Do the handicap underdogs offer good value in the opening World Cup games?

Do the handicap underdogs offer good value in the opening World Cup games?

By Mark Taylor Jun 3, 2014

Tweet

The World Cup opening games are stereotyped as cagey contests, this article examines whether this holds true and examines whether handicapping the World Cup opening games, can offer value.

Handicapping the World Cup opening games

Qualification for the knockout stages of the 2014 World Cup is determined firstly by the number of points each team acquires in their three group matches. Should two or more sides be tied on points at the conclusion of the group phase, the next criteria is goal difference, with the top two sides moving onto the knockout stages, thereafter head-to-head performances.

Therefore, whilst winning the opening game of the group campaign is obviously the ideal scenario, there are other considerations – particularly concerning the margin of victory, or potential defeat in the initial game – and how that might impact on the likelihood of a successful qualification.

The opening game of the tournament will see Brazil take on Croatia, with the hosts understandably strongly favoured in the match. FIFA rankings, which are an imperfect, but useful indicator of the talent gap between countries, unsurprisingly indicate that Brazil are the better team, ranked at 4th – which is 16 places above Croatia. The Brazilians also have home field and continent advantage over their European rivals.

This opinion is reflected in the current match odds, where Brazil are quoted at 1.325* to win the game. The odds of 1.990* available for Brazil overcoming a 1.5 goal start for Croatia may be more appealing, where in order to “win” the handicap, Brazil must win the game by at least two clear goals.  (Read more about how to bet on the World Cup here)

However, the quotes for the outright match odds and handicap odds would appear to fully reflect the historical relationship that exists between a team such as Brazil hosting Croatia and to attempt to gain an edge bettors often need to look into aspects of a match that may be unusual and therefore not fully accounted for in the odds.

A side will not shun a scoring opportunity when they already lead. However, there is good evidence that the priorities change depending on the prevailing score line. The trailing team increasingly takes more risks in trying to score, possibly leading to the risk of conceding on the counter, while the leading team may become more defensive.

These changes of emphasis usually relate simply to the chances of ultimately winning the match, but in the case of a short round-robin competition, especially one which may be decided on goal difference, the wider objective of qualifying for the knockout stages also begins to become important.

Brazil vs. Croatia example

On the plot below we’ve charted the effect on their overall qualifying chances of Brazil winning the opening game against Croatia by increasing margins, as well as merely drawing the game. The results are drawn from 50,000 simulations of Group A.

Brazil, as hosts are in a stand out position before a ball has been kicked and as such, even a draw, which would likely be described as disappointing will still give them a greater than 90% chance of qualifying from the group.

Beating Croatia by a single goal margin would naturally increase their qualifying chances, in this case to just over 98%. But an additional margin goal, taking the difference to two, which would be required to secure the -1.5 goal handicap would only advance their qualifying chances by another 0.5%. Therefore, the reward of actively seeking further goals can be measured against the risk of conceding and possibly being held to a draw.

The question here is whether these probabilities are universally understood and equally acted upon by all teams.  Other unique World Cup dynamics are less universal and may skew modelling e.g. are teams already eliminated ahead of their final group game who have yet to register a goal, more likely to take an open, reckless attacking approach just to get on the scoresheet? Is the Golden Boot award a significant enough incentive to make leading contenders more goal hungry and thereby altering goal expectation?

The wider group dynamics within the opening match also applies to Croatia at different score lines throughout the encounter.

A draw would leave them more likely than not to progress. But defeat is by far the most likely outcome and the various margins by which they may find themselves trailing during the match leave them with similar risk/reward scenarios as those open to Brazil.

The potential reward to be gained from drawing level from trailing by a single goal is certainly worth Croatia’s risk, which in turn may present Brazil with an increased opportunity to overcome the handicap as the visitors over commit.

Hence the likelihood that Brazil will overcome the handicap may improve when they lead by a single goal, even if they themselves aren’t actively seeking to do so, due to the subtle change of approach that takes place within a match.

The group interaction is probably most clear when Brazil lead Croatia by 2 goals and shade the -1.5 handicap. A further Brazilian goal again improves their already considerable qualification chances by very little, while Croatia by getting the game back to within a goal gain slightly less than the percentage points they lose if their risk taking allows Brazil to increase the margin to three goals.

In raw figures, at a losing margin of 2 goals, Croatia has around a 38% chance of qualifying if this remains the final result. This falls to 34% if Brazil increases the winning margin to three and rises to just over 41% if they do indeed pull a goal back and end the game by losing by a single goal.

So goals that appear merely consolation ones, although they may dramatically alter artificial handicap results, also have real and measurable worth to the losing side in the wider context of the group. There is often a real, quantifiable incentive for losing underdogs to reduce the margin by which they may still ultimately lose the game.

It is probable that all sides are aware of these scenarios, at least in the broadest terms. If Brazil lost the first game, their likelihood of qualifying would slip to 75%, still more likely than not, but a not inconsiderable fall from the over 90% associated with a draw. Reiterating that a Brazil/Croatia draw is not necessarily a poor result for the host country in terms of outright qualification for the knockout.

So the stereotype of opening matches being tight cagey, low scoring and therefore, less conducive to handicaps being covered by the strongest teams may continue when short priced favourites begin their group campaigns.

History suggests opening games are tight

It was wise to side with the underdogs on the handicap lines in the opening 2010 matches, where eventual winners Spain lost outright by a single goal against the Swiss, Brazil sneaked past North Korea by a single goal margin, Ivory Coast held Portugal, as did Paraguay and New Zealand against Italy and Slovakia, respectively. Japan and Ghana caused single goal upsets and England and France were held respectively by USA and an initially underrated Uruguay.

These examples are inevitably small in number, but the underlying secondary importance of goal difference within the group may be a credible reason to drive this apparent opening game phenomenon. Whereby goals may be scarce, draws an acceptable ambition, even for the best and trailing sides often pursue a consolation goal.

Click here to see the latest World Cup odds.

Mark Taylor is a freelance soccer and NFL writer who, along with producing expert content for Pinnacle Sports, also runs his own soccer analytics blog, the Power of Goals.

*Odds subject to change

If you have feedback, comments or questions regarding this article, please email the author or send us a tweet on Twitter.