So Estonia lost the opening match of its campaign against Ireland, 4-0.
I question the Hungarian referee, I question the spectators who think a horn should be sounded continuously rather in short bursts. But mainly I question the existence of the entire sport. I mean, the Euro playoffs part of the sport.
First of all, there's the matter of format. If Eurosoccer were a normal sport and had normal playoffs, people would now say things like: "Well, it was only game 1, look for the Estonian team to pull out a clutch victory on Tuesday in Dublin and force a deciding Game 3 in Tallinn."
The fact that the format of Eurosoccer is a best-of-2 series should already tell you that whoever designed the playoffs is not exactly playing with all 11 players.
Seriously, a best of 2 series? It's…an even number of games. Or, as they're called, "legs." (Get it? There's two of them,) Everyone knows most soccer games end up in a scoreless tie, anyway.
It would be understandable if there were a rule (like handicap, or total goals) that decided who won the series. There probably is, but no one seems to know what it is. Articles in the local press gloss over this maddeningly.
We think Estonia has been eliminated, but no one is really sure. And if Estonia has indeed been eliminated, why are the teams still going to meet in Dublin on Tuesday? Just because the tickets were already sold? Because it's bad for the economy not to have it?
As said: Not. Playing. With. All. 11. Players.
On top of it all, these playoffs are not even being held to decide anything this year. It's for next summer! I knew there was something suspicious about the scheduling -- an outdoor game in Estonia in November? (That's basically asking for another "game that never wiz", like the game against Scotland that was canceled in Kadriorg in the 1990s due to low light conditions.) When would the championship be played? December?
Next summer, it turns out. The championship doesn't even take place until 2012. So what, everyone gets pumped up over the "most crucial match in Estonian history", and if they win, they have to wait seven months? That's a different season! Some older players will probably go on pension before the championship is ever played! How can you have a playoff that determines next year's result? What happened to this season?
If the Stanley Cup playoffs in hockey were like Eurosoccer, it would be like this: The regular season (in which pre-season games alternate with important games) ends. Then there is a conference final. The winner of the conference final gets home ice in the division semifinals -- in next year's Stanley Cup. All series are best-of-4.
But it isn't like that. I thought I would never say this, but God Bless North America.
If you ask me, it doesn't matter whether Estonia won or lost. I think fingers should be pointed at someone, and it's not just at that poor Hungarian referee.
PS. Andrus Veerpalu has a genetic mutation that makes his body produce massive amounts of human growth hormone.
--Anonymous
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Yet Veerpalu isn't ripped like Ahnold. Andrus puts the needle in needless.
Sorry for the anonymous post above, but I couldn't make a Veerpalu joke associated with my true identity, which is Mingus.
Just as long as it's very clear you're not the same Anonymous (me) who authored this piece. That would put a needle in my butt.
"It would be understandable if there were a rule (like handicap, or total goals) that decided who won the series. There probably is, but no one seems to know what it is. Articles in the local press gloss over this maddeningly."
Other than Google or Wikipedia, it's basically self-evident to anyone who's followed at least the big tournaments. For the record: if both teams win a match or both matches are tied, the winner is the one with the highest goal total; if both have the same goal total (as with two ties), a goal scored in an away game counts higher than a goal scored in a home game. If all else is equal at the end of the second game (including overtime), it goes to penalties.
So for Estonia to not be eliminated, it has to not only beat Ireland in Dublin, but do so with an advantage of no less than 5 goals - that is, 5:0 or 6:1 or 7:2, etc. An Estonian win of 4:0 results in overtime and penalties. An Estonian win of 4:1 results in an overall win for Ireland.
The "playoffs" bit in this case refers to the last bit of competition to decide who goes to the big championship event abroad. The tournament holds 16 teams (up from 8 previously); there are far more European nations that want to compete, so they play each other in points matches first (groups of 4 or more, everyone plays everyone else, 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 0 points for a loss; if there's an equal number of points, goal counts apply, as described above). Estonia has never before gotten out of that group stage. It did this year, and if it beat Ireland, it would have gone on to the final tournament - for the first time ever. Among the teams it might have gone up against in these playoffs, Ireland was by far the weakest, giving us the best shot. Hence the expectation of a miracle.
So, I've always thought the State of Origin was a bit of a farce because if one team wins the first two matches the third match is just for "honour", and it was always a bit suspicious how often the second match would be won by the other team, which miraculously ensured a third match tie-breaker...
Then again, I've always thought the State of Origin was a bit of a farce because it's Rugby League but people still insist on calling it "football" (it's not football if you carry the darn thing in your hands, people!)
Anyway, best of three does seem like a pretty basic concept, even if it does lead to allegations that the second match is a dive just to ensure interest in the third...
This is a terrible, embarrassing piece. Go to news.err.ee to read Jüri Estam's good critique of the game.
Post a Comment