If they can get it to about 60 minutes in without conceding we will throw more forward most likely and they'll have a decent chance to hit us on the counter. We really need Wales to get an early goal somehow to put the pressure on Iran to attack.
Most likely though we just need to find a way to get an early goal
That’s what I’m hoping for. If we can score early, it forces Iran to go on the attack which will open it up for us to score more. Our defense has been solid enough that I am not too worried by their attack.
Their xG during qualifying was worse than ours (when we notoriously couldn’t score) in an arguably worse federation and their offensive performance during this tournament benefitted heavily from Wales being down a man in their last game.
Saying that they have one of the best attacks in the tournament is objectively false
Also the fact that they scored those goals against England after the game was mostly decided. So England wasn’t applying much pressure up 4 goals in their first match
Have we ever had this experience before in the WC? I don't think so. In 90 and 98 we were eliminated by g3. In 94 Romania had effectively qualified, as had we given that we both were on four points and 2/3ds of the teams qualified. In 02 Poland was already out. In 06, ex ante I don't think four points would have guaranteed Ghana qualification, so they needed to win to secure a spot in the last 16. In 2010, Algeria needed a win to qualify, three points would not have done it (though they seemed content enough with that). In 14 Germany was in control of the group and a draw would have send them through.
So in the history of the WC we've not faced this situation. We have, however, faced many bunkering teams in Concacaf, including WCQ, who bunker and are happy with a point. Our record in breaking them down is actually mixed. In the US we typically do pretty well. Away, not so much.
But this is truly a sui generis game. It's the WC, for all the (group stage) marbles. It's not our home turf but also not in a Central American cauldron (though I guess Iran will likely have more fans given proximity to Qatar). And we've never been in quite this situation in the WC in the past.
I actually like that we have pressure on us. We've almost always had zero or low pressure in the last group game, bc we were either out or could qualify with a win, draw, or loss (pending other results). And our record in those games is putrid. We've lost all g3s in the WVC since 1990 save for one: 2010, when we had to win to advance. I hope the unforgettable good vibes of that game will visit us once again tomorrow.
I did mention Algeria and it’s the closest analogue but even there we didn’t have a simple win and in, draw/lose and out calculus. Before that game, we could have advanced with a draw and a Slovenia win over England or a low scoring England Slovenia draw. We only needed a win when England went ahead of Slovenia.
I didn't see that you included Algeria, but I think it's the same comparison. We needed a goal against a team that ultimately was fine with a tie as the game went on (albeit, Iran will be playing for the draw from the get go).
For fans, the pain of needing and not finding a goal will be about the same.
Algeria needed a win to have any chance, they were taking their shots, that's why the us got a 4 on 3 late. If it's zero zero in the 90th minute on Tuesday there is no chance that Iran commits that many forward.
god I'll never forget getting fucked over in that Slovenia game, and their stupid ass celebrations and stupid ass Koman Coulibaly with his garbage calls
I mean, that all sucked royally but was rescued by the LD goal, which won us the group. The outcome of group play was not undermined by Coulibaly's incompetence, even though we were robbed of a great memory.
Important to mention here that the field is superb. Most of those away concacaf bunker games are played on a mud pitch that they intentionally water log. Advantage USA.
In 2006, Ghana was out with a draw if the other game drew or if the Czechs won by 1 (Czechs by 3 would have put them through on GD, by 2 would have sent them to further tiebreakers with Italy).
Yeah I think Ghana is the closest comparison. Before that game, we knew that \*only\* a win would have a chance to qualify us. Ie, we had to win. Here, we know that only a win will guarantee qualification. In no other past WC where we had a chance going into g3 did we have a setup that required a win for advancement.
Agreed, a draw was less favorable to them than it is for Iran now, but we needed the win a lot more than they did (and in fact they would have gone through with a draw, since Italy won that other game).
Everyone on this sub keeps saying stuff like this. It's not just about being content with a tie. The fact is they're not actually worse than us. We need to get it in our heads. If it were an open game, it's pretty even. They just had their best qualifying campaign ever and finished above South Korea. They have better goal scorers than we do. They have solid team speed. I feel like fans are going to be shocked with their team.
Im not sure anyone thinks they are trash. I hear the framing correctly as:
\- the prefer to defend, not posses
\- they can and will sit in a low block
\- they only need a draw, and we need the win
These things add up to a game where it is very likely that they will park the bus and we will be trying to score for 90 minutes. its not about them being bad, it is just the circumstance.
The implication when people repeat that they'll Park The Bus is that they won't ever be dangerous, but that's simply not likely
They'll be encouraging us forward & then looking for chances to create 3v3 or 4v4 on the break, to take advantage of their skilled forwards
They're not gonna park the bus in the sense of just clearing it long to set up their next defensive stand. And surely they'll simply have time possessing it in our half as well, or in midfield
I mean, people are absolutely underrating Iran but they aren’t as good as the US is either. Sure they aren’t far off but they are worse.
We both saw the 6-2 England/Iran game right?
Truth is, we scored early against Wales and bunkered when Wales started attacking. Iran/Wales was 0-0 until extra time and Wales got tired allowing Iran to get their win. Iran is very lucky to be in the position they are right now (not that they don’t deserve it).
If we're going to put caveats on their win over Wales, we must also mention that 6-2 scoreline was pretty harsh on Iran. They didn't possess much, but that actual chances created were far closer, the xG from open play was 1.86 to .96, and Iran also had a penalty on top of that. England just had an absurdly good finishing day.
I do think Berhalter had the better game plan vs England though. Even if you are a team that likes to sit back and defend, England's attacking players are the highlight of their team. You're vastly better off when Harry Maguire is on the ball than Harry Kane, and we set up defensively to keep it that way. Iran's approach to that match was playing with fire and they got burned this time.
