My reaction to the USA/Slovenia match

I see everyone grabbing everyone else. Where's the foul?

At the risk of deviating from my usual statistical discussions, I feel compelled to comment on the most exciting and controversial game in the World Cup so far. So much about the match goes to the heart of the game itself, which is my ultimate concern. Numbers are nice, but they're meaningless if the game isn't beautiful.

Other than a few tweets, I've generally restrained from commenting on the Slovenia/USA match. I am not interested in sounding like a sore loser, and while there certainly appeared to be plenty of bad officiating it is always best to wait a day or so to see what kind of opposing points of view might emerge. In doing so, one gets a complete picture and makes a more informed commentary. In this case, I must mention how grateful I am for Erik Renko's feedback.

Erik started following my twitter feed a while ago in the run up to the World Cup. Erik being Slovenian, he and I were bound to have some interesting discussions about this inevitable group play clash. As my previous posts indicate, I have a healthy bit of respect for the Slovenian national team for outperforming the Soccernomics model. The discussions with Erik, and the insight he has provided me both pre- and post-match into the Slovenian supporter psyche, have been a wonderful experience made possible by our Web 2.0 world. If you want great soccer insight, I suggest following Erik.

To begin my reaction, I must refer to this NY Times blog entry that Erik sent me this morning. In it, the author provides some pictures and video that show some of the grabbing and pulling by the US team that may have led to the referee's call to disallow the goal. The author of the blog post argues half tongue-in-cheek that there might be some offenses worthy of such a call, while also acknowledging that similar actions were being taken by Slovenian players.

I think any objective fan can look at the two photos and agree that there was a lot going on during that free kick that isn’t allowed. So maybe some of us didn’t like what Coulibaly saw, or that he chose to pluck out a foul by a United States player instead of one against a United States player. But you can’t say nothing happened.

While there certainly are such offenses on both sides, I fall on the side of the referee not taking action for the exact reason that everyone was holding and grabbing. The Slovenian player holding Michael Bradley was probably the worst offender from either team, and Maurice Edu's footwork for the goal really didn't seem to benefit from any US player's hold. In fact, it was quite the contrary as he too was impeded (even though the official FIFA ruling said the foul was by Edu). On balance, it looks like the usual pushing and shoving on a set piece that should have resulted in a no call.

These pictures and the insight they provide also bring up the sensitive topic of instant replay. Many in the United States are used to instant replay due to its use in American football and to a lesser degree in basketball, hockey, and baseball. Many would like to see it applied to soccer for situations like those in the USA/Slovenia match. There are a lot of logistics for instant replay - would it be reviewable only by FIFA officials in a booth upstairs, or would managers have the ability to throw a flag to challenge a call a la the NFL? To me, any implementation would be a travesty of the first order because it wouldn't really resolve the subjectivity of fouls in soccer. Applied directly to this case, what would be the grounds for reversing the prior call? As already discussed, other than Landon Donovan who was taking the free kick, everyone was violating the rules of soccer in some way or fashion on that set piece. It's likely the call would have stood, and would we really want to stop the game for five minutes for an equally arbitrary reversal based upon one of the likely ten infractions committed on the play? This is where the American fan needs to think like a global fan, respect the game as it is on this topic, and move on.

The emphasis shouldn't be on instant replay, but instead on better officiating. I don't hold any conspiracy theories about this referee, but I have read enough to know this isn't Koman Coulibaly's first run in with controversy. The call against the US goal also wasn't the first questionable call in the sequence, and much of the match was marred by inconsistent officiating that often didn't make the calls that should have been made. No cards or fouls were given to Clint Dempsey's body slam of a Slovenian defender, nor Slovenian defenders' several tackles at the edges of the penalty box. The card given to Robbie Findley for a handball in the first half was ludicrous. In general, the first half was light on cards while the second half saw Coulibaly dealing them out as if they were going out of style. It's clear to me that Koman Coulibaly isn't experienced enough nor has good enough discernment to be a World Cup official. He reminds me more of the quality of referee we have to deal with in MLS.

Finally, Erik was able to relate how the second half of the Slovenia/USA match was deja vu for Slovenian fans. In Euro 2000, Slovenia went out to a 3-0 lead before conceding a draw after Yugoslavia came back with three goals later in the match. Erik used this as an example of a "lack of finishing instinct" in the relatively new Slovenian national team. As he said,

[Number] of [international] matches, short history and relative lack of winning habit prevented [Slovenia] from winning [the] match vs. USA.

