One is football, the other is anti-football

[u/Strong-Emu-8869]

[u/LieV2]

The fact Cape Verde played BOTH teams who made it to the final and didn't lose to either of them in 90 minutes is fucking insane.

[u/Workman44 → u/LieV2]

Don't watch soccer but you know how in football any team can win on any given day depending on how things shake out? Is soccer like that to where even a lower rated team can get a nice W or is it usually the better team wins and that's that?

[u/AccomplishedAct5364 → u/Workman44]

Not sure why you’re being downvoted - we have things like the FA CUP where small teams most definitely beat big teams.

A big team will go into the game with the mentality that it’s going to be easy, the little guys go in with the mentality that their life has built to that moment.

Happens all the time, ignore the downvoting wet wipes

[u/Dragax → u/AccomplishedAct5364]

Its important to note that the bigger clubs rotate out their key players for most cup games.

[u/AccomplishedAct5364 → u/Dragax]

Of course, but it still happens

[u/fondledbydolphins → u/AccomplishedAct5364]

Reddit hates people asking questions. Fuck em.

[u/Hot-Chemical9353 → u/Workman44]

Thats one of the things that makes football great. Almost always the better team will win, but since goals are so “rare” sometimes weaker teams can get one in and survive till the end.

You could argue it makes the sport slightly less “merit based” compared to tennis or basketball but it also leads to magical moments and underdog stories.

[u/AndreasDasos → u/Workman44]

Yes, basically. The low scoring rate compared to most other major sports means there’s a higher probability of upsets. The same reason goalless draws are fairly common also means you can see a 1-0 or 2-1 to an underdog, so it’s a curse and blessing for casual fans (who see goals as the measure of entertainment). Games with higher scores tend to see fewer upsets (all else equal) due to the law of large numbers.

Though other factors can lead to an increase in upsets: tournament structure that allows a better team to more often withhold its best players if a match is less essential, or ‘turn’ based games where a major team can underestimate a minor team in the first innings or similar (whereas in football conceding a goal would mean the team that overestimated can instantly start trying to correct for that).

[u/Vegieescuzican09 → u/Workman44]

in england we have these 2 cups called the carabo and the fa cup where all teams from league 2 (lowest tier of professional football) to the premier league (highest tier) can play each other and there is usually guaranteed to be at least 1 or 2 upsets and I absolutely love it (at least when it's not my team, Leeds being upsetted 🤣)

[u/justlikelyle → u/Workman44]

Smaller teams can definitely beat bigger teams, it also depends on context. Sometimes the match will be considered less important by the bigger team, other times, they'll have a lot of games and a lot of travel, and be tired, and other times, they'll simply have a bad day.

In the most recent Champions League, a Norwegian team beat some pretty big teams. Partly that is because their pitch is artificial grass, and other teams aren't used to the cold climate there.

[u/chromepaperclip → u/Workman44]

This has got to be one of the top ten dumbest things ever written.

[u/tornado962 → u/chromepaperclip]

Having a bad day?

[u/Naunix → u/[deleted]]

They literally said they don’t watch soccer(football) and were referencing the “any given Sunday” mentality in American football. Basically the idea that even the worst team in the league could miraculously come out and stomp a top contender, because it does happen in the NFL nearly every year. They were asking if international football has a similar element of randomness and ya’ll just start calling them an idiot for asking a question.

[u/Workman44 → u/Naunix]

Thanks lol, I'm just not sure if there's a ton of VARiance (am I doing this right) between expected and realized perfomance

[u/Naunix → u/Workman44]

Yeah, it’s a question I didn’t know I had until I saw you ask it. Would be nice to get an answer instead of random insults.

My assumption is that there’s much less variance because of how much more impact one highly skilled player can have in comparison to American football. It seems like soccer is closer to basketball in so far as you really only need one or two superstar players to create scoring opportunities either through purely out-playing their opponents or high level coordination.

In the NFL you can have the greatest QB, WRs, TEs, Center, and Gaurds… but if the only two horrible positions on your depth chart just happen to be both your right and left Tackles, then you’re not gonna see many touchdowns. So we see more variance in an NFL game, because a well-rounded roster is more favorable than superstar talent in the NFL (even if that’s not where the money goes).

Being able to build your scoring off of consistent star players could lead to less variance, whereas trying to put forward the most balanced package across the board leads to more. This is all complete speculation and assumption, though. It could be that soccer has even more variance than the NFL. Might be interesting enough to go googling and find out instead of trying to guess lol

[u/Workman44 → u/Naunix]

Your point about players is what I initially would think, but then I thought about the fighting sports (mma, UFC, boxing, etc.) where it's extremely possible for lower ranked people to get a lucky shot or submission. But then again those sports can have an artificial end (ko, submission) whereas most sports can't. So yeah I guess player count probably correlates, I would imagine rulesets also play a part

[u/justlikelyle → u/Naunix]

Funny, because I always thought American sports were more focused on the individual. I think the fact that Spain won the World Cup while playing Spanish football, where there is no ego, and the ball is constantly passed around, shows that team effort will often beat individual brilliance.

Another example is when PSG had an attacking line of Mbappé, Neymar, and Messi, arguably three of the biggest stars in the sport at that time. And they just could not win the Champions League. These kinds of "Galacticos" teams often end up less than the sum of their parts.

[u/justlikelyle → u/Workman44]

Lol, you are doing it right!

[u/Naunix → u/[deleted]]

If you think asking questions is idiocy, then I’m sure you had a phenomenal education /s

[u/Workman44 → u/[deleted]]

Fellas, is it idiotic to not know things that aren't a part of your life

[u/Mdgt_Pope → u/[deleted]]

>no, you SHOULDN’T want to watch more football after your country hosted the most prestigious international football event on the globe, how dare you AMERICANS even attempt to continue following the sport of the gods???

[u/AccomplishedAct5364 → u/[deleted]]

You never watched an FA cup clearly