Might as well start a general Footy/Soccer thread

[warthog]

That was a goal that will be replayed forever on highlight reels.
Damn.

[warthog]

You're a wizard Harry

[Woodsy]

England's luck wont take it far.

[seano732]

England's luck wont take it far.

Neither one of those goals were “luck”, but we will see.

[~mikey b]

I didn’t expect that from England

[PNWbrit]

I didn’t expect that from England

No one did.

And holy crap, Portugal Vs Slovenia was an entertaining game.

[JimmyCarter]

No one did.

And holy crap, Portugal Vs Slovenia was an entertaining game.

Fun game, crazy couple of minutes in OT

Why does everyone still act surprised that Ronaldo’s a bit of a crier?

[Long duc dong]

Statistically, it's shooting high down the middle has a good probability of success. From the Guardian:

You just look dumb when the goalie guesses it and doesn't move.

I actually missed this the first time around, haven't been here in a while.

While it does have a high probability of success, that doesn't mean it is a good idea. It is a trick play, so to speak. You have to really make the right decision. Of course, that is something of a tautology, namely that it's a good idea when it works, with the evidence being it was a good idea BECAUSE it worked. The problem with trick plays is that they only work if the trick is successful, for the most part. Most of the successful down-the-middle penalties probably occur if the goalie commits early, the trick needs to be applied properly. If you take a good penalty to the side you don't have to fool the goalie to score, although it does help if he guesses wrong, you can score by simply placing the ball well. Shooting down the middle only works if you are successful in fooling the goalie, and even then he MIGHT (key word might) be able to make a kick save. There is a time and a place for those, and I don't think this was the time. They also have to be well taken. I don't think up 1-0 is the time, and it can really change the dynamic. After Modric misses it makes more sense to make the goalie guess right AND make a save. I can see missing the bottom, or top, corner, but up only 1-0 doesn't seem like the time to lose momentum that way. If you are up by two...maybe that's the time, particularly if you can tell the goalie is a bit nervy. But up by one I would rather lean on that advantage and make the goalie make a great play.

I would be curious to see the article, and what their inferences are. If they imply that because such kicks work so often that indicates that players should employ them more often.....That is potentially an eggregious lack of statistical understanding. I'm a statistician (actually, now I call myself a data scientist, like much of the profession) with an MS in statistics and the structure of such an argument is one of many ways statisitics can be butchered. The numbers are certainly noteworthy, and bear consideration, but such a play works at such a high right BECAUSE it is a trick, if more players employed it that percentage would go way down. It's like looking at how well a player who takes the first pich almost all of the time hits on the first ball when he DOES swing, and concluding he should swing at the first pitch more. While such info is food for thought, usually players like that hit well on the first pitch because they ONLY swing when it's right down the pipe, if they swung at anything in the zone (on the first pitch) their first pitch numbers would go way down. It's important to understand such context when using statistical calculations. I always like to say that statistics don't lie, because they don't say anything. inferences based on a calculation are a lie, not the calculation itself. If an estate in a given zip code sells for 30 million, the average SFH price for that zip code, for that month, is 30 million, that is not a lie. The lie is if someone uses that information to say that the average home value in that zip code is 30 million, when such is not the case. This would be a calculation based on an anomaly, the calculation is not innacurate, it is the inference made on an anomalous calculation held up to be representative of the population which is faulty. I don't know what the Guardian said, so they make be acting in an entirely reasonable manner, I would have to look at the inferences they are making to know. Sorry to be a stat geek, but I have to correct clients using this type of thinking from time to time, so it's pretty embedded in my DNA to bring this up when I (potentially) see this kind of thinking.

I should read the whole article, if I can. I'm not sure where to find it.

On to the euros....

England is through to the quarters. Good job, I guess....

Hopefully for the English Foden/Bellingham don't end up being the Gerrard/Lampard of this generation. You have the POTY for both La Lig and the EPL, and they just have trouble fitting together.

Foden has had some trouble, but in the last group game he did look like he was dangerous at times, running at people with the ball at his feet, he just couldn't make anything happen.