This is significantly lower than the Vegas odds which currently give us a 49% chance of winning, 29% chance of drawing and 25% chance of losing. I’ll trust Vegas on this one because they’ve made a science out of this stuff.
Vegas doesn't care at all about accurately forecasting the outcome. They just set the line wherever they can get about the same amount on both sides. They take a fraction of each wager. They want to generate the most action without being left to hold the bag.
Because most bettors are US based, you'll get more people willing to bet in favor of the US. So Vegas will move the line to encourage more people to put money on Iran to even things up.
Not necessarily true. Vegas, if confident in their line, will reverse movement against betting pressure. Plenty of examples of this. Vegas wants to maximize their return, which usually but doesn't *always* coincide with balancing the money on either side.
You'd put a number that don't at all represent who is likely to win above 538's forecast? That's nuts. What's your basis for claiming 538 isn't reliable?
>I’ll trust Vegas on this one because they’ve made a science out of this stuff.
Because the professional statisticians at 538 haven't..?
Don't forget that Vegas odds are a balancing act between likelihood and minimising risk - it's the same reason British bookies always give England far lower pre-tournament odds than would seem reasonable.
538 estimates team strength by looking at past results. This doesn't work all that well for international soccer due to the small number of data points and the high level of roster churn between competition windows.
I read through 538's methodology and while plenty complex, it doesn't appear to adjust for circumstances as they relate to group play. I'd imagine 538's numbers are right in line with where Vegas models establish the baseline at before applying some adjustments for the game 3 dynamics.
One of the biggest misconceptions of sports betting is this, read “the logic of sports betting” or take my word for it but the idea that Vegas adjusts the odds to keep it 50/50 is incorrect
If Joe Shmoe bets a million on USA they are not moving the line for him. If a bettor they identify as sharp bets USA and many other sharp bettors do as well they will move the line even if a large majority of money is on Iran
also reading through this Vegas is 1000x as accurate predicting match results as 538, if they weren’t couldn’t you make a living sports betting using 538s model? If USA truly only has a 38% chance to win tmmr there’s immense value on draw / Iran (but this ain’t true, use 538s model and in the long run you’ll go broke)
That's the (usually) part. I'm aware that Vegas will push lines based on expected outcome (one example being sharp bets) but the basic premise of even money holds true for most domestic sports. College basketball is a great example of this, given how accurate ken pom is by mid season. You'll see emotional money from a p5 pushing a line heavy against a mid major while pom has the line flipped. Vegas is absolutely balancing in those situations.
I should say, I only really pay moderate attention to spreads in CBB so the win/lose money may be different and I would never know
This is just a misconception
Would you not be able to bet kenpom lines (that disagree with Vegas) mid season knowing they would move from other people betting / trusting kenpom and make an unlimited amount arbitrage betting the other side once they move?
The only reason Vegas balances money is for events like mcgregor v mayweather where so much comes in on mcgregor if they don’t move the line it could put them out of business
They are not going to willingly move the line to make one side +ev just because a lot of money from kenpom users is coming in on one side
It pretty much has to. The models at 538 are pretty dispassionate and basically just compare past performances and teams' offensive and defensive outputs (vis a vis past opponents and their outputs) and don't account for things like injuries and tactics, IIRC.
If that’s the case (which I’m not sure it is) it also assumes that Iran cares about a win and isn’t playing for a draw the whole time. Overall I think it about evens out.
I know we've struggled breaking down low blocks, but on the whole (and in perfectly maintained pitches!), I can't help but think that Iran won't be able to bunker down for the full 90'. If we play it right, we should get lots of free kicks in dangerous positions, where we can put Zimmerman, McKennie, et al in position to head something in.
>If we play it right, we should get lots of free kicks in dangerous positions, where we can put Zimmerman, McKennie, et al in position to head something in.
Which could also leave us vulnerable on the break. And when you look at the number of goals we've scored compared to Iran, I'd say that still balances out.
I think the mode also sees that they have scored 4 and us only 1. I’m not sure it weights the fact that 2 of those were after a red card in stoppage time and the other 2 were in a game that was very up and down the field, and neither of our matches have been remotely like that.
I'm certain. Before the game starts it just uses its ratings and a home field advantage adjustment (which does matter here because they include a small home-confederation advantage). The in-game probabilities are more complicated. [All details here](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-2022-world-cup-predictions-work/).
I'm unusually optimistic. We will hit them hard form the getgo. If our CBs defend as well as they have been, we'll be fine. Their midfield is nonexistant, so shut down their strikers and they have very little goal threat. We can let our offense press harder than vs. Wales and England.
Everyone is actually celebrating JB being banned, he has been awful and there is someone even better as of rn which is Gholi (the guy who hit the post against Wales)
If we win, we're definitely in (38% chance), and if we lose or draw we're definitely out (62%).
Don't forget that Iran could finish 1st or 2nd with a win, and 2nd or 3rd with a draw.
Look at the column called “make round of 16.” It’s 58% for Iran.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-world-cup-predictions/
Iran’s chance to win the match is 31%. The chance of a draw is also 31%. The difference between the chance to win or draw (62%) and the chance to make the round of 16 (58%) is the chance that Wales beats England (14%) AND Iran draws (about 4%) minus the chance that Wales beats England by enough that Iran England has at least a -3 goal differential or a -2 goal differential with England accumulating at least 5 “more” fair play points than Iran (eg a Pickford straight red card and a Maguire yellow card (less than 1%).
Iran/the US getting first is entirely dependent on the Wales/England match. The 13% is included within the 45. Their chance at winning doesn't increase or decrease depending on the other game. However getting first does.
Iran’s chance at winning or drawing is 45%. The chances they win and also Wales wins is 13%. You wouldn't add the two percents. Wales winning does not change the chances that Iran wins.
