Nigel the Magpie

WCC has devised a bold and completely original experiment to ascertain who will the win the World Cup. We have tapped in to the prediction-making powers of an animal!

We offered Nigel the Magpie two lots of food. One with Spain written on the bowl, the other with Holland. But Nigel flew off without showing any interest in either bowl of food. This means the score will remain 0-0 after 90mins and extra-time. With the penalty-shoot out tied at 56 all, both captains will agree that Holland and Spain should share the title of World Cup champions!

Nigel the Magpie

Posted in Student Union | 4 Comments

Talent Pool

In-Group/Out-GroupWhen individuals are arranged into groups, such as organizations or leagues, there is a tendency to reify the distinction between them. Distinctions are not deemed to be revisable products of human categorization, but appear to be natural and purposeful. We view distinctions as inherent and meaningful, rather than a haphazard process by which we make sense of a chaotic world. Even when a group of humans is artificially separated along arbitrary lines, such as eye colour, it does not take long for these humans to impute substantial differences between the newly formed sub-groups. Recognition that outsiders posed a threat was a crucial aid to survival for our distant ancestors. We are thus predisposed to view human classification processes as objective and meaningful, even when they are essentially random: the outsider is a threat simply because they are an outsider. But if spurious distinctions between groups can be manufactured then this provides an improved means by which to identify the threat. The in-group/out-group distinction is less vital for human survival in the present day; but the psychological benefits conferred by the security of the in-group, (and suspicion of the out-group), are clearly retained.

Our group-oriented minds thus consider football leagues of incremental standing to have a very strong correlation with the variance of individual talent contained in these leagues. The tendency to reify differences between groups means that we fail to recognize the narrowness and mutability of human classifications of different talent groupings. But do we really believe that every player in the English Premier League is better than every player in the Championship (or even League One and League Two)? Gaps between teams may be fairly substantial, as is evidenced by clubs which struggle when they are promoted to the Premier League. But a club is an emergent entity comprising a reasonably large number of players. It is very difficult to delineate a player’s distinctive contribution to a club’s success: goals could well dry up for a celebrated top-flight striker if they found themselves performing within a less high-functioning side.

The gradations in talent between leagues are also based on the subjective opinion of managers rather than any objective criteria. Do the opinions of these individuals combine to provide an infallible system for allocating talent to different leagues? Admittedly, there is circumscribed movement between the leagues with player transfers, and teams being promoted and relegated. But in viewing the Premier League as the talent pool, Fabio Capello is dependent on contingent factors such as players with potential being spotted by fallible managers, or teams obtaining promotion.

Kevin KeeganThe additional problem in England is that, as a result of homespun wisdom, the manager takes on both team management and recruitment duties. The manager’s responsibility for signing players is so entrenched in England that it can, if rescinded, lead to constructive dismissal claims. On the continent, it is more common to have management and recruitment separated between a coach and technical director. Recruitment can then receive the full attention of a specialist who is unencumbered with the day-to-day management of the team. This approach might help clubs to find the best players and thus facilitate more effective talent-channels between leagues. Leagues must be a sketchy means for classifying and ranking complex abilities. But if old-fashioned methods of team management in England could be eschewed, perhaps the Premier League would provide a better approximation of the best available talent for the England coach to choose from.

Posted in Life Sciences | Comments Off

Bibliography

Here is a selection of books which have either informed or inspired World Cup College articles.

Football/Sport
Brilliant Orange – David Winner
Inverting the Pyramid – Jonathan Wilson
The Meaning of Sport – Simon Barnes
Why England Lose – Simon Kuper & Stefan Syzmanski
Football and Chess – Adam Wells
Leftfield – Graeme Le Saux
What Sport Tells Us About Life – Ed Smith
Soccer and Philosophy - Ted Richards (ed)
Moneyball – Michael Lewis

Academic
Straw Dogs – John Gray
Labyrinths – Jorge Luis Borges
The Myth of Sisyhpus – Albert Camus
Sartre – Iris Murdoch
The Re-Emergence of Emergence – Philip Clayton & Paul Davies (eds)
The Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins
Mind Time – Benjamin Libet
The Blank Slate – Steven Pinker
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind – Julian Jaynes
Rethinking Social Theory – Roger Sibeon
Understanding Organizations – Charles Handy
Critical Mass – Philip Ball
The Fabric of Reality – David Deutsch
Hyperspace – Michio Kaku

Posted in Arts and Law | 3 Comments

Holland 3 Uruguay 2

Holland v Uruguay An early chance fell to Holland in this semi-final: an Arjen Robben cross was punched by Muslera only as far as Dirk Kuyt who was 12 yards from goal. But Kuyt failed to keep his powerful shot down. However, this was no indication of how the first-half was to progress: it was a cagey first period with Uruguay preventing the Dutch attacking players from attaining any momentum.

