OT: Soccer: FC Barcelona pulls off the greatest comeback in sport history..

[midnightpulp]

Anyhow, I'm still waiting to see this "comeback?"

Barcelona won the game outright 6-1, right? Series tied 1-1.

So when's the next game?

[Silver&Black]

Why are Beisbol fans acting like the deciding a winner in compeetion should only follow the model of their sorry ass "sport"?

It's not just beisbol. NBA, Hockey both use 7 games to determine a winner. Back in the day the NBA used 5 games in the first round to decide a winner, but the point is the same. They all use an odd number. Povertyball......nope. 2 games ( A ing even number). Guess they love ties that much that they decide to have an even number of games to decide a victor. What genius thought that was a good idea? Love to meet him/her and try to slap some sense in them.

You can't make this up. Povertyball has the dumbest set of rules I've ever seen. You can talk all the about beisbol you want to (Which I agree with you on), but that doesn't change the fact that this "sport" is flawed from top to bottom. Lack of scoring, rules, tie games galore, and having a winner decided by "combined goals"....these are fundamental flaws of the game. Most people see "Sports" as entertainment. Excuse me if 0-0 tie games don't entertain me. I'd rather watch grass grow or paint dry.

[midnightpulp]

It's not just beisbol. NBA, Hockey both use 7 games to determine a winner. Back in the day the NBA used 5 games in the first round to decide a winner, but the point is the same. They all use an odd number. Povertyball......nope. 2 games ( A ing even number). Guess they love ties that much that they decide to have an even number of games to decide a victor. What genius thought that was a good idea? Love to meet him/her and try to slap some sense in them.

You can't make this up. Povertyball has the dumbest set of rules I've ever seen. You can talk all the about beisbol you want to (Which I agree with you on), but that doesn't change the fact that this "sport" is flawed from top to bottom. Lack of scoring, rules, tie games galore, and having a winner decided by "combined goals"....these are fundamental flaws of the game. Most people see "Sports" as entertainment. Excuse me if 0-0 tie games don't entertain me. I'd rather watch grass grow or paint dry.

And I don't get why soccer fans think this is an "American" preoccupation?

Rugby doesn't use aggregate.
Cricket doesn't use aggregate.
Tennis doesn't use aggregate.
Volleyball doesn't use aggregate.
Aussie Rules Football does't use aggregate.
Etc.

[Silver&Black]

So when's the next game?

[Clipper Nation]

And I don't get why soccer fans think this is an "American" preoccupation?

Rugby doesn't use aggregate.
Cricket doesn't use aggregate.
Tennis doesn't use aggregate.
Volleyball doesn't use aggregate.
Aussie Rules Football does't use aggregate.
Etc.

Most Americans who "like" soccer don't even enjoy the "sport." They're just liberal hipsters who enjoy the image of liking a "European" "sport" because it makes them feel superior to the average American (who they view with contempt for reasons unrelated to sports). They don't know about actual sports that are popular elsewhere in the world, but they love to give American sports for not being exactly like soccer in every way.

[midnightpulp]

[midnightpulp]

Most Americans who "like" soccer don't even enjoy the "sport." They're just liberal hipsters who enjoy the image of liking a "European" "sport" because it makes them feel superior to the average American (who they view with contempt for reasons unrelated to sports). They don't know about actual sports that are popular elsewhere in the world, but they love to give American sports for not being exactly like soccer in every way.

Indeed.

“Any time I’m at a book party or reading, and soccer comes up in conversation, I find myself surrounded by young men in shabby-genteel, loosely fitting tweed jackets gushing over the Gunners,” Ms. Schaap said. “In such settings, being an Arsenal supporter is even more predictable than having an M.F.A. or a pair of horn-rimmed glasses.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/f...e-circles.html

[140]

ITT: trumpball lovers assmad over the fact that football is the world's biggest sport even though it doesn't conform to their cute little set of nerd rules

[Clipper Nation]

ITT: trumpball lovers assmad over the fact that football is the world's biggest sport even though it doesn't conform to their cute little set of nerd rules

That "cute little set of nerd rules" are used by nearly all team sports. The ones that don't use them have single-elimination tournaments instead, which are still better than what soccer uses

Meanwhile, soccer wants to be taken seriously as a "sport" despite having the most re ed rules ever.

[140]

Still the world's biggest sport

[Clipper Nation]

Still the world's biggest sport

[resistanze]

And I don't get why soccer fans think this is an "American" preoccupation?

Rugby doesn't use aggregate.
Cricket doesn't use aggregate.
Tennis doesn't use aggregate.
Volleyball doesn't use aggregate.
Aussie Rules Football does't use aggregate.
Etc.