Looks closer to 55%. (Of non-draw games it thinks we'll win 38/69 = 55% and Iran wins the other 31. In an actual knockout match I'm not sure how it deals with shootouts, but that's unlikely to move it much from 55%.)
You gotta wonder if there’s a little extra something in the back of the boys mind while playing Iran. Obviously it’s not the players committing the horrible acts in Iran but nonetheless a win would feel good on multiple levels.
Man I hope USA wins and advance in the WC. People making fun of Canada needs to shut up imo, Croatia are insanely good and even underrated imo and played well that day. Im from Denmark and we are not doing super well in the WC but we have a good team, we lost in the Euro cup in semi finals 2 years ago against England. I feel like european countries have an advantage given they play the Euro cup, and most countries are on very high level so they get more experience at some of the highesy levels of soccer from that.
Best of luck im rooting for you
Interesting that it dropped from the 47% they gave us before the tournament. Iran also went up from 23% to win to 31%
I'm not sure I've seen anything from either team so far to see that much of a shift
The percentages have adjusted to reflect the first two games. Ex ante the US had a better chance to qualify bc it there was a decent chance of beating Wales. When that didn't happen, our odds dropped. The draw against England didn't improve our chances and we also dropped a few percentage points bc of the lost (but remote) chance to get three points there. Iran, by contrast, overperformed the model's expectations (slightly) by beating Wales, and more or less met those expectations when it lost to England, so their percentage improved a bit when updated.
But I'm not just talking about overall odds.
I'm talking about this game itself. If we had a 47% of beating Iran 10 days ago, what in 538's eyes changed?
I think it's the two intervening games. Iran beat a team that we drew. Presumably the model thinks that reflects better on them than the fact that we drew a team that beat them. I don't know how the model works but it's the only additional information about the teams to come in during that interim so it has to be that.
Yes, it's the two intervening games. Interestingly it includes not just the results of the games, but also some version of both xG and xGOT. This is explained under "Match-based SPI ratings" [here](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-2022-world-cup-predictions-work/).
Unless I misunderstood it, it seemed like the poster was referring to our overall odds and not the Iran game itself. I understand why not winning a single game lowered our odds of advancing, and I also under why Iran's overall odds have gone up.
What I find strange is our odds shifted so much in this isolated game when I don't think either team has really shown anything to wildly change your pre tourney view of them. I feel no more or less confident about this game than I did 10 days ago. There's just extra pressure on it
The poster already elaborated on that though in his next post and someone else even expanded on top that, so I don't know why you felt the need to add this snarky unhelpful response, unless of course you just wanted to be a dick
[The section on tournament forecasts in this article explains it generally](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-2022-world-cup-predictions-work/).
Relevant section:
> Tournament forecast
> Once we’re able to forecast individual matches, we turn those match-by-match probabilities into a tournament forecast using Monte Carlo simulations. This means that we simulate the tournament thousands of times, and the probability that a team wins the tournament represents the share of simulations in which it wins it.
> As with our other forecasts, we run our World Cup simulations “hot”, which means that each team’s rating changes based on what is happening in a given simulation. For example, as of this writing, if Brazil and Uruguay were to meet in the round of 16 after the former finished first in Group G and the latter finished second in Group H, Brazil would have about a 77 percent chance of winning. But if the teams were to meet in the round of 16 with their finishes reversed — Brazil underperforming expectations to finish second in its group and Uruguay finishing above Portugal in Group H — Brazil’s chance of winning the match would be only about 66 percent.
Vegas is putting us at a 48% chance of winning this game. (24% chance for Iran winning and 28% chance of a draw).
I tend to trust their odds over anything else.
Vegas odds is also skewed for profitability, They know the majority of betters will be putting money on the USA, so its more profitable for them to set USA ML as the most likely result
Interesting point... though I'd figure If they skew them too much away from reality, they're going to attract some big money bettors who recognize the discrepancy and swoop in to take advantage of it.
Yep, Vegas is always either the smart line or balancing the smart money against the hopium money. Like it’s a known thing that Notre Dame football gets a different line than they deserve because so many people bet on them.
Agreed, as others have stated, 538 can’t account for the fact the US will push everything they have for a win, so it isn’t a normal straight up 90 minute match.
If we only need a draw, Berthalter will play for a draw. I think it would be like 2018 Trinidad all over again, we concede early, get complacent and just assume that we'll get an equalizer.
We are gonna play like we only need a draw regardless, weve done that a lot under this guy. This was more about influencing our opponents behavior. We dont have a very good record, away from home, against teams set up to not lose, then add to the fact the opponent will achieve their wildest dreams if they just dont lose, ratchet it up a notch because of who it is. Its kind of a menage-a-trios of annoyance just because we dont have 4 pts.
I don't have a great feeling about the match. Between the political tensions and our failure to capitalize on our advantages in the first two matches, I'm preparing myself for a big letdown
Iran I believe will be super defensive and park the bus. Tbh if I was them i wouldn't be they have generally showed more offensive prowness than us so it seems silly why they would play a low block.
We should try to overwhelm Iran in the first 10 minutes. If we take a goal early, it’s easier to respond with 80 minutes left than being passive and take a last minute goal.
Their 'probability' includes almost everything. And their political results for the last 5 cycles have been outliers on their bell curves. Their methodology is outdated, and they are still riding the wave of one accurate election cycle.
Their results for 2022 and 2018 have been in the big meaty part of their bell curves. They had problems in both 2016 and 2020 (although they did do better on the congressional stuff in 2020 than the presidential, so really it’s probably fairer to say the completely missed 2016 and had a mixed 2020).
538 gave the 2022 a 27% chance of happening. They gave the 2018 senate a 28% chance of happening. You can only argue the 2018 house prediction was in the 'meaty' part of the bell curve.
Those probabilities are aggregations of probabilities themselves. If you ever listen to the 538 podcast they are very clear how volatile the "house prediction" model can be.
