Can we get Paul the Octopus to predict other things? Like if there will be famine in the lands or something? Because even if the answer is likely no, it would be nice to know. You know, so we can PANIC appropriately.
Not happy with Spain. They managed to beat both of the teams I was rooting for at this stage (Netherlands and Germany). Although the dirty way the Dutch played, they deserved to lose.
gahrie
Frankly, I think Paul should start writing the economic forecasts……
Brendan Loy
Ha! “Unemployment expectedly rose Friday, confirming Paul the Octopus’s prediction…”
David K.
Don’t feel bad B. Minich, Spain isn’t necessarilly the best team anyway. I mean really a one point game in almost 2 hours? That’s a margin of victory so thin they might as well have flipped a coin. If the difference between winning and losing is one split second where either the goalie misses or the shooter gets it in just the right spot then the teams are basically equals (or the game has some fundamental flaws).
kcatnd
Of course, Spain’s consistent good play forced the Dutch to challenge aggressively and rack up yellow cards, ultimately culminating in a red card for one player. Spain, having a man advantage, applied consistent pressure and took advantage of a great opening. One goal in soccer is a bigger margin than you think.
But of course, we never have margins of victory so thin in a game of inches like American football!
You should just be glad the game wasn’t decided on penalty kicks.
David K.
Um, no. Exceptionally close matches can (and do) happen in every sport, but with no where near the consistency of soccer. The number of ties and single point margin of victory games in this world cup (and the last) are proof of that. And a 1-0 final score is not rare at all in soccer but would be (or it’s equivalent) in just about any other sport.
kcatnd
So what if a lot of soccer games are close? How many basketball games come down to a last-second shot for a razor-thin win? A LOT.
There’s no reason, other than your own bias against the sport, to single out soccer for these kinds of results. The fact that you find soccer boring doesn’t mean the game is fundamentally flawed (whatever that means).
David K.
If you are unwilling or unable to comprehend that there is a significant difference between the two events you describe I can’t help that. Nor can I help that you are going to attribute any of my criticisms of soccer to a bias against the sport. Do you similarly attribute criticisms of other things you disagree with to a bias against them, or is it possible (and in fact probable) that the reason I dislike the sport is precisely BECAUSE of the problems I see in it such as this one.
In other words you are confusing cause and effect.
Yes, basketball games can come down to the wire, so can football, baseball, hell there was a three day long tennis match recently. Close games happen, and in most sports they are fascinating precisely because they aren’t common. Beyond that however they aren’t routinely decided by a singluar event. In a basketball game for example, the score is never a 2-0 or 1-0 game. Both teams have had ample opportunities to both score and prevent the other team from scoring through out the game. You can’t reasonably point to a single score and say there, that point was it, the single difference in the game. In soccer thats just not the case. With the potential for scoring so incredibly low the skill difference between the two teams is deflated. It’s like handicapping in golf, but built in to the game itself.
kcatnd
We’ll just have to disagree. I don’t find soccer as exciting as a lot of other sports, but I just don’t see the same “problems” you do. If what you say is true, then you would think you’d see far more randomization in teams’ success. There’s a reason teams like Manchester United and Barcelona consistently win – because they have better, more skilled players. Whatever you think of the game itself, you can’t argue that it’s somehow inherently watering down competitive advantages.
“Both teams have had ample opportunities to both score and prevent the other team from scoring through out the game.” (in reference to basketball)
But this is also true in soccer, too. Both goalies for Spain and the Netherlands blocked a lot of shots on the goal. There were plenty of corner kicks and headers that missed. The chances were there. These were very, very good teams, and they could play defense. In the World Cup, you’re watching teams made up of the best talent in the world – they’re going to be very evenly matched at times, to the point where even a little extra anything will put one team over the top.
I just think this really comes down to simple preference rather than some kind of objective flaw in the game.
RT @ckanal: Well done, Paul the Octopus. #esp wins the #worldcup. Thank you #SouthAfrica, a splendid host. #vuvuzelas
Can we get Paul the Octopus to predict other things? Like if there will be famine in the lands or something? Because even if the answer is likely no, it would be nice to know. You know, so we can PANIC appropriately.
Not happy with Spain. They managed to beat both of the teams I was rooting for at this stage (Netherlands and Germany). Although the dirty way the Dutch played, they deserved to lose.
Frankly, I think Paul should start writing the economic forecasts……
Ha! “Unemployment expectedly rose Friday, confirming Paul the Octopus’s prediction…”
Don’t feel bad B. Minich, Spain isn’t necessarilly the best team anyway. I mean really a one point game in almost 2 hours? That’s a margin of victory so thin they might as well have flipped a coin. If the difference between winning and losing is one split second where either the goalie misses or the shooter gets it in just the right spot then the teams are basically equals (or the game has some fundamental flaws).
Of course, Spain’s consistent good play forced the Dutch to challenge aggressively and rack up yellow cards, ultimately culminating in a red card for one player. Spain, having a man advantage, applied consistent pressure and took advantage of a great opening. One goal in soccer is a bigger margin than you think.
But of course, we never have margins of victory so thin in a game of inches like American football!
You should just be glad the game wasn’t decided on penalty kicks.
Um, no. Exceptionally close matches can (and do) happen in every sport, but with no where near the consistency of soccer. The number of ties and single point margin of victory games in this world cup (and the last) are proof of that. And a 1-0 final score is not rare at all in soccer but would be (or it’s equivalent) in just about any other sport.
So what if a lot of soccer games are close? How many basketball games come down to a last-second shot for a razor-thin win? A LOT.
There’s no reason, other than your own bias against the sport, to single out soccer for these kinds of results. The fact that you find soccer boring doesn’t mean the game is fundamentally flawed (whatever that means).
If you are unwilling or unable to comprehend that there is a significant difference between the two events you describe I can’t help that. Nor can I help that you are going to attribute any of my criticisms of soccer to a bias against the sport. Do you similarly attribute criticisms of other things you disagree with to a bias against them, or is it possible (and in fact probable) that the reason I dislike the sport is precisely BECAUSE of the problems I see in it such as this one.
In other words you are confusing cause and effect.
Yes, basketball games can come down to the wire, so can football, baseball, hell there was a three day long tennis match recently. Close games happen, and in most sports they are fascinating precisely because they aren’t common. Beyond that however they aren’t routinely decided by a singluar event. In a basketball game for example, the score is never a 2-0 or 1-0 game. Both teams have had ample opportunities to both score and prevent the other team from scoring through out the game. You can’t reasonably point to a single score and say there, that point was it, the single difference in the game. In soccer thats just not the case. With the potential for scoring so incredibly low the skill difference between the two teams is deflated. It’s like handicapping in golf, but built in to the game itself.
We’ll just have to disagree. I don’t find soccer as exciting as a lot of other sports, but I just don’t see the same “problems” you do. If what you say is true, then you would think you’d see far more randomization in teams’ success. There’s a reason teams like Manchester United and Barcelona consistently win – because they have better, more skilled players. Whatever you think of the game itself, you can’t argue that it’s somehow inherently watering down competitive advantages.
“Both teams have had ample opportunities to both score and prevent the other team from scoring through out the game.” (in reference to basketball)
But this is also true in soccer, too. Both goalies for Spain and the Netherlands blocked a lot of shots on the goal. There were plenty of corner kicks and headers that missed. The chances were there. These were very, very good teams, and they could play defense. In the World Cup, you’re watching teams made up of the best talent in the world – they’re going to be very evenly matched at times, to the point where even a little extra anything will put one team over the top.
I just think this really comes down to simple preference rather than some kind of objective flaw in the game.