Rugby union indeed uses two-legged matches in some tournaments. Also, cricket can have the same 'game' over the course of 5 days so that clearly shouldn't be held in high esteem by that reasoning

[diego]

Aggregate scoring is a great idea and it is used in fiba basketball. It gives teams an incentive to run up the score / punishes them for getting blown out, every minute counts. As for two game "series", it's similar to the NBA schedule dynamic, ie old travel conditions + tradition. These are international cups, teams sometimes travel very long distances for these games, some of these cup formats were created before airplanes were even invented. The club/league structure of soccer is very different from the franchise model of us sports, there are teams with very different levels of resources competing against each other (which is awesome, see Leicester winning the premier league last year)

And I don't know where you've gotten that teams don't "come back" in the same game in soccer. Happens just as much as in basketball (ie, good teams control leads, bad ones cough them up)

[DAF86]

[140]

Unless he bribed the refs himself, misty didn't do tbh

[DAF86]

Unless he bribed the refs himself, misty didn't do tbh

Scored a penaldo (which you troll him for, tbh) and put the perfect through ball for Suarez, out of nowhere, on the call of the second penalty call. He can't always be the star, tbh.

[resistanze]

And I don't know where you've gotten that teams don't "come back" in the same game in soccer. Happens just as much as in basketball (ie, good teams control leads, bad ones cough them up)

[Clipper Nation]

When that got is the GOAT of your "sport," it doesn't count as a sport.

[hater]

FoFa is a joke

They really think ppl believe that is legit????

[midnightpulp]

Aggregate scoring is a great idea and it is used in fiba basketball. It gives teams an incentive to run up the score / punishes them for getting blown out, every minute counts. As for two game "series", it's similar to the NBA schedule dynamic, ie old travel conditions + tradition. These are international cups, teams sometimes travel very long distances for these games, some of these cup formats were created before airplanes were even invented. The club/league structure of soccer is very different from the franchise model of us sports, there are teams with very different levels of resources competing against each other (which is awesome, see Leicester winning the premier league last year)

And I don't know where you've gotten that teams don't "come back" in the same game in soccer. Happens just as much as in basketball (ie, good teams control leads, bad ones cough them up)

Here's the problem with that model.

A team can beat another team in the standings even if that team has a losing record against the team it is tied with. Example. The Spurs and Golden State wind up tied at the end of the season. The Spurs had a better head-to-head record vs. GS, but Golden wins the tiebreaker via aggregate scoring. I would be highly pissed in that scenario. It also punishes teams more severely for events out of a team's control, like injuries. Another example. Popovich and Co. typically build the Spurs so that they can handle injuries reasonably well over a regular season campaign. Let's say Kawhi goes down for 10 games. Over that span, the Spurs go 7-3, winning a lot of close games. At the end of the season, they find themselves in a 3 way tie for the 2nd seed. They hold all the traditional tie-breakers (H2H, conference record, division record) over the two teams in front of them, but their aggregate scoring is worse. In the EPL, they would drop to the 4th seed (if the EPL had playoffs). Again, I would be highly pissed.

That said, I agree that aggregate scoring is good for a low scoring game like soccer since cheap tactics like parking the bus are so effective, robbing the game of action.

As for 1-1 game series. Well, we're no longer in the 30's. Modern travel makes back and forth traveling across Europe not too difficult a scenario (The Lakers and Celtics had no problem travelling across the US for a 7 game series in the 12 times they've met in the Finals). I understand the logic. Giving each team a game on their home field. But instead of aggregate scoring determining the winner, I think a better idea is that it determines who gets home field for game 3.

And it's easily proven soccer's comeback factor is relatively low. The most common score is 1-0 . When it's mathematically harder to score, it's mathematically harder to comeback from a deficit. Also, it's impossible to take the lead from a deficit in soccer on a single goal, making comebacks more improbable.



http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/2...e-goal-of-1-0/

[unleashbaynes]

Soccer fans need to quit being s and admit that their "scoring" rules are gimmicky and fraudulent.

[diego]

Here's the problem with that model.

A team can beat another team in the standings even if that team has a losing record against the team it is tied with. Example. The Spurs and Golden State wind up tied at the end of the season. The Spurs had a better head-to-head record vs. GS, but Golden wins the tiebreaker via aggregate scoring. I would be highly pissed in that scenario. It also punishes teams more severely for events out of a team's control, like injuries. Another example. Popovich and Co. typically build the Spurs so that they can handle injuries reasonably well over a regular season campaign. Let's say Kawhi goes down for 10 games. Over that span, the Spurs go 7-3, winning a lot of close games. At the end of the season, they find themselves in a 3 way tie for the 2nd seed. They hold all the traditional tie-breakers (H2H, conference record, division record) over the two teams in front of them, but their aggregate scoring is worse. In the EPL, they would drop to the 4th seed (if the EPL had playoffs). Again, I would be highly pissed.