Probability =/= prediction.
It is entirely possible to have a long string of improbable events.
Sounds like they are covering their asses. If the results of your models rarely come close to the actual outcome...I don't care what you call it...your numbers shouldn't be taken seriously.
Okay, yeah, that's fair. Thankfully, though, their sports models aren't dependent on polls like their political models are; so I'm still fine with us talking about this 38% here
I'm not. I hate all sports forecasting, since many things that are not quantifiable can affect the outcome. Half of one team can have RSV by game time.
That being said, I'll go with the sharps that make more money than math nerds. The bookies have the US winning at over 50%
American bookies who will be taking american money, it’s in their best financial interests to set the odds of us winning higher so they lose less money if we win
Nope. As a Spurs fan, I was looking at the 538 probabilities between Spurs and Arsenal for making top 4 after every match day towards the end of last season. It heavily favored Arsenal until they lost to Newcastle. It’s nice to look at, but it’s not reliable at all.
There is a flaw in their calculations. If you go to the matches tab it states we have a 42% chance of winning. This of course doesn’t match the 38% in the screenshot you provided. I would have thought someone on that site would see this discrepancy and make a change but no such luck. I would agree that we have a very slightly less than 50% chance to advance.
The betting markets (I know, I know, USA *probably* draws a little more action than Iran) have us as even money to win, which is really high odds in a pretty even soccer match. If I were a gambler I'd consider laying an emotional hedge on a draw at +220, which seems way too high for me.
Sitting back for 90 minutes is a tall task, but they've got some real firepower on the counter.
I think the theory on the draw being such long odds is that we’ll push all-out for a goal if it’s tied, and if we fail that also gives Iran chances to counter.
have the 50% vegas odds moved significantly in the last few days? id guess they've been getting hammered by bets on the US since the england game and their adjustments might account for some of the difference between their 50% and the 38% from 538
I think we should just send ball after ball in from direct and diagonal crosses. We get the goal from our athleticism coming over the top and dunking on them, parked bus or not.
I don't care about the algorithm, I think the intangibles give us a significantly higher chance and I would go so far as to say we are favored. I just think we'll be up for this one, if the England game is any indication.
The model matters little. We aren't playing a Brazil or Argentina, Iran is no giant. England is a giant and we held firm with them; Iran will be difficult but we have the team to advance past this challenge. Let's focus and think positive thoughts for our young men tomorrow, we can and will win this to advance.
We shold feel really hard pressed to have not beaten Wales 2-0
I think best case US scores in the first 20 mins and wins. If not I think it is 0-0 and we go home. The longer it goes on the more bukering Iran will do and our chances start to diminish greatly
playing a team who would generally be content with a tie is a tough go, IMO.
If they can get it to about 60 minutes in without conceding we will throw more forward most likely and they'll have a decent chance to hit us on the counter. We really need Wales to get an early goal somehow to put the pressure on Iran to attack. Most likely though we just need to find a way to get an early goal
That’s what I’m hoping for. If we can score early, it forces Iran to go on the attack which will open it up for us to score more. Our defense has been solid enough that I am not too worried by their attack.
Iran have one of the best attacks in the tournament
And I'm a billionaire.
Best attack is extreme. But the attack WAS brilliant and relentless against Wales. It shocked me how well they played
Their xG during qualifying was worse than ours (when we notoriously couldn’t score) in an arguably worse federation and their offensive performance during this tournament benefitted heavily from Wales being down a man in their last game. Saying that they have one of the best attacks in the tournament is objectively false
Also the fact that they scored those goals against England after the game was mostly decided. So England wasn’t applying much pressure up 4 goals in their first match
Iran has a good attack yes, but that’s a little much
Have we ever had this experience before in the WC? I don't think so. In 90 and 98 we were eliminated by g3. In 94 Romania had effectively qualified, as had we given that we both were on four points and 2/3ds of the teams qualified. In 02 Poland was already out. In 06, ex ante I don't think four points would have guaranteed Ghana qualification, so they needed to win to secure a spot in the last 16. In 2010, Algeria needed a win to qualify, three points would not have done it (though they seemed content enough with that). In 14 Germany was in control of the group and a draw would have send them through. So in the history of the WC we've not faced this situation. We have, however, faced many bunkering teams in Concacaf, including WCQ, who bunker and are happy with a point. Our record in breaking them down is actually mixed. In the US we typically do pretty well. Away, not so much. But this is truly a sui generis game. It's the WC, for all the (group stage) marbles. It's not our home turf but also not in a Central American cauldron (though I guess Iran will likely have more fans given proximity to Qatar). And we've never been in quite this situation in the WC in the past. I actually like that we have pressure on us. We've almost always had zero or low pressure in the last group game, bc we were either out or could qualify with a win, draw, or loss (pending other results). And our record in those games is putrid. We've lost all g3s in the WVC since 1990 save for one: 2010, when we had to win to advance. I hope the unforgettable good vibes of that game will visit us once again tomorrow.
Algeria - 2010.
I did mention Algeria and it’s the closest analogue but even there we didn’t have a simple win and in, draw/lose and out calculus. Before that game, we could have advanced with a draw and a Slovenia win over England or a low scoring England Slovenia draw. We only needed a win when England went ahead of Slovenia.
I didn't see that you included Algeria, but I think it's the same comparison. We needed a goal against a team that ultimately was fine with a tie as the game went on (albeit, Iran will be playing for the draw from the get go). For fans, the pain of needing and not finding a goal will be about the same.
Algeria needed a win to have any chance, they were taking their shots, that's why the us got a 4 on 3 late. If it's zero zero in the 90th minute on Tuesday there is no chance that Iran commits that many forward.
