reason.

The yellow card rule is really terrible. Two yellows in 14 games gets you a suspension.

[PilotMan]

We're in and that's all that matters today.

[Solecismic]

An odd moment to be sure. Celebrating qualifying at your opponent's expense in their home stadium after losing decisively enough that the tie-breakers used in most other sports would have given the tie in the standings to the other team.

But those are the rules and they play to those rules. This team is so young that by the time they actually get to Qatar, they might be significantly better. Of course, I fully expect the 7th significant round of COVID to be spiking with the Rho variant just as the tournament begins.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

An odd moment to be sure. Celebrating qualifying at your opponent's expense in their home stadium after losing decisively enough that the tie-breakers used in most other sports would have given the tie in the standings to the other team.

That's actually a misconception, there is no standard tie-breaker in soccer. Every competition in the world can make their own rules. Most sports (if any) don't have universal tie-breakers either. It really depends on what can be used and makes sense to the consensus of people playing or organizing the competition/league/tournament/event. My perception is that head-to-head is a USA-y thing to apply.

The tie-breaker rules between FIFA competitions and UEFA competitions are different. UEFA flipped to usually applying head-to-head over all games goal difference (I think that happened about 15 years ago). Which is very confusing, because the WC qualifiers in Europe are a FIFA competition organized by UEFA and from cycle to cycle they re-evaluate which tie-breakers they want to use. Sometimes it's overall goal difference and sometimes it's head-to-head. The latter sometimes with away goals rule and sometimes without.
The median sports fan (and probably median soccer player as well) is stuck in the misconception that overall goal difference is the only tie-breaker, anything else or secondary tie-breakers is too much to comprehend.

Another example: the Spanish top flight division currently uses head-to-head as the first tie-breaker. The Belgian top flight division has traditionally used most matches won as the first tie-breaker. The Netherlands has a flipflopped between having no tie-breakers (resulting in additional tie-breaker matches) to overall goal difference and between with or without most goals scored as a second tie-breaker.


The side-effect of this result is the USA ending up in pot 2 and not in pot 4 in tomorrow's draw. It means getting Cameroon, Ecuador, Saudi Arabia, Ghana, Wales/Scotland/Ukraine winner or Peru/Australia/UAE winner rather than Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Uruguay, Switzerland or Croatia as an opponent in the first round of the finals tournament. It also means slimmer odds to end up in the group of Qatar (about 1 in 8.4), which on paper should be the easiest group. The odds to get Brazil or Argentina are kind of slim too, if I did the math right, only about 1 in 7 to get either of them.

[MIJB#19]

Concerning that draw, unless FIFA comes up with last minute changes that fool around with the seeding rankings (it wouldn't be the first time), these should be the teams per pot:

pot 1
AFC - Qatar
CONMEBOL - Argentina
CONMEBOL - Brazil
UEFA - Belgium
UEFA - England
UEFA - France
UEFA - Portugal
UEFA - Spain

Pot 2
CONMEBOL - Uruguay
CONCACAF - Mexico
CONCACAF - USA
UEFA - Croatia
UEFA - Denmark
UEFA - Germany
UEFA - Netherlands
UEFA - Switzerland

Pot 3
AFC - Iran
AFC - Japan
AFC - South Korea
CAF - Morocco
CAF - Senegal
CAF - Tunisia
UEFA - Poland
UEFA - Serbia

Pot 4
AFC - Saudi Arabia
AFC vs CONMEBOL winner (Australia, UAE or Peru)
CAF - Cameroon
CAF - Ghana
CONCACAF - Canada
CONCACAF vs OFC winner (Costa Rica or New Zealand)
CONMEBOL - Ecuador
UEFA - (Scotland, Ukraine or Wales)

No teams from the same conference can draw in the same group, with the exception of UEFA, as every group will be forced to get 1 or 2 teams from that zone. FIFA hasn't in detailed explained how they will force that minimum of 1 UEFA team. All in all, it's quite possible that once they get to pot 4, every drawn team will have only 2 remaining options.

[SirFozzie]

by the time Pot 1 is done, 5 of the 8 groups will have a UEFA team, so it's quite possible that by Pot 2 is done, all 8 groups will have a UEFA team. If not, when a Pot 3 UEFA team (Poland or Serbia) is drawn, if three groups are open, then they have to go to one of those three groups. If two are open then the 2nd to last UEFA team must go in etcetera.

Usually how it works is they'll draw a team, and then put into a pot the groups they are eligible for (so, for example, if Uruguay is the first team out of Pot 2, then they will be in one of the six groups that DOESN'T have a pot 1 team from CONMEBOL), and draw the group

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

by the time Pot 1 is done, 5 of the 8 groups will have a UEFA team, so it's quite possible that by Pot 2 is done, all 8 groups will have a UEFA team. If not, when a Pot 3 UEFA team (Poland or Serbia) is drawn, if three groups are open, then they have to go to one of those three groups. If two are open then the 2nd to last UEFA team must go in etcetera.

Usually how it works is they'll draw a team, and then put into a pot the groups they are eligible for (so, for example, if Uruguay is the first team out of Pot 2, then they will be in one of the six groups that DOESN'T have a pot 1 team from CONMEBOL), and draw the group

I'm aware of what methods FIFA could use. My point is that FIFA has once again decided not to explain in their regulations which method they will use. I know football fans won't take the time to reach these documents anyway, I know I'm one of few, whilst it should be mandatory reading for journalists that cover the event. The lack of transparency is going to once again feed the "FIFA is shady" sentiments.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm torn. On one hand, confusing competition rules from country-to-country and region-to-region are fun. On the other hand, it's not fun when FIFA does it, because it's never not shady when FIFA does it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Still think this team has way too much talent to be in the 3rd-5th best team in CONCACAF territory.

[sterlingice]

I swear I've watched the draw in the past and I don't remember the Olympic-style theatrics. Maybe I just timed it right so I was only watching the draw or maybe they were only showing that part on US TV as opposed to everything this year.

SI

[RainMaker]

It's a bit dramatic for pulling some nations out of a hat.

[Critch]

Get on with it.

[molson]

I think they just have to sacrifice 4 more virgins, and then Idris Elba drinks from a goblet of sheep blood. Then they're good to go.

[RainMaker]

Alright, I'm tapping out. Good lord FIFA.

[Lathum]

This is brutal. I feel like I am watching a game show on public access TV.

[Lathum]

Whats happening here? What is the point of slotting all the teams. Isn't group play round robin?

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Whats happening here? What is the point of slotting all the teams. Isn't group play round robin?

It allegedly roots out any corruption having to do with the order in which matches are played.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

It allegedly roots out any corruption having to do with the order in which matches are played.

Why does that matter if they all play each other?

Is the thought process they don't want the best team in the group to play the 2 weaker ones in the group first so they can then coast game 3?

Seems odd to me.