|
|
Post by P. Marf on Jun 23, 2010 14:58:05 GMT -5
eh i dont think that would go over too well
|
|
|
|
Post by Kickball Kevin on Jun 23, 2010 15:02:53 GMT -5
Think of it football terms. You wouldn't want a defensive player starting in the backfield.
|
|
cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on Jun 23, 2010 15:44:12 GMT -5
At the risk or being a Debbie Downer on here, has the US really performed well? I mean did we beat anyone we weren't supposed to beat?
|
|
|
|
Post by P. Marf on Jun 23, 2010 16:08:38 GMT -5
Well coming from someone who doesnt follow soccer, I'd say they did well, well enough to win the top spot in their group. They didn't lose. And I hate the "bad call" argument but they should have won their second game and won the game today by 2. Bad alls in soccer just seem to be so much more important than say football, baseball, or basketball because the value of a goal is so high. In the USA's case they had two taken away that should have been goals for sure. I guess being the most powerful country in the world may put you on the bad list of other countries. But anyways I would say that did well just because they won their group. Their draw in the knockout round looks like it couldn't have been much better. Not saying they will win but they managed to avoid Mexico, Germany and Argentina on their side of the bracket. IF they can beat Ghana they will play the winner of Good Korea and Uruguay. They stand a better shot where they are then if they would have gotten paired up with Germany and then had to take on a Mexico or Argentina in the next round. Having said all of that, I know little about what I'm talking about. KBK?
|
|
cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on Jun 23, 2010 16:17:54 GMT -5
Just don't get all the exciement over a last second win against the 30th ranked team in the world. It's like UT celebrating an OT win against Rice.
|
|
|
|
Post by The River Assassin on Jun 23, 2010 16:19:55 GMT -5
Think of it football terms. You wouldn't want a defensive player starting in the backfield. That's the thing, you are talking about before the play begins. That's not the same thing. It's more like, you wouldn't want the receiver to run past the defender before the ball is in the air. From what I have gathered that would be the equivalent of offsides in football. If I'm wrong let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by P. Marf on Jun 23, 2010 16:51:35 GMT -5
Just don't get all the exciement over a last second win against the 30th ranked team in the world. It's like UT celebrating an OT win against Rice. I don't think you can compare that at all. First off USA isn't #1 they are like 19 or something. These teams are more equal then a powerhouse fball team and a spare like rice. The excitement is from the win putting them in the next round. Its a big deal that they finished ahead of the brits in their group. |
|
cowtownmike
honorary peso (chingador*)
I done been thru the scruggles.
Posts: 12,467
|
Post by cowtownmike on Jun 23, 2010 19:00:28 GMT -5
FIFA Rankings are : Brits -#8; US -#14; Slovenia- #25; Algeria-#30; Ghana #32.
So make Algeria the equivalent of Kansas not Rice, next opponent is more like Rice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kickball Kevin on Jun 23, 2010 19:36:13 GMT -5
Finch - you have to have the offsides rule in the form it is now. To take it away would make for a sloppy game. Every team plays with a formation. Within that formation they have a shape they try to maintain while attacking and defending. There are considerations that have to be made during a game in order to keep spacing right while on attack/defense. To take offsides out of it, would make this go away. Sure teams would still have a formation, try to keep shape, but the result of allowing players the luxury of camping out in front of goal,would not allow teams to play as they do now. Also, I do not think it would cause a great rise in goalscoring. Teams would simply drop defenders to deal with the players camping out in front of goal. The result would be that the space between the defenders to the midfielders to the forwards would be very stretched. This would result in teams having an even greater difficulty in maintaining any type of possession. If you can't maintain possession it's very difficult to create scoring opportunities. I think it would create a more defensive game.
Mike when looking at the rankings you have to remember the rankings are not based on this year alone. They take into account results from a couple of years. This year France the #9 team, Greece the #13 team, did not manage to make it out of their groups. Most soccer people will tell you, not to pay any attention to world rankings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kickball Kevin on Jun 23, 2010 19:40:44 GMT -5
Read this today on ESPN.com, thought it was interesting....
WHY DO OPPONENTS PLAY UP AGAINST THE UNITED STATES?
One of the underreported storylines ahead of the U.S.-Algerian clash was the extent to which the Arab world was galvanized by the prospect of an American defeat. True or not, the negativity of the Algerian game plan suggested the Algerians had little desire to claim the win that could have carried them into the elimination round, perversely preferring to derive self-destructive pleasure from the knowledge that they could drag the U.S. out with them.