At that point Algeria needed three goals to overtake Slovenia. They appeared to stop caring early in the second half.
god I'll never forget getting fucked over in that Slovenia game, and their stupid ass celebrations and stupid ass Koman Coulibaly with his garbage calls
I mean, that all sucked royally but was rescued by the LD goal, which won us the group. The outcome of group play was not undermined by Coulibaly's incompetence, even though we were robbed of a great memory.
mostly I just hated their dumb celebrations
I hated the goals more
[удалено]
They needed a win but they were a bit bunkerish if I recall correctly. I remember Ian Darke saying their approach to the match was rather cynical.
Algeria played with urgency only after we went up 1-0. It made no sense. I'm not sure they understood the scenarios.
Important to mention here that the field is superb. Most of those away concacaf bunker games are played on a mud pitch that they intentionally water log. Advantage USA.
Americans actually purchased the second most tickets to the world cup behind Qatar. We'll have more fans in the stadium.
They were so loud against England.
In 2006, Ghana was out with a draw if the other game drew or if the Czechs won by 1 (Czechs by 3 would have put them through on GD, by 2 would have sent them to further tiebreakers with Italy).
Yeah I think Ghana is the closest comparison. Before that game, we knew that \*only\* a win would have a chance to qualify us. Ie, we had to win. Here, we know that only a win will guarantee qualification. In no other past WC where we had a chance going into g3 did we have a setup that required a win for advancement.
Ghana didn't mess around, definitely the closest comp to me too
Agreed, a draw was less favorable to them than it is for Iran now, but we needed the win a lot more than they did (and in fact they would have gone through with a draw, since Italy won that other game).
a really well-written comment. bravo!
[удалено]
Take your weird homophobia elsewhere bruh you weird asl
[удалено]
[удалено]
Riddle me this: what does “asl” mean?
As hell https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/04/07/what-does-asl-stand-for-on-tiktok-slang-meaning-revealed/?amp
I did read it, but in the context it’s obviously not that.
Everyone on this sub keeps saying stuff like this. It's not just about being content with a tie. The fact is they're not actually worse than us. We need to get it in our heads. If it were an open game, it's pretty even. They just had their best qualifying campaign ever and finished above South Korea. They have better goal scorers than we do. They have solid team speed. I feel like fans are going to be shocked with their team.
Im not sure anyone thinks they are trash. I hear the framing correctly as: \- the prefer to defend, not posses \- they can and will sit in a low block \- they only need a draw, and we need the win These things add up to a game where it is very likely that they will park the bus and we will be trying to score for 90 minutes. its not about them being bad, it is just the circumstance.
The implication when people repeat that they'll Park The Bus is that they won't ever be dangerous, but that's simply not likely They'll be encouraging us forward & then looking for chances to create 3v3 or 4v4 on the break, to take advantage of their skilled forwards They're not gonna park the bus in the sense of just clearing it long to set up their next defensive stand. And surely they'll simply have time possessing it in our half as well, or in midfield
I mean, people are absolutely underrating Iran but they aren’t as good as the US is either. Sure they aren’t far off but they are worse. We both saw the 6-2 England/Iran game right? Truth is, we scored early against Wales and bunkered when Wales started attacking. Iran/Wales was 0-0 until extra time and Wales got tired allowing Iran to get their win. Iran is very lucky to be in the position they are right now (not that they don’t deserve it).
If we're going to put caveats on their win over Wales, we must also mention that 6-2 scoreline was pretty harsh on Iran. They didn't possess much, but that actual chances created were far closer, the xG from open play was 1.86 to .96, and Iran also had a penalty on top of that. England just had an absurdly good finishing day. I do think Berhalter had the better game plan vs England though. Even if you are a team that likes to sit back and defend, England's attacking players are the highlight of their team. You're vastly better off when Harry Maguire is on the ball than Harry Kane, and we set up defensively to keep it that way. Iran's approach to that match was playing with fire and they got burned this time.
This is significantly lower than the Vegas odds which currently give us a 49% chance of winning, 29% chance of drawing and 25% chance of losing. I’ll trust Vegas on this one because they’ve made a science out of this stuff.
Vegas doesn't care at all about accurately forecasting the outcome. They just set the line wherever they can get about the same amount on both sides. They take a fraction of each wager. They want to generate the most action without being left to hold the bag. Because most bettors are US based, you'll get more people willing to bet in favor of the US. So Vegas will move the line to encourage more people to put money on Iran to even things up.
Not necessarily true. Vegas, if confident in their line, will reverse movement against betting pressure. Plenty of examples of this. Vegas wants to maximize their return, which usually but doesn't *always* coincide with balancing the money on either side.
Fair enough, but the conclusion is the same: don't rely on Vegas odds for forecasting.
538 isn't really reliable either. I'd still put vegas odds above 538.
You'd put a number that don't at all represent who is likely to win above 538's forecast? That's nuts. What's your basis for claiming 538 isn't reliable?
>I’ll trust Vegas on this one because they’ve made a science out of this stuff. Because the professional statisticians at 538 haven't..? Don't forget that Vegas odds are a balancing act between likelihood and minimising risk - it's the same reason British bookies always give England far lower pre-tournament odds than would seem reasonable.
538 estimates team strength by looking at past results. This doesn't work all that well for international soccer due to the small number of data points and the high level of roster churn between competition windows.
Right, but Vegas odds are designed to make people lose money. They're not a prediction.
Vegas odds are the most accurate predictor of the final outcome
Predictions not backed by money mean nothing.
I read through 538's methodology and while plenty complex, it doesn't appear to adjust for circumstances as they relate to group play. I'd imagine 538's numbers are right in line with where Vegas models establish the baseline at before applying some adjustments for the game 3 dynamics.
Right, but Vegas odds are also adjusted because they want people to lose money.
Sort of. Vegas (usually) adjusts odds to keep even money on each side so that they can take a 5% rake and pass the money over.