That said, I agree that aggregate scoring is good for a low scoring game like soccer since cheap tactics like parking the bus are so effective, robbing the game of action.

As for 1-1 game series. Well, we're no longer in the 30's. Modern travel makes back and forth traveling across Europe not too difficult a scenario (The Lakers and Celtics had no problem travelling across the US for a 7 game series in the 12 times they've met in the Finals). I understand the logic. Giving each team a game on their home field. But instead of aggregate scoring determining the winner, I think a better idea is that it determines who gets home field for game 3.

And it's easily proven soccer's comeback factor is relatively low. The most common score is 1-0 . When it's mathematically harder to score, it's mathematically harder to comeback from a deficit. Also, it's impossible to take the lead from a deficit in soccer on a single goal, making comebacks more improbable.



http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/2...e-goal-of-1-0/

2-1 is the next most common score. many times a team will luck into a first goal and the better team will come back and take them 2-1. comebacks happen, im not going to research it but ive followed the sport long enough to see it many times. the mark of a great team is to be able to overcome that adversity.

as for aggregate scoring, of course you'd be pissed but it would make perfect sense because it would reflect the performance from both teams (and its impossible for the "loser" to have a higher aggregate). makes way more sense than using division champions for example. was pretty pissed about going from playing memphis to clippers because of other teams results. basketball is a game of constant repe ions (baseball too for that matter) under specific conditions, they lend themselves to 3,5,7 game series. soccer is different, the field is bigger, there are way less rules (and no clock to constantly up, like .3, game 7 vs clips, dont make me go on!), the coach cant constantly stop the game to tell everyone what to do, the offsides rule is the opposite of a shot clock, you cant just run up and chuck a shot. just think of a 3 game series in soccer. suppose your team wins 3-0, then the other wins 0-1, 0-1. You telling me you wouldnt be pissed in that scenario too? IIRC both the clips and the thunder series, spurs outscored them but lost a couple games on ty calls / bad luck, i was highly pissed too but thats the way basketball is. soccer is far from perfect but its a different animal. you think soccer games are slow because there are a ton of "empty attacks", for many people nba games are slow because of all the stoppages (for me, baseball is a constant stoppage occasionally interrupted with bits of "offense" ). you criticize soccer for having no action and for having this stupid rule, but this stupid rule just gave us an epic game with 7 goals including 3 in 7 minutes. i think thats a good rule that works as intentioned

[Mitch]

Soccer
s and euro s getting mad at americans calling it soccer
0-0
teams full of professional actors
"sport"
as physical as beisbol
best player is a midget
only choice for impoverished countries, hence popularity
knuckle draggers regularly fighting over games

[midnightpulp]

2-1 is the next most common score. many times a team will luck into a first goal and the better team will come back and take them 2-1. comebacks happen, im not going to research it but ive followed the sport long enough to see it many times. the mark of a great team is to be able to overcome that adversity.

as for aggregate scoring, of course you'd be pissed but it would make perfect sense because it would reflect the performance from both teams (and its impossible for the "loser" to have a higher aggregate). makes way more sense than using division champions for example. was pretty pissed about going from playing memphis to clippers because of other teams results. basketball is a game of constant repe ions (baseball too for that matter) under specific conditions, they lend themselves to 3,5,7 game series. soccer is different, the field is bigger, there are way less rules (and no clock to constantly up, like .3, game 7 vs clips, dont make me go on!), the coach cant constantly stop the game to tell everyone what to do, the offsides rule is the opposite of a shot clock, you cant just run up and chuck a shot. just think of a 3 game series in soccer. suppose your team wins 3-0, then the other wins 0-1, 0-1. You telling me you wouldnt be pissed in that scenario too? IIRC both the clips and the thunder series, spurs outscored them but lost a couple games on ty calls / bad luck, i was highly pissed too but thats the way basketball is. soccer is far from perfect but its a different animal. you think soccer games are slow because there are a ton of "empty attacks", for many people nba games are slow because of all the stoppages (for me, baseball is a constant stoppage occasionally interrupted with bits of "offense" ). you criticize soccer for having no action and for having this stupid rule, but this stupid rule just gave us an epic game with 7 goals including 3 in 7 minutes. i think thats a good rule that works as intentioned

You don't need to. If it's mathematically harder to score, it's mathematically harder to overcome a deficit. Simple as that.

You grew up with it, so you like it. I'm giving you an outsider's perspective, and aggregates just feel cheap to me. Again, they aren't used in most major sports, US sports or otherwise. Tennis, for example, 6-0, 6-0, 5-7, 5-7, 5-7 = 27-21 aggregate, but player B wins the match because he won more sets.

But again, I suppose it's fine for soccer because it promotes aggressiveness and offense, which soccer needs more of.

[Biernutz]