As I said in my response,

Oh that darn third term in the Soccernomics equation!

It's clear to me that if the Slovenian team continues to outperform expectations, it will get the necessary experience it needs to close the gap it has to the other European national teams in its backyard. Regardless of the bad officiating, I have acquired a healthy respect for the Slovenian national team. We Americans like underdogs, and we love to embrace nations like Slovenia who have successfully transformed their nation since the fall of authoritarianism. Sadly, this match may mar many US fans' outlook to a team we all should be rooting for if they make it to the knockout round.

That's Why They Play The Games, Part II

This is what a potential giant killer looks like

This Friday the US Men's National Team resumes its quest to qualify for the knockout round in the 2010 World Cup. Winning this match would not only instantly erase the memory of the winless campaign in 2006, but it would also allow the US to control its own destiny within the group. A draw is not a disaster, but also not preferable. A loss, and Bob Bradley's boys are in deep trouble.

This is also a very different match psychologically than the England match. The US is the clear favorite going into this match. They cannot be happy with coming away with a draw - the pressure is on for a win. And the weight of an awful 2006 campaign all comes down to this one match. What a difference six days make - the high of the draw against England must be forgotten and winning this match must be all that matters. How will this impact the play of the US team, which is not accustomed to be under such pressure?

So how would Soccernomics evaluate this match?

Population

• Slovenia: 2,059,470
• United States: 309,488,00
  

GDP per capita

• Slovenia: $24,417
  
• United States: $46,381
  

International experience

• Slovenia: 73 matches
  
• United States: 403 matches
  

All of this adds up to a 2.0 goal differential in favor of the United States. In this case, I would argue that the Soccernomics model is way over-predicting the likely outcome. Slovenia is a scrappy team always happy to play the upset role in a tournament. Nothing would make them happier than to take down the US, breaking up the US/England duo that nearly every commentator has seen coming out of Group C since the tournament seeding was announced. If the US doesn't play smart soccer, better defense than the first fifteen minutes of the England match, and make great attacks they may find themselves effectively eliminated from the tournament by the end of the day if they lose and England defeats Algeria.

My personal prediction, as a hopeful fan of the sport in America, is that the US team wins the match 2-1 and begins to convince the world and our nation they are for real. Either way, it should be a great match.

On the other hand, you could be like my tweep Boco_T, blindly follow the Soccernomics prediction, and end up getting the score dead on while most took the other team big.

First Game World Cup Performance vs. Soccernomics Predictions

Building upon my previous post, the table above shows the residuals for each team after their first match (except South Africa and Uruguay, who played their second match today) in the 2010 World Cup. A residual is the difference between an observation (goal differential in the first match) and the predicted value of the model (predicted goal differential of the first match according to the Soccernomics model). Residuals are useful in:

• Determining which observations are over- or under-performing versus the model
• Determining whether the model (regression equation) satisfies the statistical tests required of it

I will continue to use the residual approach to quantify how each team is doing against their corresponding Soccernomics predicted performance as both the second and third matches are completed for all teams. At the end of group play, I will be able to comment as to which teams were the biggest over- and underachievers in the tournament, as well as comment as to whether or not the Soccernomics model actually applied well to the tournament.

Before getting to that point, however, we can gain some useful observations from each team's first match. Germany's top position in the list, given a 4-0 drubbing of Australia, is not a surprise. As I have said in previous posts, Slovenia can easily play this tournament's "giant killer" role if they keep up their great start and tie or beat the US and England. Finally, even though the Dutch and Danes only had a 0.2 predicted goal differential, Holland's 2-0 win moved them to the third spot in the ranking.

At this point, as only one game has been played, the list is basically a reflection of who won and lost. The bottom three teams are the teams who lost to the top three - the bottom half is an inverse of the top half. As group play goes on, this list will get more jumbled and I will provide commentary as to the bottom three teams.

Finally, how about the Swiss upset of Spain today? Spain, favored by nearly a full goal in the Soccernomics model, finds itself in the bottom of the rankings around Algeria, Serbia, and South Africa. They will be playing catch up to Chile and Switzerland the rest of the way, hoping one of them stumbles in their next two matches. Perhaps there is hope for the rest of the world against the Spanish juggernaut that the press wants to prematurely crown champions.

