NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOJASDF;G/SFLZK;SDALFKAKFGDFGSD FASDGLDFKJGSDFKL; GKL;DFJG;LSDFKJA;!!!!!!!!!1
AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH.
JUST RIP OUT MY HEART AND TRAMPLE IT ALREADY.
YOU'VE ALREADY BROKEN MY SOUL.
YOU GHANA BASTARDS.
TWICE.
TWICE.
I know our defence was pitiful. We dropped it immediately at overtime altogether. Right when we'd ridden them to fatigue, we gave them a break at the whistle.
We were so close. We worked so hard.
Thanks for the work, boys. I'm so sorry.
I am outraged :P
*sits weeping in a corner*
Good, as you should be.
Okay... So I'm not completely outraged... But I am rather sad as I had my hopes up for our team
They played their hearts out and were dealt some rather harsh and obviously unfair calls but they persevered and went pretty far
I'm rather proud of team USA for getting as far as they did with so many obstacles to overcome
yeah i'm so sad for them even though i'm not american or follow sports so much , but i had high expectations and admiration for that team , theyr the only team in the WC i saw all the games they played . because i liked how they got their country's rank incredibly up through time. even without enough fans support
meh , anyway WC is full of drama , that's why i like it and hate it at the same time
well i am really aggravated-
we did NOT show up for this match.
another 4 years to go before we get aother chance!
Me, too, as S. Korea lost to Uruguay by 1:2. But they played well, just were unlucky. I will forget it as soon as possible.
As a fan of soccer, the USA team was indeed impressive, which most of my friends here agree on. Their play style is different from Europeans or S. Americans. Team work and spirit is an essence of the USA team. Of course, those referee problems will not be solved forever. The referee did not call the obvious penalty kick during the Korea-Uruguay game. But we accept it as it is soccer.
Barbie~~
@everyone: http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l4ojbbyP3d1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg (http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l4ojbbyP3d1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg)
Lol.
And, now, England can join our butthurt support group as well, seeing as FIFA decided to strip them of their tying goal. Thanks, FIFA. Can't wait to see you again in 2014. God have mercy on your souls if you haven't changed up your refs. by then.
England lost pretty badly today, 4-1 to Germany >:(
THAT GOAL SHOULD HAVE COUNTED SPIGJSIOGJSOIJGSDIJGSOIDJGSDJGOIS
So disappointed. :(
Quote from: Lachlann on June 27, 2010, 11:00:26 AM
THAT GOAL SHOULD HAVE COUNTED SPIGJSIOGJSOIJGSDIJGSOIDJGSDJGOIS
So disappointed. :(
I KNOW;LAKSDF;';LFDS'L;DSFLK;F'LKFSADKJL I KNOW!!!
I cannot believe with my own eyes that that goal did not count.
???
::)need new refs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It almost made me ashamed to be british lol. And where was Crouch! Why didnt we put him on!!
The officials seem to be - across the board - totally incompetent. If that kind of ref ever did an NFL Eagles/Giants game they'd never get out of the stadium (either one) alive. They need an instant replay rule.
Quote from: tekla on June 28, 2010, 12:32:06 PM
The officials seem to be - across the board - totally incompetent. If that kind of ref ever did an NFL Eagles/Giants game they'd never get out of the stadium (either one) alive. They need an instant replay rule.
Absolutely agree.
People keep thinking it'll disrupt the flow of the game, but these games aren't even that long. At least do it for World Cup.
Also: http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/german-keeper-feels-he-fooled-the-referee--fbintl_ro-germankeepr062710.html (http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/german-keeper-feels-he-fooled-the-referee--fbintl_ro-germankeepr062710.html)
Quote from: Nathan. on June 27, 2010, 10:58:34 AM
England lost pretty badly today, 4-1 to Germany >:(
Lost? That was a grade A asskicking. And no, the disallowed goal wouldn't have made a difference. We were outplayed. let's face it, even Algeria showed more enthusiasm on the pitch than we did.
Pff.
