<p>On the other hand, it’s looking like Apple ripped a lot of the iPhone design from Sony.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>As you know they both made it to the final where Spain whipped Italy 4-0. Maybe it was karma for Spain’s good behavior.<<<<</p>
<p>Nice story… If only it were TRUE. A loss by Spain would have eliminated the team with 4 points.</p>
<p>xiggi - He forgot some details but the gist was right. If Croatia and Spain had tied 2-2, Italy would’ve gone home no matter how much it scored vs Ireland. The threat of collusion existed because both teams were incentivized to quid pro quo 2 goals each.</p>
<p>Nope, the “gist” was not correct. Spain was NOT assured to advance, and a loss would have sent them back to Madrid. Here are the first matches.</p>
<p>Spain 1-1 Italy
Republic of Ireland 1-3 Croatia
Italy 1-1 Croatia
Spain 4-0 Republic of Ireland </p>
<p>Spain 4 points
Croatia 4 points
Italy 2 points
Ireland 0 points.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if you understand what “gist” means. Like I said, he forgot some details. But the point remains that there was very much incentive to rig the game and remove one of the most perennially potent teams ('10 notwithstanding). In a sport with fewer moving parts, I’m sure it would’ve been more of a consideration (it’s easier to fix a tennis match, for example, than an 11v11 sport). Though the Italians seem to have it down to a science anyway.</p>
<p>/sigh</p>
<p>Your penchant to argue for the sake of arguing is not eroding!</p>
<p>With the arcanes tiebreakers rules, there was indeed a possibility of a 2-2 tie that could eliminate the Italians, just as it happened to them in 2004. However, there were plenty more possibilities that gave incentives to Spain to … avoid a loss. Also, there was the incentive to finish in the first place of the group. </p>
<p>The post AND its gist were incorrect, as this line “They tied their match but by the last games, Spain was already assured of moving on to the elimination rounds.” set up a false proposal from the get go. This is not about forgetting details, and it all about stating wrong facts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They would have finished in first with a 2-2 tie, courtesy of beating Ireland by more than Croatia.</p>
<p>It’s pretty clear that the gist of his post, as evidenced by the first line, was to establish another example of “result-manipulating strategies”. If you’re going to harp on him for misstating the situation slightly, you might want to start with your own assertion above and the fact that you originally thought Croatia had 3 points going into the final match (since edited).</p>
<p>"“Returning to soccer for a moment and result-manipulating strategies,…”"</p>
<p>The game format is the result of potentially higher revenue, due to more number of matches and lower probabilities for the favorites to be eliminated in the early rounds. Otherwise, a direct elimination format from the very beginning, would have forced every team to play their best in every match.</p>
<p>"“We don’t need sanctimony from StillGreen…”"</p>
<p>Hi PG. Holding a petty grudge that long, is bad for your health. Any pizza for me today. :-)</p>
<p>"“Back to badminton for a while,…”"</p>
<p>Super Dan ran over Lee again. :-)</p>
<p>/double sigh</p>
<p>You really are incorrigible! </p>
<p>The fact that Spain was not assured of qualifying was not a slight “misstatement” and neither was the fact that Spain had incentives to finish in the first place of its group. You keep pointing to one potential (and improbable) score among many. </p>
<p>The fact remains that Spain could NOT afford to lose and throw away the game. The fact that a draw would still qualify Spain, and that all they had to do was controlling the game enough not to lose is extremely far from colluding with the Croatians towards a 2-2 score. Something that was very clear to anyone who actually understands the dynamics of the groups qualifications. An attempt to play for a 2-2 score was simply too high a risk to assume. </p>
<p>Again, you are really grasping at straws and arguing for the sake of arguing.</p>
<p>Okay, I stand corrected. With Italy beating Ireland, Spain could not have stayed in with a loss. But Spain scored the only goal of the game against Croatia at '88–it could have very well refrained from scoring in those last minutes for a tie and Italy’s elimination–The three would have each had 5 points but Spain would be ahead in goals.</p>
<p>WW, that is wrong again. If Spain had failed to score, Italy would have been first in the group!</p>
<p>Let’s change the 1-0 to a 0-0 tie in Spain-Croatia:</p>