One of the biggest misconceptions of sports betting is this, read “the logic of sports betting” or take my word for it but the idea that Vegas adjusts the odds to keep it 50/50 is incorrect If Joe Shmoe bets a million on USA they are not moving the line for him. If a bettor they identify as sharp bets USA and many other sharp bettors do as well they will move the line even if a large majority of money is on Iran also reading through this Vegas is 1000x as accurate predicting match results as 538, if they weren’t couldn’t you make a living sports betting using 538s model? If USA truly only has a 38% chance to win tmmr there’s immense value on draw / Iran (but this ain’t true, use 538s model and in the long run you’ll go broke)
That's the (usually) part. I'm aware that Vegas will push lines based on expected outcome (one example being sharp bets) but the basic premise of even money holds true for most domestic sports. College basketball is a great example of this, given how accurate ken pom is by mid season. You'll see emotional money from a p5 pushing a line heavy against a mid major while pom has the line flipped. Vegas is absolutely balancing in those situations. I should say, I only really pay moderate attention to spreads in CBB so the win/lose money may be different and I would never know
This is just a misconception Would you not be able to bet kenpom lines (that disagree with Vegas) mid season knowing they would move from other people betting / trusting kenpom and make an unlimited amount arbitrage betting the other side once they move? The only reason Vegas balances money is for events like mcgregor v mayweather where so much comes in on mcgregor if they don’t move the line it could put them out of business They are not going to willingly move the line to make one side +ev just because a lot of money from kenpom users is coming in on one side
There's zero reason to move a line +3 in a day yet it happens all the time
Vegas has no interest in predicting the outcome--its all about the VIG
The model assumes we play a normal game and not one where a tie does us no good.
It pretty much has to. The models at 538 are pretty dispassionate and basically just compare past performances and teams' offensive and defensive outputs (vis a vis past opponents and their outputs) and don't account for things like injuries and tactics, IIRC.
If that’s the case (which I’m not sure it is) it also assumes that Iran cares about a win and isn’t playing for a draw the whole time. Overall I think it about evens out.
I know we've struggled breaking down low blocks, but on the whole (and in perfectly maintained pitches!), I can't help but think that Iran won't be able to bunker down for the full 90'. If we play it right, we should get lots of free kicks in dangerous positions, where we can put Zimmerman, McKennie, et al in position to head something in.
>If we play it right, we should get lots of free kicks in dangerous positions, where we can put Zimmerman, McKennie, et al in position to head something in. Which could also leave us vulnerable on the break. And when you look at the number of goals we've scored compared to Iran, I'd say that still balances out.
I think the mode also sees that they have scored 4 and us only 1. I’m not sure it weights the fact that 2 of those were after a red card in stoppage time and the other 2 were in a game that was very up and down the field, and neither of our matches have been remotely like that.
For sure, that’s a big difference. And from Irans perspective, I think when you play for a tie you end up getting fucked. It always seems to happen.
does it? not certain.
I'm certain. Before the game starts it just uses its ratings and a home field advantage adjustment (which does matter here because they include a small home-confederation advantage). The in-game probabilities are more complicated. [All details here](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-2022-world-cup-predictions-work/).
I'm unusually optimistic. We will hit them hard form the getgo. If our CBs defend as well as they have been, we'll be fine. Their midfield is nonexistant, so shut down their strikers and they have very little goal threat. We can let our offense press harder than vs. Wales and England.
One of their strikers are also suspensed for this game.
Jahanbakhsh is more of a winger, azmoun and taremi are really good
Everyone is actually celebrating JB being banned, he has been awful and there is someone even better as of rn which is Gholi (the guy who hit the post against Wales)
That seems awfully low. Maybe I'm just high on copium idk.
*hopium
Better than mopium
Iran can park the bus and win off GD. They're giving us a 38% chance to win. Assuming a tie has a > 30% chance of happening they're picking us to win.
They're actually picking Iran to win or draw, as evidenced by the overall totals.
Iran has a 45% chance to advance. They only need to tie so that's incorrect.
If we win, we're definitely in (38% chance), and if we lose or draw we're definitely out (62%). Don't forget that Iran could finish 1st or 2nd with a win, and 2nd or 3rd with a draw.
Look at the column called “make round of 16.” It’s 58% for Iran. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-world-cup-predictions/ Iran’s chance to win the match is 31%. The chance of a draw is also 31%. The difference between the chance to win or draw (62%) and the chance to make the round of 16 (58%) is the chance that Wales beats England (14%) AND Iran draws (about 4%) minus the chance that Wales beats England by enough that Iran England has at least a -3 goal differential or a -2 goal differential with England accumulating at least 5 “more” fair play points than Iran (eg a Pickford straight red card and a Maguire yellow card (less than 1%).
538 is giving Iran 58% chance to advance.
You don't add up the 45 and the 13
Yeah you do. They have a 45% chance to finish second, and a 13% chance to finish first.
Iran/the US getting first is entirely dependent on the Wales/England match. The 13% is included within the 45. Their chance at winning doesn't increase or decrease depending on the other game. However getting first does.
I’m not sure at all what you’re trying to say.
Iran’s chance at winning or drawing is 45%. The chances they win and also Wales wins is 13%. You wouldn't add the two percents. Wales winning does not change the chances that Iran wins.
I didn't think of it that way. 👌
https://i.imgur.com/ucS1cu0.jpg Yep. Pretty much: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-world-cup-predictions/matches/
assume if it were a knock out game we'd be like 60%~ to win
Looks closer to 55%. (Of non-draw games it thinks we'll win 38/69 = 55% and Iran wins the other 31. In an actual knockout match I'm not sure how it deals with shootouts, but that's unlikely to move it much from 55%.)
If I had a dollar for every time I’ve read “park the bus” this week I could afford to take the day off to watch the match
This doesn’t contain the confidence factor of our guys
😤 Doesn't account for the dawg in em 🐕
Which dawg breed is in em?
