Jump to content
IGNORED

Euro 2024


Recommended Posts

There have been plenty of comments suggesting that England was given a very easy path to the final, so I thought I'd prove/disprove it numerically. Also, it's interesting to see how well Spain and England played throughout the tournament.

Here are the matches played by Spain, with their opponents' world ranking in parentheses and the score:

Croatia (9) 3-0
Italy (10) 1-0
Albania (66) 1-0
Georgia (74) 4-1
Germany (16) 2-1
France (2) 2-1

Here are the matches played by England:

Serbia (32) 1-0
Denmark (21) 1-1
Slovenia (57) 0-0
Slovakia (45) 2-1
Switzerland (19) 1-1
Netherlands (7) 2-1

What's the average ranking of all opponents? Spain 29.5 versus England 30.2. The numbers are essentially the same, so England did NOT really have an easier route.

How well did each team perform? This is more difficult to measure, but let's assume a team is expected to achieve a goal difference of {ranking difference}/10. In other words, if Spain, with a ranking or 8, played a team with a ranking of 18, they should win with a projected goal difference of 1.0. Here's how the teams compare in this regard.

For Spain (world ranking of 8):
Croatia - actual difference of 3 versus projected difference of 0.1
Italy - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 0.2
Albania - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 5.8
Georgia - actual difference of 3 versus projected difference of 6.6
Germany - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 0.8
France - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of -0.6
Spain's actual total goal difference was 10, projected to be 12.9.

For England (world ranking of 5):
Serbia - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 2.7
Denmark - actual difference of 0 versus projected difference of 1.6
Slovenia - actual difference of 0 versus projected difference of 5.2
Slovakia - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 4.0
Switzerland - actual difference of 0 versus projected difference of 1.4
Netherlands - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 0.2
England's actual goal difference was 3, projected to be 15.1

Ever while the algorithm used is a little arbitrary, it makes the point: England under-performed badly.

So, while England did not have an easier route to the final, they did perform poorly getting to the final. No surprise, since everyone would agree, but the numbers show strikingly just how poorly England performed in the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a final to remember and the tournament was overall a bit "meh".

Jonathan Liew wrote:

"And though chances are few, in hindsight there are glimpses of what comes later. Kyle Walker could scarcely be doing a less effective job of stopping Nico Williams than if he had been armed with a clipboard and a sheaf of Jehovah’s Witnesses pamphlets. Foden – who is very much not on fire, and is really at best quietly smouldering – takes a corner that moves with all the speed and fluency of the passport queue at Stansted airport."

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/14/southgate-oversees-familiar-failure-a-tale-of-hope-but-lacking-a-clear-plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

There have been plenty of comments suggesting that England was given a very easy path to the final, so I thought I'd prove/disprove it numerically. Also, it's interesting to see how well Spain and England played throughout the tournament.

Here are the matches played by Spain, with their opponents' world ranking in parentheses and the score:

Croatia (9) 3-0
Italy (10) 1-0
Albania (66) 1-0
Georgia (74) 4-1
Germany (16) 2-1
France (2) 2-1

Here are the matches played by England:

Serbia (32) 1-0
Denmark (21) 1-1
Slovenia (57) 0-0
Slovakia (45) 2-1
Switzerland (19) 1-1
Netherlands (7) 2-1

What's the average ranking of all opponents? Spain 29.5 versus England 30.2. The numbers are essentially the same, so England did NOT really have an easier route.

How well did each team perform? This is more difficult to measure, but let's assume a team is expected to achieve a goal difference of {ranking difference}/10. In other words, if Spain, with a ranking or 8, played a team with a ranking of 18, they should win with a projected goal difference of 1.0. Here's how the teams compare in this regard.

For Spain (world ranking of 8):
Croatia - actual difference of 3 versus projected difference of 0.1
Italy - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 0.2
Albania - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 5.8
Georgia - actual difference of 3 versus projected difference of 6.6
Germany - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 0.8
France - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of -0.6
Spain's actual total goal difference was 10, projected to be 12.9.

For England (world ranking of 5):
Serbia - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 2.7
Denmark - actual difference of 0 versus projected difference of 1.6
Slovenia - actual difference of 0 versus projected difference of 5.2
Slovakia - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 4.0
Switzerland - actual difference of 0 versus projected difference of 1.4
Netherlands - actual difference of 1 versus projected difference of 0.2
England's actual goal difference was 3, projected to be 15.1

Ever while the algorithm used is a little arbitrary, it makes the point: England under-performed badly.

So, while England did not have an easier route to the final, they did perform poorly getting to the final. No surprise, since everyone would agree, but the numbers show strikingly just how poorly England performed in the tournament.

And I’m sure that’s made you feel very happy 😆 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cornish Steve said:

The main point was dispensing with the notion that England were given an easy path. They weren't. As for their performance, we're probably all agreed on that: they could have/should have done much better.

They weren’t given anything to be fair, the group stages were drawn, and if teams like France didn’t perform in their group and finished 3rd that can’t be classed as an easy path for England, they earned their place because others didn’t get the results required and they did. 
It’s not a mathematical or scientific equation or theory it’s just football and sometimes it goes to plan and sometimes it doesn’t. 
For me as a fan and not a Rocket Scientist England deserved to be in the final on merit and didn’t win because Spain performed better on the day, could England have done better without Southgate and or a different lineup, who knows but it gives us something to debate even if it can’t be proven. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sev said:

I'm not totally sold on this. I mean, there's a grey-zone area, as I see it. As @Cornish Steve mentioned, it'll probably rule the goalie out as captain which is a shame. And please don't tell me refs have feelings :rolleyes:

The refs also have legs, guys. In the rare event your keeper is your captain and this rule is implemented, they could just walk towards each other. Or the captain nominates a 2nd player before the game. It's the absolute smallest hurdle to overcome, which probably means they'll end up with gokarts on the sidelines to get the keeper into the refs face in time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

Despite the objection I raised, I do agree with restricting who can engage with the ref to just one person. I would like to see a change in another area, though: Use VAR to determine whether or not a player was diving, and if so make it a mandatory yellow.

I'd make it a red for an obvious dive in the penalty area. Defender gets a red for a foul denying a goal scoring opportunity, striker should get the same for cheating to create one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...