Bellingham really hasn't looked great to me....other than his two INSANE moments. He really does have an incredible feel for where to be. I see him more as an AM while I see Foden as an F/AM type, a bit further up the field. They seem to want to occupy the same space though.

After a few good tournaments, this reminds me a bit of 2006 England: Loads of talent, but just don't fit well together. They have got to do a better job, and with 4 games you can't write it off as one bad performance. That said, they are in the quarters, so maybe they will click. They have more talent, on paper, than Switzerland, but you can say the same about every team they've played so far. That said, they looked better, to me at least, than France. But France has at least beaten Belgium to get here. England struggling to beat Slovakia.....wow

Out of the big name teams Germany and Spain have been the only ones to look all particularly good to me.

[PNWbrit]

I actually missed this the first time around, haven't been here in a while.

While it does have a high probability of success, that doesn't mean it is a good idea. It is a trick play, so to speak. You have to really make the right decision. Of course, that is something of a tautology, namely that it's a good idea when it works, with the evidence being it was a good idea BECAUSE it worked. The problem with trick plays is that they only work if the trick is successful, for the most part. Most of the successful down-the-middle penalties probably occur if the goalie commits early, the trick needs to be applied properly. If you take a good penalty to the side you don't have to fool the goalie to score, although it does help if he guesses wrong, you can score by simply placing the ball well. Shooting down the middle only works if you are successful in fooling the goalie, and even then he MIGHT (key word might) be able to make a kick save. There is a time and a place for those, and I don't think this was the time. They also have to be well taken. I don't think up 1-0 is the time, and it can really change the dynamic. After Modric misses it makes more sense to make the goalie guess right AND make a save. I can see missing the bottom, or top, corner, but up only 1-0 doesn't seem like the time to lose momentum that way. If you are up by two...maybe that's the time, particularly if you can tell the goalie is a bit nervy. But up by one I would rather lean on that advantage and make the goalie make a great play.

I would be curious to see the article, and what their inferences are. If they imply that because such kicks work so often that indicates that players should employ them more often.....That is potentially an eggregious lack of statistical understanding. I'm a statistician (actually, now I call myself a data scientist, like much of the profession) with an MS in statistics and the structure of such an argument is one of many ways statisitics can be butchered. The numbers are certainly noteworthy, and bear consideration, but such a play works at such a high right BECAUSE it is a trick, if more players employed it that percentage would go way down. It's like looking at how well a player who takes the first pich almost all of the time hits on the first ball when he DOES swing, and concluding he should swing at the first pitch more. While such info is food for thought, usually players like that hit well on the first pitch because they ONLY swing when it's right down the pipe, if they swung at anything in the zone (on the first pitch) their first pitch numbers would go way down. It's important to understand such context when using statistical calculations. I always like to say that statistics don't lie, because they don't say anything. inferences based on a calculation are a lie, not the calculation itself. If an estate in a given zip code sells for 30 million, the average SFH price for that zip code, for that month, is 30 million, that is not a lie. The lie is if someone uses that information to say that the average home value in that zip code is 30 million, when such is not the case. This would be a calculation based on an anomaly, the calculation is not innacurate, it is the inference made on an anomalous calculation held up to be representative of the population which is faulty. I don't know what the Guardian said, so they make be acting in an entirely reasonable manner, I would have to look at the inferences they are making to know. Sorry to be a stat geek, but I have to correct clients using this type of thinking from time to time, so it's pretty embedded in my DNA to bring this up when I (potentially) see this kind of thinking.

I should read the whole article, if I can. I'm not sure where to find it.

On to the euros....

England is through to the quarters. Good job, I guess....

Hopefully for the English Foden/Bellingham don't end up being the Gerrard/Lampard of this generation. You have the POTY for both La Lig and the EPL, and they just have trouble fitting together.

Foden has had some trouble, but in the last group game he did look like he was dangerous at times, running at people with the ball at his feet, he just couldn't make anything happen.

Bellingham really hasn't looked great to me....other than his two INSANE moments. He really does have an incredible feel for where to be. I see him more as an AM while I see Foden as an F/AM type, a bit further up the field. They seem to want to occupy the same space though.