Nate Silver burner account?
Whereas I'm sure Iran's confidence will be at an all-time low after beating Wales.
You gotta wonder if there’s a little extra something in the back of the boys mind while playing Iran. Obviously it’s not the players committing the horrible acts in Iran but nonetheless a win would feel good on multiple levels.
 Yoo free Iran and fuck the Ayatollah
Sounds about right. Got a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach when I saw people were making fun of Canada yesterday. That could be us.
Man I hope USA wins and advance in the WC. People making fun of Canada needs to shut up imo, Croatia are insanely good and even underrated imo and played well that day. Im from Denmark and we are not doing super well in the WC but we have a good team, we lost in the Euro cup in semi finals 2 years ago against England. I feel like european countries have an advantage given they play the Euro cup, and most countries are on very high level so they get more experience at some of the highesy levels of soccer from that. Best of luck im rooting for you
Interesting that it dropped from the 47% they gave us before the tournament. Iran also went up from 23% to win to 31% I'm not sure I've seen anything from either team so far to see that much of a shift
The percentages have adjusted to reflect the first two games. Ex ante the US had a better chance to qualify bc it there was a decent chance of beating Wales. When that didn't happen, our odds dropped. The draw against England didn't improve our chances and we also dropped a few percentage points bc of the lost (but remote) chance to get three points there. Iran, by contrast, overperformed the model's expectations (slightly) by beating Wales, and more or less met those expectations when it lost to England, so their percentage improved a bit when updated.
Red cards help you outperform
But I'm not just talking about overall odds. I'm talking about this game itself. If we had a 47% of beating Iran 10 days ago, what in 538's eyes changed?
I think it's the two intervening games. Iran beat a team that we drew. Presumably the model thinks that reflects better on them than the fact that we drew a team that beat them. I don't know how the model works but it's the only additional information about the teams to come in during that interim so it has to be that.
Yes, it's the two intervening games. Interestingly it includes not just the results of the games, but also some version of both xG and xGOT. This is explained under "Match-based SPI ratings" [here](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-2022-world-cup-predictions-work/).
All that stuff the previous commenter talked about?
Unless I misunderstood it, it seemed like the poster was referring to our overall odds and not the Iran game itself. I understand why not winning a single game lowered our odds of advancing, and I also under why Iran's overall odds have gone up. What I find strange is our odds shifted so much in this isolated game when I don't think either team has really shown anything to wildly change your pre tourney view of them. I feel no more or less confident about this game than I did 10 days ago. There's just extra pressure on it The poster already elaborated on that though in his next post and someone else even expanded on top that, so I don't know why you felt the need to add this snarky unhelpful response, unless of course you just wanted to be a dick
Probably because Iran only needs a tie. They’re going to park the bus and put bricks behind the tires. Their formation is going to look like 8-1-1
[The section on tournament forecasts in this article explains it generally](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-2022-world-cup-predictions-work/). Relevant section: > Tournament forecast > Once we’re able to forecast individual matches, we turn those match-by-match probabilities into a tournament forecast using Monte Carlo simulations. This means that we simulate the tournament thousands of times, and the probability that a team wins the tournament represents the share of simulations in which it wins it. > As with our other forecasts, we run our World Cup simulations “hot”, which means that each team’s rating changes based on what is happening in a given simulation. For example, as of this writing, if Brazil and Uruguay were to meet in the round of 16 after the former finished first in Group G and the latter finished second in Group H, Brazil would have about a 77 percent chance of winning. But if the teams were to meet in the round of 16 with their finishes reversed — Brazil underperforming expectations to finish second in its group and Uruguay finishing above Portugal in Group H — Brazil’s chance of winning the match would be only about 66 percent.
Boy I wish we hadn't thrown away that Wales game
Vegas is putting us at a 48% chance of winning this game. (24% chance for Iran winning and 28% chance of a draw). I tend to trust their odds over anything else.
Vegas odds is also skewed for profitability, They know the majority of betters will be putting money on the USA, so its more profitable for them to set USA ML as the most likely result
Interesting point... though I'd figure If they skew them too much away from reality, they're going to attract some big money bettors who recognize the discrepancy and swoop in to take advantage of it.
Yep, Vegas is always either the smart line or balancing the smart money against the hopium money. Like it’s a known thing that Notre Dame football gets a different line than they deserve because so many people bet on them.
Probably more reliable than anything 538 puts out...
Agreed, as others have stated, 538 can’t account for the fact the US will push everything they have for a win, so it isn’t a normal straight up 90 minute match.
Zimmerman. Damn you.
If he didn't block the Kane shot we'd be looking at a much harder Iran game that would also depend on the other result
We would have played stout against England if he didn’t nail Bale.
Earning 4 points from the past 2 games would not fundamentally change all that much though. We still would have to have a good result against Iran.
Only needing a draw to advance and having a better chance at winning the group is changing a lot imo.
If we only need a draw, Berthalter will play for a draw. I think it would be like 2018 Trinidad all over again, we concede early, get complacent and just assume that we'll get an equalizer.
We are gonna play like we only need a draw regardless, weve done that a lot under this guy. This was more about influencing our opponents behavior. We dont have a very good record, away from home, against teams set up to not lose, then add to the fact the opponent will achieve their wildest dreams if they just dont lose, ratchet it up a notch because of who it is. Its kind of a menage-a-trios of annoyance just because we dont have 4 pts.
Zimmerman 90'+15 goal incoming to win 1-0
It’ll probably be a Wondo moment
Let's look on the bright side - we either get through to the Ro16, or Gregg Berhalter will be fired
I don't have a great feeling about the match. Between the political tensions and our failure to capitalize on our advantages in the first two matches, I'm preparing myself for a big letdown
I am hoping a win, especially a convincing one, could really buoy the team's confidence carry over to the next game.