The Slovenian team that tied the U.S. was tactically robust and disciplined. Against England, it ambled aimlessly around the field as if a cornerstone had just been laid on a state-of-the-art headquarters for the Green Dragons Football Federation, built and paid for by the English FA. The magic of this tournament lies in the fact that what happens off the pitch is reinforced by economics, history and geopolitics off it. The U.S. is the world's sole superpower. It will have to be ready for every game to be akin to a final for its opponents from here on in.
|
|
|
|
Post by The River Assassin on Jun 23, 2010 21:00:31 GMT -5
Finch - you have to have the offsides rule in the form it is now. To take it away would make for a sloppy game. Every team plays with a formation. Within that formation they have a shape they try to maintain while attacking and defending. There are considerations that have to be made during a game in order to keep spacing right while on attack/defense. To take offsides out of it, would make this go away. Sure teams would still have a formation, try to keep shape, but the result of allowing players the luxury of camping out in front of goal,would not allow teams to play as they do now. Also, I do not think it would cause a great rise in goalscoring. Teams would simply drop defenders to deal with the players camping out in front of goal. The result would be that the space between the defenders to the midfielders to the forwards would be very stretched. This would result in teams having an even greater difficulty in maintaining any type of possession. If you can't maintain possession it's very difficult to create scoring opportunities. I think it would create a more defensive game. Interesting, I want to disagree with you but you obviously have forgotten more about soccer than I will ever know, so I will take your word for it. What about something that Framp talked about like an offsides line? An offensive player can't be behind that line unless there are one or two defenders behind it as well. But once they are inside that line there is no offsides, seems like that would still open the game up a little more but take some of guess work out of it so you don't get BS calls like the US did today. |
|
|
|
Post by The River Assassin on Jun 23, 2010 21:19:03 GMT -5
Read this today on ESPN.com, thought it was interesting.... WHY DO OPPONENTS PLAY UP AGAINST THE UNITED STATES? One of the underreported storylines ahead of the U.S.-Algerian clash was the extent to which the Arab world was galvanized by the prospect of an American defeat. True or not, the negativity of the Algerian game plan suggested the Algerians had little desire to claim the win that could have carried them into the elimination round, perversely preferring to derive self-destructive pleasure from the knowledge that they could drag the U.S. out with them. The Slovenian team that tied the U.S. was tactically robust and disciplined. Against England, it ambled aimlessly around the field as if a cornerstone had just been laid on a state-of-the-art headquarters for the Green Dragons Football Federation, built and paid for by the English FA. The magic of this tournament lies in the fact that what happens off the pitch is reinforced by economics, history and geopolitics off it. The U.S. is the world's sole superpower. It will have to be ready for every game to be akin to a final for its opponents from here on in. Hey now, slow down just a second. According to the ESPN commercial I have been seeing for the last few months, it's not about politics, or religion, or the economy. It's not about borders, or history, global warming, global pandemic...you see where I'm going with this. |
|
|
|
Post by P. Marf on Jun 23, 2010 22:52:28 GMT -5
Haha
|
|
|
|
Post by P. Marf on Jun 24, 2010 9:33:17 GMT -5
Here were the rankings going in:
1 Brazil (1,611 points); 2 Spain (1,565); 3 Portugal (1,249); 4 Holland (1,231); 5 Italy (1,184); 6 Germany (1,082); 7 Argentina (1,076); 8 England (1,068); 9 France (1,044); 13 Greece (964); 14 USA (957); 15 Serbia (947); 16 Uruguay (899); 17 Mexico (895); 18 Chile (888); 19 Cameroon (887); 20 Australia (886); 21 Nigeria (883); 24 Switzerland (866); 25 Slovenia (860); 27 Ivory Coast (856); 30 Algeria (821); 31 Paraguay (820); 32 Ghana (800); 34 Slovakia (777); 36 Denmark (767); 38 Honduras (734); 45 Japan (682); 47 South Korea (632); 78 New Zealand (410); 83 South Africa (392); 105 North Korea (285)
KBK, what happened to countries ranked 10-12? Just didnt qualify?
I dont think rankings really matter too much when it comes to this tournament. France, Serbia, Greece have lost out. And it looks right now that Italy, the returning champ, might lose out today. At #47 Good Korea made it through. I think most teams you treat as if they are a top 10 team cause these are the best in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kickball Kevin on Jun 24, 2010 10:23:16 GMT -5
Yep, 10-12 didn't qualify
|
|
