i think if we lost by 4 we would drop to 3rd in pool.
if we lost by 6 would drop to 4th in pool.

So it would be tight to lose by 4 points.

No. They had everything to gain by winning to finish 1st in the pool but nothing to gain by tanking. They just played poorly.

Pretty sure he's right. You get a far easier run by finishing top.

No, had they won by more than four they would have taken first place.

Yep. Had Russia won they, Aus and France would have all been 4-1 and it would have been decided on points differential %.

Australia's margin over Canada was/is completely irrelevant

How much Australia beat Canada by was irrelevant, it would have been points between Russia, France and Aus, so Russia knew if they won by more than 4 they were top.

Re Australia, they had huge incentive to win because if they lost by more than five they would have finished fourth and played the USA in the QFs.

Yep, calculated as a percentage of their total points scored in those head to heads, if that makes sense.

Almost, silly isnt it? I think that is only used if head-to-head is the same and points differential within the head-to-head is the same.

From what I understand, the overall points differential only comes into play if teams play each other more than once in pool play (I'm not sure if which tournaments this happens? Perhaps paul would know?).

ie. if teams play each other twice, and split the results one win each, and happen to score exactly the same points as each other during those two games, meaning their goal average would be 1, then overall point differential comes into play.

But in the Olympics, when teams only play each other once in pool play, it doesn't come into play, except to classify teams 9-12.

Confused yet?

I think it can come into play in three-way ties at the Olympics where both the head-to-head criteria are even.

paul, it can, but even then it is only the points scored in the games between those three teams that is taken into consideration, not the points from all games.

No, if both head-to-head criterion (win-loss and points differential) are equal then I believe it goes to overall points differential.

But how can that occur if teams only play each other once?

Hang on, I think I understand what you're saying Paul. In the event of a three-way tie, if the teams all have 1-1 records against each other, and their goal difference from their games against each other are the same, then overall points differential from ALL pool games comes into play.

Yeah, that's how I think it works! I dont remember it ever having to go that far though.

Correct Vart. 2 way tie goes to the winner head to head if an odd number of head to head games are played. If an even number of head to heads are split or if there is a 3 way tie it goes on point differential between the teams involved only. If there is still a tie it goes as this example.
Let's say Opals lose against France by 1, France lose to Russia by 1 and Opals beat Russia by 1 then they are in a 3 way tie with equal ptsdifferentiall. It would then go to overall for and against. This is always the way it has been in basketball AFAIK. What throws people off is that until the pool or comp is finished team are ranked when equal on points by total pts differentialbecausee all head to head options may not yet be complete.

Nice explanation fstos. That final part you mentioned is what was confusing me the other day with the mens pool A, where Argentina are ranked ahead of France, even though Argentina lost to France. But after completion of pool play, if they still have identical records, France will move ahead of Argentina in the final rankings.

Vart.Can you now explain this the Ch 9. Just watching the highlights package and Mark Nicholas(? the Pom) just did the intro to the game.

"the Opals need to win against Canada and have Russia defeat France to avoid the USA in the semis".