I haven't been able to summon up any enthusiasm for this bunch of overpaid, overrated, arrogant adulterers for a couple of years now. Sack the manager, get rid of the team and start again.
i used to love watching England but now they just make me want to hurl things at the T.V!!
The ref made a mistake! Big deal, at least he was trying!
Quote from: Turtle on June 28, 2010, 02:43:41 PM
Lost? That was a grade A asskicking. And no, the disallowed goal wouldn't have made a difference. We were outplayed. let's face it, even Algeria showed more enthusiasm on the pitch than we did.
Pff.
Personally I think it would have made a difference. Scoring a second goal in less than two minutes is not getting your ass kicked.
People really underestimate the mentality of these things. Why did Germany allow that second goal in? They're a really great team, but they're too young and inexperienced and these things happen to young teams. If England's second goal would have counted then the third goal Germany scored wouldn't have given them so much leverage. It still would have been competitive enough for England to at least have a chance. But 3-1 against a team that's been the favourite? If it were 3-2 it wouldn't have been nearly as hopeless. Sports is a lot more than stats, upsets can happen, but there are so many other factors involved, especially mental ones.
Would Germany have won anyway? Probably, but England still had a fighting chance and that second goal could have kept the competitive nature and morale up.
Quote from: Lachlann on June 28, 2010, 03:26:18 PM
Would Germany have won anyway? Probably, but England still had a fighting chance and that second goal could have kept the competitive nature and morale up.
I agree. I think if they had accepted that goal it could of made a massive difference to the teams performance. It would of boosted the morale. Sure we probably would of lost anyway but we wouldnt of been so terrible in the last half. It just seemed like they were thinking "meh we've lost." and so they played horribly. I was waiting for Rooney to explode but it just never happened.
Quote from: MRH on June 28, 2010, 03:32:49 PM
I was waiting for Rooney to explode but it just never happened.
If he gets any fatter it might!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: tekla on June 28, 2010, 12:32:06 PM
The officials seem to be - across the board - totally incompetent. If that kind of ref ever did an NFL Eagles/Giants game they'd never get out of the stadium (either one) alive. They need an instant replay rule.
I agree, a team should be able to challenge a questionable call and have it reviewed
If the call is bad then it should be overturned and then the game resumed
In the NFL each team is alloted an amount of challenges... If the coach throws the challenge flag out on the field they'd better be sure of it because if the call stands as called that team will lose one time out
If after review, the call is overturned, that team retains they're time out to use later
It doesn't take very long to review a call and make a decision on it and it's not like they don't have the technology
HA. Poor Rooney.
Alright, so. Lining us up for the week:
Tomorrow, Tuesday, we have:
Paraguay vs. Japan @ 10 est
Spain vs. Portugal @ 2:30 est
No way Japan beats Paraguay, my final: 3-1, Paraguay.
Spain against Portugal, hoo. I'm already sweating just thinking about it. I'm just throwing it out there, being bold: 1-0, Portugal. Really.
Speaking as someone with about as much interest in football as any other, similar activity, I found this annalysis of the current situation interesting:
QuoteNot only do the English never learn. They appear to thrive on the masochism of outlandish hope followed by tragic defeat, he argues.
"I think people enjoy the ritual. Every four years it happens and takes you back to previous tournaments. It's a communal moment, people sharing the pain with each other at the bus stop. It's that thing about big World Cup games that end in tragedy - usually on penalties, ideally to Germany."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8768122.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8768122.stm)
America, be warned. It's only a game.
The World Cup is a 4 year opportunity to see the finest players, together, playing some of the most entertaining football anywhere.
It really is about taking part.
America be warned. It's only a game
Of coarse it's only a game and most Americans view it as a children's game...
Hence the term "Soccer Mom" (A woman with a mini van that karts the children about to their games and such)
Yes, we do like to participate and love to compete in sports... But getting most American adults all too hyped up over the World Cup isn't likely to happen
Sure, we'd like our team to do well... But most are not likely to get all too worked up if it doesn't happen
Personally I think USA can be proud of the result they booked during this World Cup: group winner and 1/8th finals. That's really not a bad result. I have to admit hower that I was quite satisfied with Ghana's win; bit of an 'Africa's Hope' sentiment.
