World Cup: World 0 Goals 0... Bet on Ties II
Why not try to pack it in if you are undermanned? Who cares about the people who bet on the favorites to win, but if you enjoy sports betting bet the low scores. At least you are going to be in it. I know if I coached college basketball before a shot-clock and I had no talent, I'd play the four corners for the entire game and try to win 2-0. In fact, in intramurals in college, when playing a team of goliaths I talked my team into this strategy.
My thinking was they'd win the tip, miss a shot, we'd hold for one shot in the first half (hopefully score), and open the second half with the ball and stall until they fouled us. Maybe pull out a 6-4 win. Boring, yes, but a win is the thing. Course when we won the tip and our best player took two dribbles and bricked a three that "strategy" was out the window in all of three seconds. I guess they were humoring me before the game or he had a bwin mobile betting account. We got killed.
So, I understand why Honduras, New Zealand, or North Korea might want to try Forza Italia on for size, or try and Greece their way to a deep run. In one of the other first rounder games, for a time Paraguay tried to out Italy-Italy and almost pulled it off. Which I didn't really understand. Paraguay, has a couple of players up top, and enough talent to attack an aged and wounded Italy, but thought conservative was the way to go. No wonder all the big teams advance, the small teams concede any chance of winning through the flow of play and just try to steal games. It's a bit like a newcomer getting poker strategy tips from Phil Ivey. Just wouldn't resonate.
I have to say, the one team that thoroughly entertained me with this strategy was Uruguay--not that I agreed with it. First off, France is just as vulnerable as Italy this year. Second off, Uruguay like Paraguay did their own talents a disservice by underestimating how capable they were in taking the game to the French. With a little more aggression, Uruguay could have won that game, maybe going away. Instead, they played to steal a result like Switzerland did to Spain and came out with a tie. Four years ago that's a good result, this year, I'm not so sure.
Uruguay had basically five at the back with two defensive midfielders right before them. And, traditionally they've been South America's Italy. Their tactics are nothing new for them. They completely stymied and frustrated France. It was almost fun to watch (but they are the exception) because to their credit and Diego Forlan's brilliance up front they were able to win balls and link to their strikers and get forward.
I've not seen forwards so ably win the ball and reverse the fields so effectively as Forlan, and to a lesser degree Suazo. Uruguay can still penetrate and win in this fashion, so I forgive them, just as I forgive Italy for their style because it's their style. Though, I do think they were a little too cautious to France just because they were France.
However, to the rest of the tournament, give me a break, why perpetuate a stereotype.
The second reason for the low scoring is the ball. I'm sorry Jubalani advocates. I was discussing this with some American football fans and I posited the question this way. If Peyton Manning were given a football that flew 5% faster how long would it take him to adjust. Answers ranged from a week of practice to a month. To anybody that doesn’t think it would make a difference just look at how QBs struggle to complete passes when the weather changes the dynamics.
My thinking was they'd win the tip, miss a shot, we'd hold for one shot in the first half (hopefully score), and open the second half with the ball and stall until they fouled us. Maybe pull out a 6-4 win. Boring, yes, but a win is the thing. Course when we won the tip and our best player took two dribbles and bricked a three that "strategy" was out the window in all of three seconds. I guess they were humoring me before the game or he had a bwin mobile betting account. We got killed.
So, I understand why Honduras, New Zealand, or North Korea might want to try Forza Italia on for size, or try and Greece their way to a deep run. In one of the other first rounder games, for a time Paraguay tried to out Italy-Italy and almost pulled it off. Which I didn't really understand. Paraguay, has a couple of players up top, and enough talent to attack an aged and wounded Italy, but thought conservative was the way to go. No wonder all the big teams advance, the small teams concede any chance of winning through the flow of play and just try to steal games. It's a bit like a newcomer getting poker strategy tips from Phil Ivey. Just wouldn't resonate.
I have to say, the one team that thoroughly entertained me with this strategy was Uruguay--not that I agreed with it. First off, France is just as vulnerable as Italy this year. Second off, Uruguay like Paraguay did their own talents a disservice by underestimating how capable they were in taking the game to the French. With a little more aggression, Uruguay could have won that game, maybe going away. Instead, they played to steal a result like Switzerland did to Spain and came out with a tie. Four years ago that's a good result, this year, I'm not so sure.
Uruguay had basically five at the back with two defensive midfielders right before them. And, traditionally they've been South America's Italy. Their tactics are nothing new for them. They completely stymied and frustrated France. It was almost fun to watch (but they are the exception) because to their credit and Diego Forlan's brilliance up front they were able to win balls and link to their strikers and get forward.
I've not seen forwards so ably win the ball and reverse the fields so effectively as Forlan, and to a lesser degree Suazo. Uruguay can still penetrate and win in this fashion, so I forgive them, just as I forgive Italy for their style because it's their style. Though, I do think they were a little too cautious to France just because they were France.
However, to the rest of the tournament, give me a break, why perpetuate a stereotype.
The second reason for the low scoring is the ball. I'm sorry Jubalani advocates. I was discussing this with some American football fans and I posited the question this way. If Peyton Manning were given a football that flew 5% faster how long would it take him to adjust. Answers ranged from a week of practice to a month. To anybody that doesn’t think it would make a difference just look at how QBs struggle to complete passes when the weather changes the dynamics.
Comments