Finally Going Head-to-Head

At the 2016 Copa America, Colombia and the United States finished tied atop Group A with 6 points each.  Colombia beat the United States 2-0.  But, since the United States had a better goal differential, they finished first in the group.  Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Meanwhile, at the same year's Euro, it was a similar situation in Group E.  Except it wasn't.  Belgium and Italy both had 6 points.  They also had the same goal differential (+2).  In the next tiebreaker, goals scored, Belgium had a 4-3 advantage.  But Belgium didn't win the group.  Italy did.  Why?  Because Italy won their head-to-head matchup, 2-0.

That's because UEFA has used head-to-head as the first tiebreaker at the Euro since 1996.  UEFA was the only confederation to figure out something that seems like it should be fairly obvious.  If two teams finish tied in the final standings and only played each other once, the team that beat the other head-to-head should be ranked higher.  Yet, that was only obvious to UEFA.  Everybody else, including FIFA, didn't consider head-to-head at all.  Goal differential and goals scored were the primary tiebreakers.  Until this year, that is.

This World Cup is the first where head-to-head victories actually matter.  Goal differential is no longer the No. 1 tiebreaker.  Head-to-head is.  If the tied teams played to a draw in their match against each other, then it reverts to goal differential.  But GD is no longer the be-all, end-all.  Now, if you finish with the same number of points as a team you beat, you're automatically ranked ahead of them.  As it should be.

I first noticed this during the Mexico-South Korea game.  They kept saying that the winner would win Group A, which left me a little confused since I didn't know FIFA had changed the order of the tiebreakers, making head-to-head more important.  It was previously on the list--at No. 4, meaning they almost never got there.  Now, they've moved it up to No. 1.  Finally, FIFA got with the program and realized that a head-to-head win should have more relevance than who blew out the last-place team by more.

It's because of the head-to-head tiebreaker's increased importance that four countries--Mexico, the United States, Germany and Argentina--clinched their group after just two games.  That obviously left them with nothing to play for in their final group game, which is the first thing critics point to, but how is that their fault?  It can also be taken the other way and seen as a reward for taking care of business in those first two games.  Because they already won the group, they can sit players with yellow cards or injury concerns or just try out different lineups.  Which they wouldn't be able to do if the group wasn't already wrapped up. 

On the flip side, going with head-to-head as the first tiebreaker means teams can be eliminated after losing their first two games, also turning their final game into a dead rubber.  Under the old tiebreaker rules, they wouldn't have necessarily been eliminated.  They would've had the chance to potentially move up by improving their goal differential.  But, again, how would it be fair for a team that beat them head-to-head to get jumped in the standings because the other team went chasing goals?  They took care of business on the field when they played each other.  That has to mean something.

Critics are, of course, jumping all over this change, mainly because it's something different.  They don't like the fact that a team can clinch the group (or be eliminated) after two games and the "dead rubbers" that it can create.  There's even those who've argued that FIFA "didn't think this one through."  It's just the opposite, actually.  With the new tiebreaker, FIFA is incentivizing winning.  Not running up the score.  It's designed to make games more competitive.  And if a team can clinch their group after two games, good for them.  They've earned the right to do whatever they want in the third game.

The fact that FIFA made this change the same year they expanded the World Cup to 48 teams and added a Round of 32 isn't a coincidence.  With eight third-place teams advancing, the difference between second and third or third and fourth in your group is significant.  To which I reiterate my previous point.  If you played a team once and beat them head-to-head, why should anything else matter when it comes to tiebreakers?  I'll use Group D as an example.  The Australia-Paraguay winner gets second place, regardless of what happens in the United States-Turkiye game.  The U.S. beat them both.  They should be ahead of either.  Likewise, Turkiye lost to both.  They should be behind either.

In the past, teams had a chance to make up goal differential in their final game to potentially flip the standings.  They no longer can.  I don't understand why so many people consider that a bad thing.  If you take care of business in either of your first two games, you won't be in that position.  So, while I appreciate the argument that it can make the third game meaningless, it also ups the ante on the first two games.  If you don't want to be in that position, there's a very easy way to avoid it.

Since third-place teams can advance, finishing third in your group matters.  Which is why the head-to-head result should make a difference.  Especially if that win determines who's third (and has a chance to advance) and who's fourth (and has no chance).  How fair would it be for somebody to get knocked out of the tournament because of goal differential while a team that they beat head-to-head advanced over them?  How does that make any sense?  Yet, for a long time, that's the way it was.

Sometimes it comes down to luck of the draw.  I'll concede that.  You may have to play the strongest team in your group first.  Or you may get the weakest team in your group first.  That, frankly, is another argument in favor of using head-to-head.  If you get blown out in the first game, so what?  Your goal differential doesn't completely kill you anymore.  Likewise, running up the score against an inferior opponent only matters so much.  You can't bank a huge goal differential and sit on it.  So, while it might make third games less significant, it actually increases the significance of the other two games.

And it's not like goal differential suddenly doesn't matter at all.  It's still the second tiebreaker, so it can still very much come into play.  If two teams tied in their head-to-head meeting, it reverts to GD.  If it's a three-way tie and the head-to-head results are even, it reverts to GD.  Most significantly, goal differential is being used to separate the third-place teams if they're level on points.

So, while there are plenty of people around the world who hate it (mainly because it's new), I welcome this change.  Frankly, it never made any sense that goal differential was the first tiebreaker over head-to-head results.  What was even the point of playing head-to-head then?  Will they change it back after this World Cup?  Who knows?  I hope not.  Because the whole point is to win.  Teams should be rewarded for beating their opponents head-to-head.  I'm glad FIFA finally sees that.  And I'm not entirely sure why so many people have an issue with what should be such an obvious point.