As for England... They had a tough tournament. Things just didn't work and they weren't the only big name that had those problems. The match against Germany will always be a 'what if' in the history books. Blatter (Fifa president) announced that the technology topic is back on the agenda and apologised to both England and Mexico for the epic fails.
Now what's left... Paraguay - Japan and Spain - Portugal upcoming thursday. Personally I'm not to keen on placing bets on these matches. Paraguay has a good offense but struggles with solid, rigid defenses (as shown in the match against NZ) which Japan can provide and they're also quite strong in their free kicks with Honda. As for Portugal and Spain... It all depends on whether or not Spain will get their game together. I suspect these teams will give each other space to play the ball around. Portugal seems to have the upper hand at this point, but like I said: it all depends on whether or not Spain will get their game together.
Ah, and my country... We're up to Brasil next. I'm curious to see where that'll wind up. :)
We got hit by the same German steamroller as England. 4-1, 4-0, not much difference!
2006 a diving Italian player, this time an Italian referee with a red card. About time FIFA got with it and introduced a video referee. It would end diving overnight.
Given the decisions against Australia in matches leading up to the WC, maybe FIFA are scared we'll punch above our weight as in rugby, cricket, swimming etc.
Can't have anyone upsetting the Europeans and South Americans.
Quote from: justmeinoz on June 29, 2010, 08:31:57 AM
Can't have anyone upsetting the Europeans and South Americans.
Lame.
More countries suffered from the fact that FIFA has not allowed any technological elements to aid referees in making the best decisions possible. This year, four years ago, eight years ago and years and years before that back to the day where only a handful of countries entered. It all draws back to the conservative officials who vote ney, not because they dislike one country or the other, but simply because they don't want any change in the field ambiance.
Video refs are a good idea but that wouldnt have changed a thing in the England game. Yes, I know theres arguements about the mentality of the game have been different if it had been allowed, but the fact is blatent that we sucked!
I would have liked to see us go farther in the tournament but I was never optimistic because unlike most peoples blind hopes I knew from the start we had no chance.
And what was the deal with Crouch?! He should have been on from the start instead of the Shrek impersonator!Rooney shouldnt have been playing period. ( although very few of the players performances validated their being on the team)
I was Glad to see USA go through to the last 16 and sad to see them go out. Ill probably back Japan now. Ive not seen many games in total but i found them entertaining to watch and thats what counts :)
Quote from: Metamorph on June 29, 2010, 09:07:40 AM
Video refs are a good idea but that wouldnt have changed a thing in the England game. Yes, I know theres arguements about the mentality of the game have been different if it had been allowed, but the fact is blatent that we sucked!
Heh I'm replying way too much to this thread... But, I disagree :P
Mentality and morale should always be subject to discipline/professional behaviour. The scoreboard however always influences tactics, strategy/gameplay. Tactics were changed for the 2nd half because England was behind one goal, that meant offense in the second half with the consequence that a lot of space was left open in the back. Had it been 2-2 halftime then tactics would've been different possibly with another outcome... That doesn't mean England played well, it simply means that they were forced (by mistake) to apply different tactics that didn't work in their benefit... 8)
Quote from: Virginia Marie on June 28, 2010, 05:53:07 PM
America be warned. It's only a game
Of coarse it's only a game and most Americans view it as a children's game...
Hence the term "Soccer Mom" (A woman with a mini van that karts the children about to their games and such)
Yes, we do like to participate and love to compete in sports... But getting most American adults all too hyped up over the World Cup isn't likely to happen
Sure, we'd like our team to do well... But most are not likely to get all too worked up if it doesn't happen
You don't really understand advertising do you Virginia?
