In the event of a tie break, goal difference and then who beat who is considered.

 

So yeah you want US and Italy to win their respective matches, if you want to see USA in the 2nd round.

If two teams are tied for the all-important second place, it's decided on goal difference. I don't know what happens if goal difference is also tied, though I'm sure someone could tell you.

 

I don't know know who to cheer for in this game. Ghana have played really bravely and well, I think, and it would be nice to see an African team make it into the next round. On the other hand, I'd like to see the US get a little more interested in the world's favourite sport, and have a bit more in common with the rest of us. That's more likely to happen if their team is doing well.

I don't want the USA to advance purely to demonstrate the misleading nature the FIFA rankings to KQ3.

uh, i don't think its fair to lump the US into the FIFA problem based on their world cup performance. they are missing some of their key players due to injury.

 

also, who beat whom is AFTER goal differential? that's weird.

 

taks

uh, i don't think its fair to lump the US into the FIFA problem based on their world cup performance.  they are missing some of their key players due to injury.

 

also, who beat whom is AFTER goal differential?  that's weird.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Its just that kumquatq3 made such a point of it before the world cup.

 

Regarding tie breakers:

 

If two or more teams finish level on points at the end of the first round stage, a series of criteria determines their finishing order in the group table.

 

The first is who has the superior goal difference over the group games.

 

Should the teams still be level, whichever team has scored the highest number of goals will advance, or if that fails, it will come down to which team took most points when they played each other.

 

As a final resort, if none of these factors can separate the teams, the World Cup organising committee will draw lots.

Edited June 20, 200619 yr by Surreptishus

England is playing very good against Sweden, 1-0 in the first half.

HAHAHAHAHAH! In your face Sweden! :D

HAHAHAHAHAH! In your face England! :D

Crap.

 

Edit: I take that crap back!! But we didn't win the group so we're out in the next round anyhow. I mean, Germany on home turf.. Wow. Now that's a challenge.

Edited June 20, 200619 yr by mkreku

England did poorly in the second half. However watching Germany vs Swe on Saturday should be fun.

Great game.

2-2. Rocked..

If two teams are tied for the all-important second place, it's decided on goal difference.  I don't know what happens if goal difference is also tied, though I'm sure someone could tell you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's the tie-breaker from the FIFA WC2006 website:

http://www.fifa.com/documents/static/regul...ulations_EN.pdf

 

a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;

b) goal difference in all group matches;

c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches. 

 

If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings will be determined as follows:

 

d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;

e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;

f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned;

g) drawing of lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup

Holland vs Argentina is kinda dull imo. <_<

 

However, the Dutch nr. 10 is kinda hawt.

I don't want the USA to advance purely to demonstrate the misleading nature the FIFA rankings to KQ3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

lies

 

 

also, no team (or person) should be wearing that much orange. It's just not natural.

They're trying to blind the Argentinians. Is it working?

They're trying to blind the Argentinians. Is it working?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A few players left due to excessive bleeding from the eyes

 

Seriously, it looks like it's Argentina Vs. The Republic of Kumquat

 

Anyways, a very boring match, it was very evident that the result didn't really matter anyway.

But Teves (is that his name? the guy missing a few teeth in Argentina?) was good.

Please, Argentina vs. Holland was a vast disappointment given the standards of those teams, particularly given how magnificently the Argentinians have been playing so far.

 

90 minutes and 0-0. That's an hour and a half I'm not getting back

 

Please, Argentina vs. Holland was a vast disappointment given the standards of those teams, particularly given how magnificently the Argentinians have been playing so far.

 

90 minutes and 0-0. That's an hour and a half I'm not getting back 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At least it wasn't one of those "ties" that the announcers hail as one of the greatest games ever played. I hate when they do that, it's a ****ing tie.

..Teves (is that his name? the guy missing a few teeth in Argentina?)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, they seem to be sutured on his throat.

Please, Argentina vs. Holland was a vast disappointment given the standards of those teams, particularly given how magnificently the Argentinians have been playing so far.

 

90 minutes and 0-0. That's an hour and a half I'm not getting back 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At least it wasn't one of those "ties" that the announcers hail as one of the greatest games ever played. I hate when they do that, it's a ****ing tie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A tie can be a very great game, however. Like when Denmark and Sweden was playing in the EU championship not long ago, and a 2-2 was needed in order to kick Italy out of the group and for the two to qualify. That tie was reached, much to the displeasure of the Italians who cried foul play.

 

But yeah, a 0-0 tie is boring as hell.

Edited June 21, 200619 yr by Lucius

Please, Argentina vs. Holland was a vast disappointment given the standards of those teams, particularly given how magnificently the Argentinians have been playing so far.

 

90 minutes and 0-0. That's an hour and a half I'm not getting back 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At least it wasn't one of those "ties" that the announcers hail as one of the greatest games ever played. I hate when they do that, it's a ****ing tie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A tie can be a very great game, however. Like when Denmark and Sweden was playing in the EU championship not long ago, and a 2-2 was needed in order to kick Italy out of the group and for the two to qualify. That tie was reached, much to the displeasure of the Italians who cried foul play.

 

But yeah, a 0-0 tie is boring as hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It depends. I've certainly seen games that were amazingly dramatic, yet ended with 0-0 because the cursed ball just wouldn't go into that bloody goal. They don't always seem exciting while you're watching, but you know they were when you're wiping sweat off your forehead at the final whistle...

Granted, if one of the teams that is playing is your own, it's exciting as hell. But hardly so for the rest of us, at least not me. I usually just check in once in awhile if I see the game going sorta into a stalemate.