Talk:3262: Sports Commentary

2026-06-23T13:37:42Z

163.116.145.33:

F1rst p0st! I'll do this explanation. [[Special:Contributions/185.36.194.22|185.36.194.22]] 04:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Did this example actually happen? [[Special:Contributions/47.151.65.120|47.151.65.120]] 04:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This comic reminds me of [[1122: Electoral Precedent]] and [[2383: Electoral Precedent 2020]]. Generalizing coincidences.

I am not a native English speaker. What does " they've gone 0 for 2" mean? Obviously it cannot be the score, since they are already leading 2-1? Or does this refer to a previous match?
And on a more general note, I am really surprised to discover the second football themed comic strip in a few days. OK it's the World Cup, but I always thought that Randall doesn't really care about sports? --[[Special:Contributions/92.209.171.90|92.209.171.90]] 08:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:I ''am'' a native English speaker, but it was also a bit impenetrable to me. In part, perhaps, because it was ''intended'' to sound impenetrable (as part of the joke). But, even if not, it may be because it's using Americanized sports-talk phrasing that just isn't (yet!) used so much in my more native Anglicised commentaries that I'm used to.
:However, I ''think'' they're saying that "in the two specific occasions in which all those other conditions occur, they won in neither of them".
:A simpler version being perhaps to state that a given team/player has gone nought-for-two in previous matches with their current opponent(s). The results of those contests might have been anything (the winner having gone to 3-2 after penalties, 6-love/6-love/6-love, a par-4 advantage or getting them all out for 178 — depending upon the sport), it's just the win/lose (or win/not-win) count thats "0 for 2".
:But this is a case of Overly Narrow Superlative (overlapping with P-Hacking), making it a dubious analysis. Starting with ignoring all the games there are in which a given svoreline was not achieved in a particular ''minute'' of play. I think part of this set-up is the difference between Gridiron 'football'/"hand-egg" having tons of points scored, whereas this football (Soccer) often turns on comparatively low scores that (one-nil can be a worthy and entertaining win/loss, and even a no-score-draw might have been fun to watch if your side isn't in desperate need for a win). These commentators, or at least the US audience they're commentating to, are used to spieling things about "the last time they were down on the forty-yard line in the fifth quarter, with two home runs and a shot from the free-throw line in hand..." (look, I {{tvtropes|GretzkyHasTheBall|know I don't know}} what they'd really say, to any accuracy, there was no point even trying!), at least to fill in the copious down-time/time-out pauses. (Which isn't actually as easy with low-scoring but more ever-moving 'soccer', where there's often much to be said about current player and ball movements almost all the time; although a five-day international cricket test match(!) commentary on the radio ''does'' rather famously lapse into 'filler' like discussing the nice cake that was sent to them by a listener, in the gaps between balls being bowled...)
:Sorry, that was a long and convoluted paragraph. (But then, so was the Explanation, before I decided to say this down here. I hope it's been tweaked since then. I'm only really guessing about the Leftpondian commentator-speak being parodied here, and ball-sports aren't really my main interest in the sprorting sphere itself. (But, regarding balls that aren't themselves spheres, I'd happily discuss Rugby League or Rugby Union, and why they're 'better'... though I would totally acknowledge Aussie Rules as a class of its own as far as such contact-sports go.)
:HTH, HAND. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.84|82.132.236.84]] 10:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::I'm also English, and it's totally alien to me too. [[User:GSLikesCats307|GSLikesCats307]] ([[User talk:GSLikesCats307|talk]]) 11:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:I don't know what prompted the rant above, but if you don't care to read it, "going 0 for 2" means having 0 successes out of 2 chances. In the context of this commentary, it's referring to winning 0 games out of the 2 games that meet the criteria. It's not intended to sound impenetrable; it's a common phrasing.[[Special:Contributions/163.116.145.33|163.116.145.33]] 13:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Closest match I can find is Germany - Curacao but there Germany took the lead in the 38th minute (not the 37th). I leave the deep dive on Germany's record against teams alphabetically before them when they have taken the lead 2-1 in the 37th/38th minute to someone else...

: And, of course, Germany destroyed Curaçao 7-1, just like they did to Brazil (which is also alphabetically before Germany!) 12 years prior [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 12:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

'''Don't assume "bad" p-hacking without looking closer at the data''': Sometimes what looks like P-hacking is really finding previously-unseen patterns. If you have a drug trial on a drug that you have no reason to think will show gender differences and you are asking "is this drug better than existing drugs" and the results are inconclusive, then you do "p-hack" subgroups and find that in males between the ages of 18 and 50 it demonstrates superior results, you MAY be cherry-picking results or you MAY have found a hidden pattern. Assuming your sub-group size isn't ridiculously small, you can legitimately claim that you need more funding for a follow-up study or at least a follow-up analysis of this subgroup in previous studies of the same drug. [[Special:Contributions/150.221.155.241|150.221.155.241]] 13:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3262: Sports Commentary