America be warned. It's only a game
Which is why its a far, far, far - really far off - possibility that it would ever threaten the Holy Trinity of American Sports. Of which baseball and football (the exciting, high scoring and perfectly set up for television broadcast, American Brand of football) are not just sports, but ways of life almost. If you're not from - or grew up around - the college football deal in Columbus Ohio, or Ann Arbor Michigan, or in Nebraska, or Iowa, or Texas, or Florida (etc.) its hard to understand that these teams have far more loyalty and fans than any national team we put together.
It might replace hockey in some areas. Where it really gets watched is by kids (as well illustrated above) and by girls (its the real big girls sport after softball and basketball) and by the growing number of people here of Hispanic decent who really love the game.
http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/world-cup-s-best-call-blatter-reconsiders-replay--fbintl_dw-blatter062910.html (http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/news/world-cup-s-best-call-blatter-reconsiders-replay--fbintl_dw-blatter062910.html)
;D
tekla
If you believe that the various sports are popular because of individua choice then you may have a point.
The reality is that sports are promoted by governments as opiates, (in the Marx / religion context), to maintian control.
The significance of soccer is that it promotes tribalism among its supporters. Much more so than with other sports.
The two top sports in the US, American football and baseball promote hero worship. Individuals are more significant than the team.
The benefits of soccer to all governments, including the US, as a means of social management, are obvious. The problem in America is that the commercial benefits from the two main sports are already cemented. Shifting to a different commercial base will be difficult, not just for sponsors, but for the various side economic generators, College schollarships for example.
The real reason soccer hasn't caught on in the US as it has in every other part of the world, is economic. It remains to be seen if there will be a shift toward soccer in the US as governments begin to realise the social benefits of it over hero sports.
Well, I was way the hell off. Jesus. Alright, so, here were today's finals:
After a shoot out (5-3), Paraguay won over the 0-0 draw to Japan and advances to their first quarterfinals.
If you didn't get a chance to view it, this match was crazy. It was very raw and purely defencive, leaving you sort of in your seat, bobbing your head around to try to see if someone might actually try to do something clever. Alas, it was played like an early-year high school scrimmage.
Spain, not surprisingly, go into the quarterfinals after a 1-0 over Portugal. I had hoped for the same outcome, but for Portugal, because I'm a nice guy.
This was a beautiful game. Poor reffing, as per usual, especially I think what with Ricardo Coasta being given a red card. He used his arms to launch himself into a good leap, and it was seen as a possible hand ball, I guess. Bullsh*t. Anyway, Cristiano Ronaldo, you remember that guy? Most expensive player, all this yack about him? Right, well his last goal was the last against N. Korea, which doesn't say anything in a match like that was. This guy was a ghost in today's match, when Portugal needed it most against Spain. Maybe someone is buying him out, I don't know.
I'm not sure about the hero worship part, just ask Brett Farve about the mail he got when he signed with the Vikings. But it tends to be regional and civic far more than it's individual. And, like lots of nationalistic sports in Europe, there are the teams representing far deeper and more historical dislikes and grips. Be it New York/Boston or France/UK/Germany games. Sometimes they end up one sided, or all against one. People in SF HATE the Dodgers, people in LA tend not be be all that anti-Giant, largely because the Dodgers win most of the time and the Giants don't. Or the way everyone else in the Pac10 hates USC football, or the people in the Midwest hate the Nebraska football program because those teams win consistently.
But, it's never been a government/national deal. Even the Olympics are not nearly as big a deal as the 3 pro seasons are and the college football/basketball playoffs. And those have always been controlled (either by the pro owners, or by the major colleges and universities) on a private level, not as a government deal, and your right, the money in it is HUGE. So, because of that the best little boy jocks get funneled and trained in one of those three sports from very young, and not as some government program, but through lower level school sports and stuff like Little League and Pop Warner football, and CYO/police leagues in basketball. The very best American athletes tend to end up playing football, basketball or baseball - cause that's where the money, the fame and the history rest.
