Australia might be better at soccer if they didn't try to play it like rugby
Original post
We're through everyone's first game of the World Cup. Big themes IMO: • Team play > raw talent; Portugal the best example of the differential • High-scoring tournament (3.1 GPG) • Nearly all very watchable matches; teams #33-48 not bad * USA might actually be good?
Original post
Nate Silver Tweets
Nate Silver Tweets
I believe that we will advance! And probably win Group D, though that's not strictly guaranteed. Winning the group does matter based on how the bracket lines up.
Original post
Some theories about why we've seen such a high-scoring World Cup.
Original post
This sucks, McMorrow's campaign has sucked, and it's a completely indefensible decision by @MIRSnews not to run the poll.
Original post
Here's the basic logic for advancing to the knockout stage after a 3rd-place finish, which may be as good as Czechia and South Africa can do at this point. 4 points: Very likely in (not certain) 3 points: Probably in 2 points: Very unlikely (not impossible)
Original post
The World Cup has been great so far, and FIFA is selling a lot of tickets. The cynicism about a 48-team format wasn't really warranted. However, it does create some awkwardness, with group-stage games being low-stakes and a weird bracket. The solution? Expand to 64.
Original post
There's zero reason for it to take days or weeks to tabulate ranked-choice votes. It's a simple algorithm as algorithms go.
Original post
Image
Original post
Group B math is simple: Canada wins the group if it beats or ties Switzerland, Switzerland finishes 1st if it wins. The model shows both teams as having clinched advancment in *some* form, though that isn't strictly deterministic (it means they advanced in 100k of 100k sims).
Original post
