Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How did Croatia lock in a 3rd place team when Italy could finish with more group points?
24 teams divided by groups of 4 just isn't fair.
Last night there was a mathematician on Dutch tv that said 24 teams would only be fair if you put them in groups of 3.
How did Croatia lock in a 3rd place team when Italy could finish with more group points?
This isn't new, though - in prior years plenty of teams had finished 1st in their groups while scoring fewer points than the 2nd (and even sometimes, though rarely) 3rd place teams in other groups (think a super-competitive group the winner of which gets a win and two draws vs. a lopsided one where three teams win 2 of their matches and the fourth team loses all three of theirs - the winner of the 1st group would have five points and the third team in the second would have six).
Furthermore, this isn't even the first time in recent memory (although, I guess that depends on what qualifies as recent - I'm referring to WC 1994) that the third-placed finisher in a group qualifies for the knockout stage. The U.S., Argentina, Italy and Belgium qualified for the knockouts that way then, while Russia and South Korea didn't. I don't think it hurt the competition any, to be honest.
In terms of the mathematics of Croatia doing it - I presume you're referring to them securing progress for Northern Ireland? Can't really answer that question, to be honest - the only way it would have made sense would be if Croatia was itself in danger of slipping to 3rd in the group and would then have been a better 3rd-placed team than NI, but by beating Spain and winning the group they removed that possibility?
24 teams divided by groups of 4 just isn't fair.
Last night there was a mathematician on Dutch tv that said 24 teams would only be fair if you put them in groups of 3.
And, like I said in the other thread, I think that's a good idea, even if "fair" isn't really a concept UEFA concerns itself with too much. Wouldn't reduce the number of matches fans would get to watch and it would make things very straightforward for all involved.
This isn't new, though - in prior years plenty of teams had finished 1st in their groups while scoring fewer points than the 2nd (and even sometimes, though rarely) 3rd place teams in other groups (think a super-competitive group the winner of which gets a win and two draws vs. a lopsided one where three teams win 2 of their matches and the fourth team loses all three of theirs - the winner of the 1st group would have five points and the third team in the second would have six).
Furthermore, this isn't even the first time in recent memory (although, I guess that depends on what qualifies as recent - I'm referring to WC 1994) that the third-placed finisher in a group qualifies for the knockout stage. The U.S., Argentina, Italy and Belgium qualified for the knockouts that way then, while Russia and South Korea didn't. I don't think it hurt the competition any, to be honest.
In terms of the mathematics of Croatia doing it - I presume you're referring to them securing progress for Northern Ireland? Can't really answer that question, to be honest - the only way it would have made sense would be if Croatia was itself in danger of slipping to 3rd in the group and would then have been a better 3rd-placed team than NI, but by beating Spain and winning the group they removed that possibility?
None of this applies to my question. Croatia has 7 points. Italy could end up with 9. Given this off format, I would have thought group winners would have been re-seeded in the bracket based upon group results. Obviously that is not the case since Croatia secured a 3rd place team while Italy already has a clash with Spain locked in. Doesn't make much sense to me. I'm guessing the bracket placement was arbitrarily set in place prior.
That last minute goal of Iceland... If they didn't make that they would play Croatia in the next round, now its England.
Six of one. Honestly, if I were to admit to two mistakes in my pre-Euro assumptions, it would be that Croatia is a lot more dangerous than I could have anticipated and that England is far less so (I had them winning it, but if Iceland can stay on the right side of the referee, I could see them knocking England out).
None of this applies to my question. Croatia has 7 points. Italy could end up with 9. Given this off format, I would have thought group winners would have been re-seeded in the bracket based upon group results. Obviously that is not the case since Croatia secured a 3rd place team while Italy already has a clash with Spain locked in. Doesn't make much sense to me. I'm guessing the bracket placement was arbitrarily set in place prior.
I'm still not sure what you mean by the emphasized (Croatia isn't third - their victory over Spain won them the group and secured qualification for a 3rd placed team, namely Northern Ireland), but yes, the bracket was set before the tournament.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