The two most important aspects of sports in the USA are TEAMWORK and FAIR PLAY... This is taught at an early age
Everything is all about TEAMWORK and FAIR PLAY
Sure there are athletes who stand out and become famous and are seen as sports heroes... This is based upon their talent and merit and they will be the first to tell you that it would not be possible without teamwork... They will be the first to praise the other members of the team
Yes they do make allot of money... Many US athletes also do allot of charity work all over the world
Anyhow, to get back on subject, It will be interesting to see who will actually walk away with the 2010 World Cup
ok this is probably a late response , but about the england-germany game , a friend of mine who's a football (soccer) addict told me that if that goal was counted it would have been possible that england wins , because they had to push everyone to attack and no one at defense , and this kinda makes since to me
and i'm starting to follow that WC thing , it's getting interesting , i was happy for Spain today , and to be honest i'm looking forward to see what ghana will do because they were surprisingly good even though they're not as 'big' as the other teams like Brazil ,Argentina...etc (i always cheer for the weeker team , it's in my blood)
So Japan and Portugal go home, seems like I wasn't too off with my predictions. ;)
Time for the quarter finals, I wonder what everyone's expecting from these.
Tomorrow we have Netherlands - Brasil. Brasil seems to have their game together more than the Dutch so right now I'm leaning towards Brasil, but like with Spain it all depends on whether or not The Netherlands will put their quality to use. I'm expecting either a beat down or an oldskool tie with a Dutch player missing a penalty (as history demands). ;)
Also tomorrow: Uruguay - Ghana. Defense doesn't seem to be Ghana's strongest point when it comes to players like Suarez. Uruguay has more scoring ability and Ghana's goalie Kingston, well... We'll just have to see whether his dance steps are off or on this game. Surely reaching the quarter finals has given Ghana some wings, but I'm afraid that won't be enough.
Quote from: tekla on June 29, 2010, 08:18:09 PM
But, it's never been a government/national deal. Even the Olympics are not nearly as big a deal as the 3 pro seasons are and the college football/basketball playoffs. And those have always been controlled (either by the pro owners, or by the major colleges and universities) on a private level, not as a government deal, and your right, the money in it is HUGE. So, because of that the best little boy jocks get funneled and trained in one of those three sports from very young, and not as some government program, but through lower level school sports and stuff like Little League and Pop Warner football, and CYO/police leagues in basketball. The very best American athletes tend to end up playing football, basketball or baseball - cause that's where the money, the fame and the history rest.
I do understand your scepticism about government and sport. But what I referring to is not the players, as such, but the encouragement of spectators.
The players are the tools of the deal. Any money they earn for themselves is relitively insignificant. Some earn huge sums, most don't.
But while the players make up the spectacle. The spectators are the focus. It is they who create the vast bulk of the money generated. Mostly in merchandicing and association.
If you look at the way the spectators of different sports behave. Here in the UK, there are three principal sports. Cricket, which is a hero sport, similar to your baseball or American football. Rugby, a full contact sport and football, (soccer), the spectators behave very differently.
It isn't that individuals are any more different or similar than anyone else. But when we join a group, as humans, we naturally, if unconsciously, tend to act according to the manner of the group.
The latter two sports mentioned, are both group sports in that the spectators tend to look at the team rather than the individuals.
With baseball, for example, the focus tends to be on single players, because at any one time, only two players will be essentially active. The batter and the pitcher. The batter and the basekeeper. And so on.
With American football, the game is designed to highlight and individual, the quarterback, with the rest of the team acting as backup.
With basketball, by contrast, the focus in on the team. Individual players stand out. Frequently, they may achieve star status in their own right, but they function as part of a team, standing out because of their contribution to the team, rather than because the support the team has made to their achievement.
How this transcribes into crowd behaviour of course, is another matter. Since I am not in the states I haven't had an opportunity to observe it.
In the case of football, (soccer), the focus is on the team. Again, individual players may stand out and be stars in their own right, but the team is the cohesion that binds the supporters and creates the tribal nature of the supporters culture.
The players are a side issue here. The important issue is the supporters. How, being a suppoter affects the nature of society as a whole and how this affects the position of the individual within the context of society.