After a few good tournaments, this reminds me a bit of 2006 England: Loads of talent, but just don't fit well together. They have got to do a better job, and with 4 games you can't write it off as one bad performance. That said, they are in the quarters, so maybe they will click. They have more talent, on paper, than Switzerland, but you can say the same about every team they've played so far. That said, they looked better, to me at least, than France. But France has at least beaten Belgium to get here. England struggling to beat Slovakia.....wow

Out of the big name teams Germany and Spain have been the only ones to look all particularly good to me.

You might have been hacked by an AI.

[JimmyCarter]

This US/ Uruguay ref is godawful

[BmillsSkier]

I’m honestly hard pressed to recall a worse officiating job than this center ref is giving USA-URU.

[mcski]

USA is a result of its own garbage development and organization. Reffing is irrelevant

[BmillsSkier]

USA is a result of its own garbage development and organization. Reffing is irrelevant

While I agree with your first statement, I wholeheartedly disagree with the second. That ref was on another level bad. First major international match, pulling out the card and then deciding to put it away once no one stopped play for his whistle, swallowing his whistle for actual fouls, blowing it for non-fouls or worse, blowing it to stop play even though the team who was fouled ended up with an advantage.

That guy was straight up trash.

[grskier]

I have to say, this time of Europa and America Cups going on makes for a great evening with the kids watching the extended highlights from all of the games.

[stayhighstaydry]

Ref must of had money on the game.
Two really bad calls that should have been penalty kicks for USA.
American player had the ball with only the golie to beat and got steamrolled from behind.
No call !
Another time the US player was pulled down by the jersey.
Again no call.

Yes Uruguay is probably the better team but ....

Soccer needs more refs. One can not keep up with all the action.

[PNWbrit]

Ref must of had money on the game.
Two really bad calls that should have been penalty kicks for USA.
American player had the ball with only the golie to beat and got steamrolled from behind.
No call !
Another time the US player was pulled down by the jersey.
Again no call.

Yes Uruguay is probably the better team but ....

Soccer needs more refs. One can not keep up with all the action.

An expert has come among us...

[warthog]

The U.S were shit. I am convinced they would have lost even if that goal was called back due to offsides.

For a completely different view of football the way it should be played and reffed, watch Austria/ Trukey.
That was one of the best games I have probably ever seen. The 2nd half at least.

Watch that and then imagine how the U.S. would play either of those teams. It isn't even the same game.
Though when the U.S. would have lost, everyone would be complaining that it was raining the whole game, and not fair.

[warthog]

An expert has come among us...

Alexi? Is that you???

More refs to interfere even more. Exactly what the game needs.
Why not no refs? Just let the VAR bot take over. We can turn this into American Foozball in no time. 15-20 min stoppage time? Great- more commercials.

[weibo]

Well that was a game. Early Canada goal, smart olay on a bad keeper read and then a big save and a cool penalty to take it all. Canada off to play Argentina in the semis. Great game with shitty reffing.

[subtle plague]

Well we're out. At least this German Team played football. Vastly improved from the last two Events.

[hikesalot]

This France v Spain match is exciting. They came to play. Fun seeing the 16 year old score for Spain.

[warthog]

I don't care how old he is, that was a hell of a nice goal.
Sad to see FR out.
Today should be interesting. I have always loved the Dutch style of play but England just seems to be finding a way to win this tournament.
The Dutch have the best chance against Spain obviously, and that will be a much more exciting game.

[PNWbrit]

Fuck you Ronald.

That is for 1993!

It's almost certain we're going to get shredded by Spain.

But maybe there's a slight chance?

[garyfromterrace]

Well that was a game. Early Canada goal, smart olay on a bad keeper read and then a big save and a cool penalty to take it all. Canada off to play Argentina in the semis. Great game with shitty reffing.

What a gutsy game by Canada. They may have lost to Evita and co. but they turned a lot of heads this tourney. Now let's go get a bronze!

[PNWbrit]

What a gutsy game by Canada. They may have lost to Evita and co. but they turned a lot of heads this tourney. Now let's go get a bronze!

Congratulations for competing with the big guns G.

Competing for a third place playoff would be throwing it all away though,