Kusch to the Corner

Sorry not talking about trying to protect a one goal game. Just not being so aggressive that multiple grade A chances go the other way.

Ha ha! Nope not kidding. There's trying to tie a game, and then there's giving up a ton of breakaways...

I kind of think the last 20 minutes or so was pretty naive, on our part pushing so hard for the tie. This could very well come back to bite us. Goal differential will be important as I think there's a very good chance both we and Chile finish with 4 points.

Alistair got a mention in the Germany, Scotland Euro opener. Commentator mentioned him as the starter at RB for Celtic ahead of a Scotland international.

If you ever come across that paper again, I'd be interested in reading it. I'm no proponent of a 48 team world cup, but I do have a stats background, and they way I've looked at it, the chances of "dodgy" happenings in a 3 team group with both a top 16 ranked team and a 33-48 ranked team in it are remote. I'd be interested in seeing another opinion though.

Is buying your way into the world cup worth it? I guess time will tell...

I don't know, but if anyone else does, I'd appreciate the info as well.

I'd have liked this 10 times if i could have.

This^^^ Poor guy. Herdman should have a Teal Bunbury focused section of his PowerPoint Presentation.

Treppy2 hit on the only possible scenario that a tie in game 3 could see both teams advance. That is: Game 1 low scoring tie; say 0-0 Game 2 the EXACT SAME low scoring tie; 0-0 Game 3 must then be a tie of any value higher than the previous 2 ties. In this example 1-1 would work. And would see the teams in the 1-1 game advance on goals for. For 2 managers to get together and agree in advance to a tie at a WORLD CUP where a specific number of goals are required seems unlikely. For 2 managers to agree to such a thing and then actually follow through on it, preposterous. What manager would see his team score first and then tell his players to let the opponent score? What players would go along with it, when they are in a position to win and advance. Conversly, what manager would agree to let the other team score first, taking it on faith that they will then be "allowed" to score? And, it only gets more unlikely as the number of goals required in the 3rd game grows. Say the first 2 games finish 1-1. Then the 3rd game requires a very carefully coordinated 2-2 tie.

Sure, but that's not two teams intentionally playing for a draw to advance, and if you don't like a coin toss (which I don't) use goals for and against as the tie breaker and then the last game is meaningful and no manager in their right mind would go for a tie in any possible scenario.

Don't mind the idea of more games, but the idea that a 3 team group leads to a high likelihood of the final group game seeing both teams go for a tie because it will see them through is flat out wrong. The odds of this happening are remote provided goal difference is a tie breaker. I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but not the first time I've seen it...

Are games archived on the YouTube channel? Will this be available day after?

I was actually just marveling at how skilled they all are really.

Laryea slips; Honduran falls over top of him... Wheeler: "that has to be a foul" Brennan: "never a foul" Objectivity!