<p>Spain 1-1 Italy
Republic of Ireland 1-3 Croatia
Italy 1-1 Croatia
Spain 4-0 Republic of Ireland
Italy 2-0 Republic of Ireland<br>
Spain 0-0 Croatia</p>
<p>Italy 5 points
Spain 5 points
Croatia 5 points
Ireland 0 points.</p>
<p>PS ITALY WINS, SPAIN/CROATIA TIE, 0-0: Italy finishes first because Azzuri scored two goals total against Spain and Croatia; the others will finish with one goal total in such a scenario. Spain finishes second.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I am not familiar with the intricacies of those rules, I would have thought it was total goals scored in the group. In any case, I am not making up a “story”, this was discussed in the European media at the time of the game.</p>
<p>You are not making up a story. You are, nonetheless, confirming how confused about some of the facts, as well as the final implications of the tiebreakers you happen to be. That other poster correctly posted that a 2-2 tie would have made the qualification of Italy impossible. But it remains that Spain was not assured to pass and would have been eliminated with a loss. A 0-0 tie with Croatia would have left them in the second place as long as Italy did win. </p>
<p>All in all, Spain did have to play for a tie or a win, and did have plenty of incentives to do so. Something that is very different to collude in a machiavellian attempt to kick out Italy. Qualifying was the objective, and that is what they focused on. </p>
<p>No good deed involved; it was pure self-preservation.</p>
<p>First of all, there was never any suggestion on my part that Spain would “collude” with Croatia. It was a question of controlling their own efforts to achieve a certain result. Again, I am just reflecting discussions in the sports media at the time of the game and in the immediate aftermath.</p>
<p>This dope allegation case serves as a good lab test for media bias, or the lack thereof. I decided to look into Canadas 3 major newspapers to see if the coverage for Ye and Ledecky are similar.</p>
<p>For the Toronto Star, Canadas largest circulation paper, I can find 6 stories on Ye and doping, none on Ledecky and doping. Same goes for the Globe and Mail and the National Post, where the numbers are 10 and 0, and 6 and 0 respectively. Folks in the US can substitute with the New York Times, Washington Post etc. and see what you can come up with.</p>
<p>While I think using SwimNews is a good start, I dont think the average person reads SwimNews. I know I dont. As such, it may be a good gage for swimmers and swimming fans, but it hardly compare to the NYT for popularity. IOW, we need print media with huge circulations to judge the impact of a story on the general public.</p>
<p>The result of my quick survey did not shock me; I am a little taken aback by the “gulf” in treatment the 2 swimmers received though. Interesting, isnt it?</p>
<p>
I really feel for Lee and Malaysia. It will be at least another decade before she can challenge for a gold medal again, unless womens squash mysteriously found itself in the Olympics in the meantime.</p>
<p>For those who has never seen world class badminton. This match is not to be missed. Together with their match in last years world championship final, they are the best matches I have seen since the new rules came into effect.</p>
<p>BTW, doesnt Lee and Lin remind you of the two guys in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms? ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are missing a major point I raised earlier. The media did not start the frenzy about Ye. The media reacted to a statement by a senior member of the swimming community, namely Leonard, and then the rest was history courtesy of the blogosphere and twitterlandia. The frenzy was not created as a result of a deep investigation. </p>
<p>The media has their hands full reporting the news fast and furiously at it, and they do not have time to create news at this stage. If there had been a new allegation hurled at another swimmer by an official or well-known coach, the “media” would equally be tweeting it to death.</p>
<p>Actually, the controversy started with a BBC broadcaster: [London</a> Olympics 2012: Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen breaks world record which leads to questions | Mail Online](<a href=“London Olympics 2012: Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen breaks world record which leads to questions | Daily Mail Online”>London Olympics 2012: Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen breaks world record which leads to questions | Daily Mail Online). Leonard’s accusations came the day after.</p>