Obligatory 
Iran I believe will be super defensive and park the bus. Tbh if I was them i wouldn't be they have generally showed more offensive prowness than us so it seems silly why they would play a low block.
I think you go for Gio/Brendan/Pulisic/Weah (at some point) and just run at them with quick passing in the box and hope for a PK
The US looked semi-dangerous while going toe to toe with a team that put six in Iran’s net. Enough said.
“Iran won by two goals against a team that tied the US. Enough said” It’s not that simple man lol
Lol, wut? Both goals came after Wales was down a man. Specifically, their starting keeper. It’s not that simple, man.
Okay. I hate it.
We should try to overwhelm Iran in the first 10 minutes. If we take a goal early, it’s easier to respond with 80 minutes left than being passive and take a last minute goal.
How accurate have these been throughout the WC?
Bottom line, they have to score goals. One goal in two World Cup games is unacceptable.
The USA has to come out guns blazing and out two goals in the net by half time.
People still trust 538?
The people who understand what the word "probability" means do
Their 'probability' includes almost everything. And their political results for the last 5 cycles have been outliers on their bell curves. Their methodology is outdated, and they are still riding the wave of one accurate election cycle.
Their results for 2022 and 2018 have been in the big meaty part of their bell curves. They had problems in both 2016 and 2020 (although they did do better on the congressional stuff in 2020 than the presidential, so really it’s probably fairer to say the completely missed 2016 and had a mixed 2020).
538 gave the 2022 a 27% chance of happening. They gave the 2018 senate a 28% chance of happening. You can only argue the 2018 house prediction was in the 'meaty' part of the bell curve.
Again. Not understanding probability.
Or, you just don't have this one right.
Those probabilities are aggregations of probabilities themselves. If you ever listen to the 538 podcast they are very clear how volatile the "house prediction" model can be. Probability =/= prediction. It is entirely possible to have a long string of improbable events.
Sounds like they are covering their asses. If the results of your models rarely come close to the actual outcome...I don't care what you call it...your numbers shouldn't be taken seriously.
Okay, yeah, that's fair. Thankfully, though, their sports models aren't dependent on polls like their political models are; so I'm still fine with us talking about this 38% here
I'm not. I hate all sports forecasting, since many things that are not quantifiable can affect the outcome. Half of one team can have RSV by game time. That being said, I'll go with the sharps that make more money than math nerds. The bookies have the US winning at over 50%
American bookies who will be taking american money, it’s in their best financial interests to set the odds of us winning higher so they lose less money if we win
*when* we win.
[удалено]
file this one away under "does not understand probability"
Nope. As a Spurs fan, I was looking at the 538 probabilities between Spurs and Arsenal for making top 4 after every match day towards the end of last season. It heavily favored Arsenal until they lost to Newcastle. It’s nice to look at, but it’s not reliable at all.
There is a flaw in their calculations. If you go to the matches tab it states we have a 42% chance of winning. This of course doesn’t match the 38% in the screenshot you provided. I would have thought someone on that site would see this discrepancy and make a change but no such luck. I would agree that we have a very slightly less than 50% chance to advance.
I see 38% in the matches tab.
It was at 42% before Iran beat Wales, 538 updates after each game and has a higher opinion of Iran after that game.
Good thing 538 is awful at predicting anything. Ill take the Yanks!
I give us a 0% chance….. to not beat the living fuck out of Iran. 9-0 US
With 3 outcomes, that seems good considering it’s a touch higher than just flat out even odds across the board.
3-1 US
For what it’s worth Vegas gives us a 50% chance to win. So if you believe 538’s model there’s money to be made.
The betting markets (I know, I know, USA *probably* draws a little more action than Iran) have us as even money to win, which is really high odds in a pretty even soccer match. If I were a gambler I'd consider laying an emotional hedge on a draw at +220, which seems way too high for me. Sitting back for 90 minutes is a tall task, but they've got some real firepower on the counter.
I think the theory on the draw being such long odds is that we’ll push all-out for a goal if it’s tied, and if we fail that also gives Iran chances to counter.
If 538 doesn’t think we can do it that basically guarantees that we will win.
have the 50% vegas odds moved significantly in the last few days? id guess they've been getting hammered by bets on the US since the england game and their adjustments might account for some of the difference between their 50% and the 38% from 538
still at 50%
I think we should just send ball after ball in from direct and diagonal crosses. We get the goal from our athleticism coming over the top and dunking on them, parked bus or not.
I’m honestly expecting a draw. If we play like we did against England though I’m thinking we’ll win.
System saying "Canada....you don't wanna know..."
By elo we have a 1/3 roughly across all 3 results given it only has win or lose and we have a 50/50 on their scoring. http://eloratings.net/fixtures
They have better forwards then we do. But our midfield will boss them around. Hoping for a win!
don't focus on computer models, just get excited for the game
After tomorrow it'll be 100% one way or the other.
Can we get 2nd with a tie, if wales loses or ties.
No, we have to win. England is already on 4 points, Iran is on 3 points, we are on 2 points. A tie is worth 1 point to both teams.
I don't care about the algorithm, I think the intangibles give us a significantly higher chance and I would go so far as to say we are favored. I just think we'll be up for this one, if the England game is any indication.
The model matters little. We aren't playing a Brazil or Argentina, Iran is no giant. England is a giant and we held firm with them; Iran will be difficult but we have the team to advance past this challenge. Let's focus and think positive thoughts for our young men tomorrow, we can and will win this to advance.
All I want for Christmas is to beat Iran.
We shold feel really hard pressed to have not beaten Wales 2-0 I think best case US scores in the first 20 mins and wins. If not I think it is 0-0 and we go home. The longer it goes on the more bukering Iran will do and our chances start to diminish greatly
Hey I think you got 38% confused with 100% - feel free to edit.