It's the semi-finals! Dadada-daaahh, dadadadadada,

[Hot Orange]

Seen a few (brits and americans mainly) saying this was the "easy" side of the draw?

I dunno if that's just bitterness of whatever, but Netherland's side of the draw had three of the four finalists from that last World Cup and Olympics, plus the reigning European Champions. While USA's side of the draw had France - who haven't got past a Quarter Final since 2012 but are bizarrely considered one of the best teams in the world and England who have reached one major final in their history.

It's just a bizarre take...

It's a take that may have been based on the world rankings. I know we take the rankings with a healthy dose of scepticism, but they are a measure of sorts and, by that measure, the USA side was the toughest at each stage of the knockouts.

Round - Cumulative rankings (USA side vs Netherlands side)
Last 16 - 97 vs 104
QF - 22 vs 38
SF - 5 vs 20

These are the rankings published on 22 June, just before the knockout stages started, but the previous rankings weren't much different and would still have the USA half of the draw as the hardest.

[June 22 rankings:
USA 1; France 3; England 4; Brazil 7; Australia 8; Spain 12; Norway 14; Cameroon 48;
Netherlands 9; Germany 2; Canada 5; Japan 6; Sweden 11; Italy 16; China 17; Nigeria 38]

[Wouter D]

Thailand were ranked 29th. Ranking math proves nothing.

Beyond that, what exactly are we cumulating here? Are we computing some aggregated "more difficult side of the draw" by simply adding up all rankings in the half of the draw? That measure is completely meaningless even if the rankings themselves weren't. That would suggest that the USA are in the tougher side of the draw because they didn't have to play against Australia, Norway, and Brazil, while the Netherlands are in the easier side of the draw because they didn't have to play against China, Nigeria, and Canada (spurious, I know). Computing the tougher side of the draw by aggregating over opponents that you never meet is meaningless.

Going from the rankings which were used for the draw of this tournament, rankings of the opponents were:
Last 16: 12 (Spain) for the USA, 8 (Japan) for the Netherlands
QF: 3 (France) for the USA, 16 (Italy) for the Netherlands
SF: 4 (England) for the USA, 9 (Sweden) for the Netherlands
On the actual path to the final, you could make the argument that the Dutch had the easier QF. Rankings would suggest the same for the SF, but Sweden had just beaten Germany so they are easily better than their ranks suggest.

Actually, this whole exercise gives me an idea for another slide in my "How to lie with data" lecture, in the "Just because one can compute a number, that does not necessarily lead to a meaningful statistic" section (needs snappier name).

[Sporting]

"Damned lies and stats"?

[jason voorhees]

FUZZY MATH

[Hot Orange]

I wasn't trying to argue either way, merely taking issue with the suggestion that viewing the Netherlands side of the draw as the easier side was a "bizarre take".

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

It's a take that may have been based on the world rankings. I know we take the rankings with a healthy dose of scepticism, but they are a measure of sorts and, by that measure, the USA side was the toughest at each stage of the knockouts.

Round - Cumulative rankings (USA side vs Netherlands side)
Last 16 - 97 vs 104
QF - 22 vs 38
SF - 5 vs 20

These are the rankings published on 22 June, just before the knockout stages started, but the previous rankings weren't much different and would still have the USA half of the draw as the hardest.

[June 22 rankings:
USA 1; France 3; England 4; Brazil 7; Australia 8; Spain 12; Norway 14; Cameroon 48;
Netherlands 9; Germany 2; Canada 5; Japan 6; Sweden 11; Italy 16; China 17; Nigeria 38]

It's hard to give credence to the idea that France, a team who haven't progressed past a quarter final since the 2012 Olympics, are the third best team in the world. They're a team stuffed to the gills with talent, sure, they impress in friendlies, arguably they've been unlucky with draws in major tournaments (in 2015, 2016 and 2017, they lost to Germany, Canada* and England but neither side reached the respective final), but if you want to claim to be a great side, you've got to deliver great performances at some point. When was France's last really memorable tournament win?

* Canada are apparently the 5th best team in the world which I find nearly as unbelievable...

[Kevin S]

Wouter, David Spiegelhalter has some blog posts on this topic from a while back. A title of 'Are the USWNT really number one?" might give you a way in:

https://plus.maths.org/content/under...premier-league
https://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue45/risk/index

[Wouter D]

Ooh, excellent!

[Janik]

It's the eyeball test. Neither of the teams tonight looked of the same quality as USA, France and England and the two intense games those three sides produced. The Dutch look a pale imitation of the side they were two years ago, for example. We will see how true that is come Sunday, of course.

Charging around like headless chickens makes for exciting football matches but it doesn't mean you're a great football team. A well-organised, drilled England who packed the midfield and deprived the US forwards of any space or time on the ball might not have won any fans but they might have won the game.

Holland just tried that. England's and France's approaches had them rather closer to pulling off a shock. If they had tried the Dutch way, sitting back, trying for tactical discipline and looking to hit on the counter, it would likely have ended in the same fashion as the Final. The US players just have that much more drive and strength about them.