5 ms·

This is hardly the first such weird outcome for a match that reflects a larger strategy of advancing in a tournament rather than simply attempting to win the ma

by a4isms 4y ago

This is hardly the first such weird outcome for a match that reflects a larger strategy of advancing in a tournament rather than simply attempting to win the match. It has been an ongoing scandal that teams collude to fix world cup matches during the qualifying rounds to ensure they both get a favourable position in the knockout rounds. That is considered cheating in soccer, but if you look at a sport like cycling, it is common for "rival" teams to team up and work together to chase down a breakaway, just as it is common for "rival" members of a breakaway or echelon to cooperate to beat everyone else. Why is one "match-fixing" and the other "the beauty of the sport?" Nothing more than expectations.

felipelemos 4y ago
This was not a match fix, and it is not considered cheat, although you could say it is unsportsmanlike.
- a4isms 4y ago
  Cheating, unsportsmanlike... The world is full of things that are legal but considered odious. Ultimately, if a sport becomes dominated by winning-at-the-expense-of-fan-enjoyment, it gets into trouble, so either the rules need another bug fix, or the sport evolves so that fans come to accept the behaviour as part of how the game is played. In cycling, fans consider the wheeling and dealing within the peloton of who works, who doesn't work, and who actively disrupts the work as part of what makes the sport interesting. In soccer, fans protest and throw things onto the field when two teams play, one scores a goal, and then for the rest of the game both teams pass the ball around without trying to do any more scoring. Is it cheating when both teams coöperate but simply enterprising use of the rules when one team attempts to score an own goal and the other team is forced to defend both goals? Regardless of the fine print in the rules, the larger issue is what the fans expect from a soccer match.
  - Lio 4y ago
    True but cycling fans would consider it unsportsmanlike for a rival to attack when the GC leader is taking a piss or has a mechanical breakdown, even though that's perfectly within the rules.
- bigodbiel 4y ago
  Technically it is match manipulation by most association regulations, even if not for financial gains. But it has always been part of the meta-game in such competitions, though this case was too extreme!
- Kon-Peki 4y ago
  > although you could say it is unsportsmanlike. I don’t think anyone rational would agree that it was unsportsmanlike. The situation was very clear, if they won by a single goal their season was over. The goal to make it 2-1 occurred in the 83rd minute and they didn’t adopt this strategy until the 87th minute. In those intervening 4 minutes they attempted to score and restore their 2-goal lead. There are other examples of locally detrimental behavior that aims for strategic advantage, such as the intentional walk in baseball. Or that sometimes in football/soccer a team will intentionally kick the ball out of bounds to stop play because of an injury to a player, and the other team responds afterward by throwing the ball in to the other team or kicking it out themselves.
  - dfxm12 4y ago
    This situation wouldn't be considered unsportsmanlike because of "locally detrimental" behavior per se, but because of the angle-shooting. Your examples are well established parts of their games. Intentional own goals are not.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    I'm not sure the fact they tried to win legitimately for a few minutes before resorting to something the opposition couldn't stop them from doing to exploit a loophole in the rules makes it sound less unsportsmanlike...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notahacker 4y ago
A football match is a one on one competition between two teams. If they cease to compete, it ceases to be a competition. The equivalent isn't a couple of cycling teams collaborating in a multi-team race because they believe the peloton/echelon at a particular stage of the race will ultimately improve one their members' chances of success later in the race, it's a team involved in a pursuit race deciding to ride as slowly as possible to let the weaker team win for strategic reasons. I presume this is frowned upon too...
- toast0 4y ago
  > The equivalent isn't a couple of cycling teams collaborating in a multi-team race because they believe the peloton/echelon at a particular stage of the race will ultimately improve one their members' chances of success later in the race, It sounds an awful lot like a couple of football teams collaborating at a particular stage of a tournament because it will ultimately improve their members' chances of success later in the tournament. Although, this particular case is different in that both teams were incentivized to win, just that one team needed to win by two, so with the game near the end of time, and a weird two points for ovetime goal rule, it made sense for both teams to deliberately score in their own nets at different points.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    > It sounds an awful lot like a couple of football teams collaborating at a particular stage of a tournament because it will ultimately improve their members' chances of success later in the tournament. Yes, if you completely ignore the point I made about collusion invariably meaning the matches themselves cease to be competitive (whereas a cycling race with riders sacrificing themselves for teammates' benefit and all kinds of tactical shenanigans between teams absolutely does have multiple participants willing and able to take all the points off any rider that isn't trying to win), and ignore the much closer cycling analogy (a race where one side doesn't race) you snipped off the end of the sentence. With sufficient willingness to dismiss relevant context, you can make pretty much anything sound like pretty much anything else. I don't think the Disgrace of Gijon and your average cycle race with multiple teams jostling for position looked equally competitive to sports fans or felt equally intensely competitive to the participants, and I don't think any cycling fan that enjoys the anticipation of seeing when riders will stop conserving their energy in the early part of the race and who the tactics will favour would feel the same way about a team deliberately losing a head-to-head pursuit race for the sake of future matchups ... Fans aren't objecting to strategy, they're objecting to the lack of any competitiveness or skill involved in a head to head contest where sides collude or one side intentionally throws. (This particular game's a little different from two teams actually colluding and was probably amusingly crazy for the last three minutes, but still, there's not much skill in scoring unopposed in your own net)
dogma1138 4y ago
It’s not uncommon in many football (soccer) leagues because of the points system and the fact that it’s far easier to force a tie in football than most other sports unless it’s the finals. Teams might force ties or even loose on purpose to hack their ranking for various reasons including to either face off or not face off against a specific team at a future stage.

