The Tie and the Nature of the World’s Greatest Game

The U.S. and England tied in the first game of group play in this, the 2010 World Cup, and several of my family members and friends, along with quite a few media personalities have been suggesting there is no point to a game that ends in a tie.

A tie is the best outcome the US side could have hoped for in this match. It’s worth a point toward advancing from group play. The best explanation for allowing matches to end in a tie is that you don’t need a win to advance. It makes wins all the more valuable since they are worth three times as much as a tie.

I don’t know. The more I try to explain it, the more I feel like I’m trying to convert an entire culture. If you believe winning is everything, you’re never going to accept a tie. NFL games can end in a tie, but even NFL players aren’t always aware of that.

Look, if don’t like the idea that two teams can be evenly matched, each get a point and be either better off (America) or worse off (England) in the relative long run because of it, I don’t know how to convince you.

Obviously once single-elimination begins games don’t end in ties. I think a major issue is that the game is played on a huge field with 11 on a side and to decide a game played across so much space where attempts on goal can take a minute or two or even three to develop by who has the best penalty kickers seems incongruous.

I’m left saying, “You either get it or you don’t.” It’s like life, sometimes two opposing forces are evenly matched, and it ends that way. One usually feels it lost an opportunity. Anther might feel it eeked out a lucky break.

It’s nice for TV. In group play, games do begin and end at expected times. Soccer may be boring to some, but it could be a 3-and-a-half-hour baseball game with eight pitching changes. No game is perfect.