Outperforming the Soccernomics model: Slovenia and Ghana

Yes, the Slovenian goal was that big of a deal.

In a recent post I commented on how the Soccernomics model for predicting international competition goal differential applied to the England/USA match. In this post I will use that same model to show how big the wins by Ghana and Slovenia were in this weekend’s World Cup competition.

Ghana and Slovenia represent two ends of the Soccernomics model spectrum – some might say the wrong ends to be on if you want to succeed in international soccer. Slovenia is perhaps the newest team on the block, having played the fewest international matches of all the participants in this year’s competition. This is due to the fact that they only became a nation in 1991 as a consequence of the breakup of Yugoslavia (I have chosen to assign the Yugoslavian matches to its biggest successor – the nation of Serbia). Interestingly enough, Slovenia does possess a moderate amount of wealth and thus has a reasonable GDP when compared to other nations. Ghana, while having over fifty years of international soccer competition under its belt (nearly ten times the matches of Slovenia), is the most impoverished nation in this year’s World Cup. While Slovenia pays a far bigger price for its lack of experience in the Soccernomics model, both nations are often the underdog when using the model to predict match outcome. Let’s see how big of a disadvantage each team faced in their first matches.

Sources of Data

Before going much further, a comment must be made about the data sources used in this analysis.

• GDP: Throughout this post, I have used IMF data found in this Wikipedia article.
• Population: Throughout this post, I have used the data found within this Wikipedia article. As one can see, there is no real authoritative source for population data – the list is compiled from several reliable sources. The Slovenian government and UN estimates were used as sources for the populations of Ghana, Slovenia, Serbia, and Algeria.
• International Experience: This is perhaps the weakest data set in my study. I have used Russell Gerrard's AIFR data set, which was also used by the authors of Soccernomics. The main liability of this data is that it is only current through 2001, thus the last nine years of experience are not included in my analysis. This means that a few of the ratios, especially for a country like Slovenia where over half their experience is missing from its total international match count, are a bit off. This risk is somewhat mitigated through the use of natural logs in the model. As an example, doubling Slovenia’s experience and assuming Algeria played no matches between 2001 and 2010 reduces Algeria’s goal differential advantage by 1/3. That means that any observation we observe from the model is still likely real and significant. The risk continues to decline as more established teams (i.e. Ghana and Serbia) face each other. If anyone has any ideas where I might find data for international matches between 2001 and 2010, I am all ears.

Ghana vs. Serbia

This match represented the second chance for an African nation to claim a full three points at the first African World Cup. Before ever starting the match, the Ghanian team were underdogs, but just how big?

Population

• Ghana: 23,837,000
• Serbia: 9,850,000

GDP per capita

• Ghana: $671
• Serbia: $5,809

International experience

• Ghana: 389 matches
• Serbia: 578 matches

Serbia has nearly a nine-fold advantage in per capita GDP, a nearly fifty per cent advantage in international experience, and a nearly a two-and-a-half-fold disadvantage in population. This equates to 0.5 goal differential advantage for Serbia – certainly an advantage, but not a huge one. Thus, the victory by Ghana, representing a 1.5 goal residual from the Soccernomics prediction, may be more symbolic in its overperformance.

Slovenia vs. Algeria

Slovenia has played the role of world beaters over the last decade, making shocking runs in Euro 2000, qualifying for World Cup 2002, and defeating the Russians in the European playoff for qualification at World Cup 2010. Just how big of an underdog were they in the opening match?

Population

• Slovenia: 2,059,470
• Algeria: 34,895,000

GDP per capita

• Slovenia: $24,417
• Algeria: $4,027

International experience

• Slovenia: 73 matches
• Algeria: 250 matches

Slovenia’s population is clearly better off economically than their former Serbian brethren as well as their Algerian opponents. However, they suffer greatly in the Soccernomics model with less than one tenth the population and one third the international experience of Algeria. This translated to a 1.0 goal differential advantage for Algeria. Slovenia’s victory, which translates to a 2.5 goal residual for the team, is huge. If Slovenia can tie or win against the US (1.7 goal advantage) and England (2.3 goal advantage), it will have likely completed one of the best performances against the Soccernomics model of all the teams in this year’s World Cup.