What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

Jun. 30 2010 - 4:58 pm | 253 views | 0 recommendations | 4 comments

How to Fix the World Cup, Part 582: The Paraguay Problem

Joseph Sepp Blatter, FIFA president, speaks du...

Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife

This morning, I turned on my television at 0700, conditioned to expect the oddly comforting drone of the vuvuzelas and one of ESPN’s plummy Anglo-Saxon accents. Instead: tennis. I have nothing against tennis, but the sudden absence of soccer—this lull between the World Cup round of 16 and quarterfinals—gave me a premature case of post-Cup depression. The end of soccer’s month-long festival always feels weird and empty, and today provided a foretaste of the desolation.

The only obvious cure is to think up ways to improve the World Cup. Oh, some would argue that the current tournament’s massive TV ratings prove that there’s nothing wrong with the World Cup. That view ignores one of the World Cup’s key attractions: there is always something wrong with the World Cup. There are too few European teams, or too many. We need video replay, or we don’t. There’s too much rough play, or too many red cards. The important thing is that there’s always, always, always something that needs fixing, i.e., debating at length.

So far in this World Cup, some problems have solved themselves. Portugal, for example, is out. But other problems loom. At the moment, I’m considering the Problem of Paraguay.

Paraguay, in many ways, is an admirable side. Ferocious. Committed. Organized. Their success in this tournament, as they are bound for a marquee quarterfinal match-up with Spain, testifies to those knottier aspects of football science that I called the weapons of the weak not long ago. One must admire a team from a small, poor country that rides its grit, determination and stubborn skill all the way to the last eight. And I like tight little teams that don’t surrender goals, in part because they piss off shallow American sportswriters.

But the problem is that Paraguay could actually, conceivably, win the World Cup playing this way, and that just won’t do. Whatever the ‘Guay’s steely virtues, their 120-minute 0:0 draw with Japan yesterday was a form of living death. (As Run of Play tweeted from the depths of this game’s existential crisis: “I think the abyss just gazed into me.”) If the CIA didn’t force inmates at all their worldwide black sites to watch that ‘un, they missed a trick in the enhanced interrogation sweepstakes. And yet, without scoring a goal in knock-out play, Paraguay plows on.

Here’s my bright idea: Install a special rule for the World Cup’s first knock-out round. This rule would stipulate that after a 0:0 draw in this round, a penalty-kick shootout is held as per usual. The loser of the shootout is out of the tournament, obviously. However, the winner of the shootout is not guaranteed a place in the quarterfinals. They have to wait. If any other team is eliminated on penalty kicks after scoring a goal in either regulation or extra time, those two teams meet in a special supplemental game scheduled for one of these two fallow days between knock-out rounds. (In other words, if Spain v. Portugal had finished 1:1, the shootout loser would play Paraguay tomorrow. If the US had held Ghana but subsequently lost on penalties, the Americans would play Paraguay tomorrow.)

If an odd number of teams meets these criteria (shootout winner after 0:0; shootout loser after any goals scored), the team with the fewest goals scored in the round—or, as the next tiebreaker, over the course of the tournament—is out.

See what I mean? Of course, as it turned out, none of the other seven games went to penalties, so the point is moot this time. But in the future, this rule would provide a massive incentive not to settle for a 0:0 extra-time draw. If an 0:0 result had already occurred in the round, teams would hesitate before settling for any draw. No players or managers would seek out an extra World Cup game. However, this rule would occasionally provide bonus entertainment for fans and extra revenue for cash-strapped FIFA and Sepp Blatter’s cabana-boy gratuity fund.

I’m sure there’s a flaw here, somewhere. But right now I am too blinded by my own genius to notice.

For more great solutions to sports-world problems you didn’t know we had, check out The Renegade Sportsman, book-length version.


Comments

4 Total Comments
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    I think in the first round victories should be worth 4 points, ties 2 points, and goals 1 point.
    If scoring doesn’t rise immediately, something is wrong.

    I like the idea of loser-plays-scoreless winners, but perhaps then they would be too tired for their next match? I assume they’d like the extra ticket and TV revenue, so it’s win/win for everybody but the loser.

    • collapse expand

      “victories should be worth 4 points, ties 2 points, goals 1 point”

      That would mean double win for, say, Germany, and almost triple win for Portugal over North Korea (4 + 7 = 11 points, insanity).

      Nothing is really wrong with the current system. It’s just the Cup itself is not spectacular.

      The whole thing is about the winning team, all the “boring” and “scoreless” teams will be eliminated sooner or later.

      And if Paraguay gets to the finals with this strategy and wins – well, sucks to be the opposing team for not being able to score a single goal. Fair enough.

      In response to another comment. See in context »
Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    See my profile »
    Followers: 38
    Contributor Since: May 2009
    Location:Portland, Oregon USA