Jump to content
I will no longer be developing resources for Invision Community Suite ×
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Recommended Posts

Posted

Lets say Germany beat Ecuador, Then England know they have to beat Sweden to play Ecuador. Or let's say Ecuador beat Germany. Then England could lose on purpose to play Ecuador. This is all examples, but shouldn't the pairs play at the same time? Anything else sucks.

 

The next round is guess is

 

1a-2b

2a-1b

 

ect ect...

 

There could be a lot of speculation here...

Posted

Part of me can?t help but think a line up selected and instructed by Eriksson to deliberately lose would in fact end up clicking like no recent England team and romping to 5-0 win.

Posted

Part of me can?t help but think a line up selected and instructed by Eriksson to deliberately lose would in fact end up clicking like no recent England team and romping to 5-0 win.

 

Yea I can deffo see that happening :D

Posted

No just to have

AB-

CD-

EF-

GH-

played at the same time.

 

So 4 games played simultaneously instead of two? That'll hardly please international TV audieces, never mind the TV companes.

Posted

It has always been like this though. You could argue that teams wanting to avoid certain others in the next round is more likely to create final group matches with something riding on them than would be the case otherwise.

Posted

Part of me can?t help but think a line up selected and instructed by Eriksson to deliberately lose would in fact end up clicking like no recent England team and romping to 5-0 win.

 

:lol:

 

With Gerrard in goal probably - just to shackle him even more.

Posted (edited)

It's better this way, Fate always has the option of punishing the team that tries to be devious, and if she exercises that option, it's delicious to see.

 

Most recent example is United in the Champions' League.

Edited by Coyler
Posted

This way beats the Austria-Germany fiasco of 1982 though.

 

And what about the last Euros, where Denmark - Sweden (?) 2-2 was the only result which guaranteed both teams qualify at Italy's expense. Guess what?

Posted

This playing to gain/avoid a particular draw theory is over-exagerrated.

 

Playing in 2nd gear because you know you're already qualified is one thing, but trying to get yourself a better draw is much more difficult to achieve and regardless of the exception that proves the rule normally futile.

Posted

This way beats the Austria-Germany fiasco of 1982 though.

 

And what about the last Euros, where Denmark - Sweden (?) 2-2 was the only result which guaranteed both teams qualify at Italy's expense. Guess what?

That was great! What was the stat about that particular scoreline, wasn't it the rarest scoreline in Euro history or something, only one 2-2 ever before that?

Posted

This playing to gain/avoid a particular draw theory is over-exagerrated.

 

Playing in 2nd gear because you know you're already qualified is one thing, but trying to get yourself a better draw is much more difficult to achieve and regardless of the exception that proves the rule normally futile.

Plus - you should look further down the line. An 'easy' R2 game can often equal a mare in the QF

Posted

Plus - you should look further down the line. An 'easy' R2 game can often equal a mare in the QF

 

Exactly. The 2nd place team in England's group would probably get argentina in the QF. Hardly worth avoiding Germany for. Which looks unlikely now anyway them leading 2-0.

Posted (edited)

could see Italy and the Czechs conveniently drawing for the same reason the Swedes and Danes did the 2-2.

 

my bad, forgot about the Ghanaians beating the yanks...

Edited by harpoon

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...