It took an amazing strike from Giovanni van Bronckhorst to break the deadlock. He struck a fierce left-foot shot from well outside the area which found the net via the post. It then continued to be a tense and uneasy encounter with neither side creating clear chances. Holland had most of the possession but seldom looked like they would convert this into anything productive. The score was levelled before half-time by another long-range strike: Diego Forlan struck a curling shot past Maarten Stekelenberg, but a stronger hand from the keeper could have prevented the goal.

For the second-half, Holland replaced Demy de Zeeuw with Rafael van der Vaart and switched to more of a 4-1-4-1 formation in the endeavour to prompt some attacking thrust. The second period promised little though until Diego Forlan demonstrated his mastery of the Jabulani once more, with a decent free-kick which required a diving save from Stekelenberg. This seemed to ignite the Dutch somewhat and almost immediately they contrived a good attack: Robin van Persie held the ball up well and played a neat ball to van der Vaart whose shot was saved ‚ the rebound fell to Robben but his attempt at goal was wild. The lead was regained just minutes later when Wesley Sneijder made space for himself in the box and his deflected shot found the net (with van Persie arguably in an offside position.) The lead was then increased, and the game won, when Kuyt’s cross from the left was headed home adroitly by Robben.

Uruguay pulled a goal back with full-time approaching when Pareira scored following an intelligent short free-kick. This made for a nervy final couple of minutes, but the Dutch held on and will feature in their first World Cup final since 1978 on Sunday.

Holland laboured for periods in this game and struggled to break the shackles of the pressure imposed by Uruguay. The Dutch set up as a secure unit but also field influential individuals in attacking areas. However, their approach contrasts with the more fluid approach of Germany for whom Memut Ozil oscillates between support striker and attacking midfielder, whilst Sami Khedira is slightly more advanced than Bastian Schweinsteiger in central-midfield. The German approach therefore morphs from 4-1-3-2 to 4-2-3-1. Although there is some positional exchange between van Persie, Kuyt and Robben, the Dutch play a fairly rigid 4-2-3-1. It required a substitution (the introduction of van der Vaart) to adopt a different approach in the second period. Could Sunday’s final pit the functional and workmanlike Dutch against the total football of Germany!

Posted in International Office | Comments Off

Wing-back: the complete story

Due to massive demand WCC is delighted to publish the complete Wing-back story – just print, cut-out and keep. The complex interrelationship between star wing-back Ashley Le Sansom and new manager Glenn Keegan is starkly apparent in this full version. Altogether now – it’s 2001, and wing-back Ashley Le Sansom has been Everpool Rovers’ star player for several seasons. But football is a changing game, so what does the future hold for Le Sansom under new manager Glenn Keegan?

Wing-back complete

Posted in Student Union | 8 Comments

Chess & Football: a computational comparison

ChessChess is played in a defined physical area which is broken into 64 discrete spaces. Pieces move within this area following a number of specified rules: for example, rooks can move horizontally and vertically, bishops move diagonally.

As a result of prescribed rules being followed within a defined area, chess is amenable to computational principles. This is also why it is possible to calculate the total number of possible moves in a game of chess, 10120. This is a reasonably massive number; for comparison, it is conjectured that there are about 1075 atoms in the entire universe.

It may not appear that the same principles of computation could be applied to football. However, football is also played within a defined physical space and is performed with reference to a specific set of rules. Football players may have much more freedom than chess pieces, but the scope of their mobility is circumscribed by both the rules of the game and their anthropomorphic limitations. Despite greater state-space complexity, it should still be possible to compute the format of every game of football that could ever be played.

There are some key differences between football and chess to take into account when devising a holistic computational model of the former. For example, there are more subtle variations of action in football, with complex intersections of speed, strength and cognitive ability impacting upon the movements available to each player. The probabilistic prediction of all possible moves is also less defined, as football is predicated on continuous play rather than discrete positional changes.

Despite these added features of game complexity, the difference between chess and football is fundamentally one of degree rather than substance. A computational rendering of football simply has to take into account factors such as: playing area; rules of the game; the scope of player movement; the scope of ball movement; player motivation; refereeing fallibility; the weather; crowd responses etc. Scientists will then be able to map the entire range of possible football matches. Top mathematical minds at WCC currently consider that the approximate maximum number of different matches that could be played is 400 squadrillion (400 followed by enough zeroes to fill a medium-sized black hole).

Mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace postulated the existence of an entity that, knowing the complete state of universal conditions at a specific point in time, could accordingly envisage all past and future occurrences. (This entity subsequently became known as Laplace’s demon.) This view suggests that all events were determined from the genesis of the universe; therefore, complete knowledge of the state of spacetime at a particular juncture could enable complete predictive powers. It’s not yet possible to establish the state of the universe in its totality, but a holistic computational model of football can derive predictions from a more localised level. Once the exact initial conditions of a certain game are known, it will be possible to predict every kick, jump, shout, shrug of the shoulders and feigned injury with total accuracy.

As chess is subject to computational principles, a computer, Deep Blue, was able to beat the human grandmaster Gary Kasparov in 1997. As a similar computational representation could calculate all of the possible moves in any football match, WCC believes the first non-biological team will triumph in a World Cup circa the year 2410.

