[ad_1]
Football
World Cup
Published on
| Updated
In a study published this week, a team of French economists advocate reducing the number of matches without stake and the risk of collusion on the third day of the first round of the World Cup by giving up the random order of matches.
England – Belgium, June 28 in Kaliningrad, a third match between qualified teams. (Team)
The authors of a study (Mario Chater, Luc Arrondel and Jean-François Lastier of Paris School of Economics, and Jean-Pascal Gayant of the University of Le Mans) start from the observation that Portugal-Spain, first match of group B during the World Cup Russia (3-3), and England-Belgium, last of the group G (0-1), promised on paper since they opposed each other the favorites of their group, but recall that if the first offered a memorable show, the second, between teams already qualified, was one of the most soporific meetings of the competition.
We remember that Belgians and English were wondering if they had no interest in losing this third game to avoid Brazil in the quarterfinals. Our football-minded economists have wondered how to avoid this kind of situation or – worse – a collusion between teams that would manage to qualify on the back of a third (remember Germany-Austria in 1982 to the detriment of 'Algeria).
Their hypothesis, developed in their study Fixing match-fixing, is that the current formula of random order of matches in the draw is not the best. But then how to choose the matches of the last day so that the probability that they are " fully competitive Is the highest?
No shocks to finish
To answer this question, the authors performed 15,000 match simulations for each of the three possible orders. Their conclusion: the risk of attending a last day without a stake is reduced (35%) when the team deemed the strongest (issue of pot A) faces the lowest (D) while those from pots B and C explain each other. Conversely, the A-B format of the Belgium-England type is " without ambiguity The least favorable with a risk of matches without stake that goes up to 55%. First recommendation of the study therefore: " Avoid scheduling the match between the top two teams in the last round. "
That's not all. The authors also target the World Cup 2026, the first to 48 teams against 32 until 2022, the first phase being organized in 16 groups of 3 selections with two qualified for the rest of the competition. The question asked in this case is to know which team should be exempt during the 3rd day to guarantee the best suspense. " Without real surprise The probability of attending a game without a stake is the lowest (less than 8%) when it is the best team that does not play, while this probability increases to 77% when it is the best team weaker who is "off" on the third day.
For a World Cup at 40
However, even if it was adopted, this rule (not to play the last game to the team deemed the strongest) would not solve the central problem posed according to the authors by groups of three to two qualified. They underline the risk of offensive nervousness that can engender this format, like the Euro 2016 to 24 which qualified the four best third of the six groups of 4 in addition to the first two (66.7% of qualified also ). Morality: economists advocate a World Cup with 40 teams – the rival hypothesis of the format to 48 finally adopted in January 2017 – with 8 groups of 5 to two qualified (40% of qualified).
And calculate that in this hypothesis, unlike the groups of three, this time it is the weakest team that should be made exempt during the (4th and) last day. " This is a strong demonstration that, for a final World Cup draw, the order of the first round matches must be anything but random. A lesson that FIFA could already draw on for Qatar 2022.
J. LB.
[ad_2]
Source link
