Guy Fawkes
The voice of treason
- Sep 29, 2007
- 8,387
Wow! Now that is stretching the bounds of credibility with your illustration.
I know it was an extreme example, but i was demonstrating that you do not have to beat the best if you want to progress and sometimes there are benefits to not having to face the harder opponents on your side of the draw ,giving you a far greater chance of success and allowing you a greater chance of getting deeper into a tournament (if i had done it using the teams in the World Cup, i would probably have put the same fixtures as both routes are now to show an easier and harder route to the final)
Regardless of which is, or not, an easier route through the tournament the fact is this World Cup has proved that there are upsets and banana skins all the way. Hence my assertion that each team now has to play what’s in front of it. It is people’s perception that certain opponents are easier to play against than others, the reality could be exactly the opposite - just ask Germany.
Every game can result in a shock result, but that isn't a reason to justify being just as happy with a harder route to the final.
We played well in the first 2 games (the only ones with our first XI playing in) so why should we be afraid of playing against lesser teams where, if we were to lose, it would be more of a shock?
Basically its like having a choice between picking from 2 raffles, the cost to enter is the same and the jackpot prize is identical, but the odds of winning are better from one (say 1 in 5) that the other (say 1 in 20) - surely you would want to pick from the one where the the odds are more in your favour to try to win than from the other one, the argument saying you have to beat the best to win the WC to get to the final are like saying that it is the same jackpot prize in the raffle and you have to get lucky to pick the jackpot ticket, so they are the same chance of success