by a4isms 4y ago

felipelemos 4y ago

This was not a match fix, and it is not considered cheat, although you could say it is unsportsmanlike.

a4isms 4y ago
Cheating, unsportsmanlike... The world is full of things that are legal but considered odious. Ultimately, if a sport becomes dominated by winning-at-the-expense-of-fan-enjoyment, it gets into trouble, so either the rules need another bug fix, or the sport evolves so that fans come to accept the behaviour as part of how the game is played. In cycling, fans consider the wheeling and dealing within the peloton of who works, who doesn't work, and who actively disrupts the work as part of what makes the sport interesting. In soccer, fans protest and throw things onto the field when two teams play, one scores a goal, and then for the rest of the game both teams pass the ball around without trying to do any more scoring. Is it cheating when both teams coöperate but simply enterprising use of the rules when one team attempts to score an own goal and the other team is forced to defend both goals? Regardless of the fine print in the rules, the larger issue is what the fans expect from a soccer match.
- Lio 4y ago
  True but cycling fans would consider it unsportsmanlike for a rival to attack when the GC leader is taking a piss or has a mechanical breakdown, even though that's perfectly within the rules.
bigodbiel 4y ago
Technically it is match manipulation by most association regulations, even if not for financial gains. But it has always been part of the meta-game in such competitions, though this case was too extreme!
Kon-Peki 4y ago
> although you could say it is unsportsmanlike. I don’t think anyone rational would agree that it was unsportsmanlike. The situation was very clear, if they won by a single goal their season was over. The goal to make it 2-1 occurred in the 83rd minute and they didn’t adopt this strategy until the 87th minute. In those intervening 4 minutes they attempted to score and restore their 2-goal lead. There are other examples of locally detrimental behavior that aims for strategic advantage, such as the intentional walk in baseball. Or that sometimes in football/soccer a team will intentionally kick the ball out of bounds to stop play because of an injury to a player, and the other team responds afterward by throwing the ball in to the other team or kicking it out themselves.
- dfxm12 4y ago
  This situation wouldn't be considered unsportsmanlike because of "locally detrimental" behavior per se, but because of the angle-shooting. Your examples are well established parts of their games. Intentional own goals are not.
- notahacker 4y ago
  I'm not sure the fact they tried to win legitimately for a few minutes before resorting to something the opposition couldn't stop them from doing to exploit a loophole in the rules makes it sound less unsportsmanlike...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

notahacker 4y ago

A football match is a one on one competition between two teams. If they cease to compete, it ceases to be a competition. The equivalent isn't a couple of cycling teams collaborating in a multi-team race because they believe the peloton/echelon at a particular stage of the race will ultimately improve one their members' chances of success later in the race, it's a team involved in a pursuit race deciding to ride as slowly as possible to let the weaker team win for strategic reasons. I presume this is frowned upon too...

toast0 4y ago
> The equivalent isn't a couple of cycling teams collaborating in a multi-team race because they believe the peloton/echelon at a particular stage of the race will ultimately improve one their members' chances of success later in the race, It sounds an awful lot like a couple of football teams collaborating at a particular stage of a tournament because it will ultimately improve their members' chances of success later in the tournament. Although, this particular case is different in that both teams were incentivized to win, just that one team needed to win by two, so with the game near the end of time, and a weird two points for ovetime goal rule, it made sense for both teams to deliberately score in their own nets at different points.
- notahacker 4y ago
  > It sounds an awful lot like a couple of football teams collaborating at a particular stage of a tournament because it will ultimately improve their members' chances of success later in the tournament. Yes, if you completely ignore the point I made about collusion invariably meaning the matches themselves cease to be competitive (whereas a cycling race with riders sacrificing themselves for teammates' benefit and all kinds of tactical shenanigans between teams absolutely does have multiple participants willing and able to take all the points off any rider that isn't trying to win), and ignore the much closer cycling analogy (a race where one side doesn't race) you snipped off the end of the sentence. With sufficient willingness to dismiss relevant context, you can make pretty much anything sound like pretty much anything else. I don't think the Disgrace of Gijon and your average cycle race with multiple teams jostling for position looked equally competitive to sports fans or felt equally intensely competitive to the participants, and I don't think any cycling fan that enjoys the anticipation of seeing when riders will stop conserving their energy in the early part of the race and who the tactics will favour would feel the same way about a team deliberately losing a head-to-head pursuit race for the sake of future matchups ... Fans aren't objecting to strategy, they're objecting to the lack of any competitiveness or skill involved in a head to head contest where sides collude or one side intentionally throws. (This particular game's a little different from two teams actually colluding and was probably amusingly crazy for the last three minutes, but still, there's not much skill in scoring unopposed in your own net)

dogma1138 4y ago

It’s not uncommon in many football (soccer) leagues because of the points system and the fact that it’s far easier to force a tie in football than most other sports unless it’s the finals. Teams might force ties or even loose on purpose to hack their ranking for various reasons including to either face off or not face off against a specific team at a future stage.