Posted in Physical Sciences | Comments Off

Germany 4 Argentina 0

Germany v Argentina Before this quarter-final fixture had time to settle, Germany took the lead. On three minutes, Bastian Schweinsteiger swept in a free-kick which was flicked into the net by Thomas Muller. Germany looked strong during the initial exchanges: whilst Argentina put together some neat moves they failed to work a clear opportunity. Angel Di Maria found himself in dangerous positions on a couple of occasions but could not deliver a meaningful end product. Germany made life difficult for Argentina’s key attacking players with Schweinsteiger and Sami Khedira anchoring the midfield. The lead could have been doubled around the half-hour mark when Muller burst into the box and squared for Miroslav Klose, but he blazed over when he should probably have scored. Argentina’s best chance fell to Gonzalo Higuain after he turned inside Arne Friedrich, but his left foot shot was tame and it was saved at the near post by Manuel Neuer. Lionel Messi demonstrated his threat in sporadic bursts and almost played in Carlos Tevez, but Neuer was able to intervene. Argentina played a very attacking formation in the first-half, with Di Maria and Maxi Rodriguez advanced on the flanks either side of the Higuain/ Tevez/ Messi triumvirate. Germany also showed fluidity in advanced areas although Mesut Ozil saw little of the ball.

Argentina started the second-half well as they sought an equalizer. Di Maria put in a good cross from the right which was chested down by Rodriguez, but Tevez’s shot was blocked by Per Mertesacker. Gerrmany’s defending was resolute, and this was encapsulated by a Jerome Boateng challenge on Higuain as the Argentine forward broke into the German defensive third. The overall balance of play was consistent with the first-half as, whilst the Argentina players combined well, they didn’t carve out any clear goalscoring opportunities. Long-range efforts from Tevez and Di Maria were comfortably saved by Neuer. Slightly against the run of play, Germany doubled their lead on 67 minutes. Khedira managed to scoop the ball forwards and Podolski ran into the box to cross for Klose who had a simple finish. The Argentinean players seemed to lose a little heart after this second goal, and Germany accordingly increased their lead. Following a short corner, Schweinsteiger made an impressive (but unchallenged) run to the near post; his short pass to Friedrich gifted the German defender a simple goal. As full-time approach the score-line was further inflated by a smooth counterattack: Ozil crossed for Klose who scored his second with a controlled volley.

The final score may have flattered Germany slightly, as Argentina had the best of the game when they were a goal down. However, Germany certainly deserved to win, as they limited Argentina’s attacking game and were ruthless when contriving attacks of their own. I predict that Germany will win World Cup 2010: they have the organization to shut down opposition sides, and also sufficient flexibility and talent in advanced areas to win games. Argentina have performed well over World Cup 2010, but were outdone in this fixture. Perhaps the distinction between defence and attack was too substantial, with Maradona essentially fielding five attacking players, and five defensive players (with Mascherano sitting in front of the back four.) A creative midfielder, such as Juan Veron, may have provided an effective link between defence and attack.

And following another convincing display by Germany, does England’s second-round departure at their hands now look a little less disastrous?

Posted in International Office | 4 Comments

Unable/Unwilling/Unloved!

Unwilling unable unlovedTo the left features a team of players who didn’t make England’s World Cup 2010 squad for one reason or another. We’ve included those who have been out of the reckoning for years, and those that missed out narrowly.

Perhaps the most notable inclusions (in this squad of exclusions) are Micah Richards and David Bentley, as both are fit and able – but unwanted! It appeared a couple of years ago they were likely to become first-team regulars. Richards burst onto the international scene under Steve McClaren and performed well in the Euro 2008 qualifiers. But there are apparently doubts with regard to his attitude and Fabio Capello has overlooked him. Bentley was lined up as David Beckham’s successor for right-midfield. But his career has tailed-off somewhat, although he was playing regularly for Premier League high-achievers Tottenham towards the end of last season.

Owen Hargreaves would certainly have made the 2010 squad if he had been fit, and he would form a good central midfield partnership with internationally-retired Paul Scholes. If Dean Ashton’s career had not been sadly ended by injury, then he could well have made the World Cup squad as a more rounded forward than Emile Heskey. Ashton’s fellow striker is Michael Owen who has experienced numerous injuries over recent years. And (despite an ongoing media infatuation) it didn’t appear that Capello loved him much either! Adam Johnson missed the party for South Africa narrowly: as one of England’s most exciting wingers he could be a regular by Euro 2012 – he’s also left-footed so a handy resource.

Elsewhere in the team, Jonathan Woodgate’s career has been blighted by injuries, whilst former impermeable monolith Sol Campbell’s career must be nearing its conclusion. Wayne Bridge exiled himself from the squad for personal reasons, having been no.2 left-back for many years. In goal, Paul Robinson’s international career was damaged by a freak error against Croatia back in 2006. Robert Green may have suffered a similar experience in 2010!

If this team was fit, willing and loved, how would it have fared in South Africa?

Posted in Social Sciences | 1 Comment