There is no actual skill in supporting, other than having the mental vacancy to collectively work themselves into a frenzy. But the group, supporters of a particualr team, form a co-operative, based upon an equality.
The rivalry between different groups of supporters creates a social structure where supporters of winners assume personal credit and achievement. The observation of the utter futility of people supporting the England football team is a significant case in point. Failure to support the team, before they have been knocked out of the competition is seen as virtual treason.
I suggest that there are essentially several reasons the US probably won't promote soccer too highly in the near future.
Firstly. It is unlikely they will win. The US undoubtedly has the potential to win. It's culture is competitive. It certainly has the local expertese to train suitable athletes. But it, so far, lacks the background experience. That it can reach the finals, repeatedly, in the last 20 or so years, is a testament to its enormous potential. I suspect that, with suitable incentive, the US could quite easily, reach the final game. But once it has done that, the position of Soccer in the US will have irrevolkably changed and there would never be a going back. The social consequences with the US would be significant, dismantling the existing basis of social tribalism, namely persecutory group. But the internationl consequences would be much more so. The working classes in the us would begin comparing themselves with the working classes of other societies, through the vicarious achievement of individual players. That will lead to the tendency of Americans to see themselves as an exclusive group, secretly superior to all others, needing to be continually vigilent of outsiders, attempting to usurp their apparent differences, to disappear.
Secondly, the commercial profits, which in any major sport are almost entirely derived from merchandicising and sponsorships, are already well established in American football and baseball. Probably basketball as well. Shifting a large part of this to an unknown is unlikely to appeal to investors without significant justification.
Thirdly, the current positioning in the US, where soccer is portrayed as a woman's or children's activity serves the purpose of allowing those in the US, who are socially and personally of the type who would collectively support sport, rather than play it, and maintain sufficient self respect not to be utterly embarrassed by this preposterus contradiction, to maintain their own self image of effective winners, without actually having to participate. (The supporters, not the team. The team being irrelevant.)
I've just realised I have once again, produced a long response which you might find tedious to read. I apologise.
In the NRL here (Rugby League, not Union) the referee can call for a video judges decision on a try if he hasn't had a clear view. They do it several times most games.
Sometimes it doesn't help and they go with the benefit of the doubt. Video is also examined after the game and players can front the tribunal for dangerous tackles, incidents off the ball etc.
It seems to work ok.
( From what I have seen of American football it couldn't slow the game down any more than it is already! >:-) )
Video is also examined after the game and players can front the tribunal for dangerous tackles, incidents off the ball etc. It seems to work ok.
I've got some teams and calls where people think it meant the game in the World Cup, and when it's THE game, as every game in something like the NCAA March Madness, or the World Cup, when it's 'win or go home' a bad call is really a bad thing, particularly in the spirit of 'fairness' that all these games promote in every culture. And, it seems only 'fair' in something that is supposed to be a simple matter - like who was 'first' - and being that in all sports the level of competition on the top has progressed to such an awesome physical level (while the referees have not) that you use some sort of technology to help. Football, which started all of this because it is so freaking fast, the guys that play it so highly developed as athletes, had a structure to the game with constant pauses and time outs anyway that it was a perfect fit. Same with baseball, though its used much less there. But for soccer and hoops it does slow the game down (though nothing is slower than the last 5 minutes of a championship basketball game) and that sucks. Like BB, soccer is about going the distance over time and any pause in the game gives people a chance to rest, and that's not what the game is about. So that might be harder to solve, though no doubt about it, some of that reffing sucked big time.
Soccer has the problem of trying to fit a season into a 12 month calender that is already over-lapped by the big 3 and had a huge historical/cultural/mass media association with those seasons. Fall, it's the Fall Classic, the World Series (who as Mister Clease said: It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America), and football season. Spring and Summer are baseball, December, January, February, March - that's the football championship and bowl season, with the Super Bowl (a virtual American Holiday) in early Feb and the NCAA hoops deal eating up all of March pretty much. Pro Basketball sort of starts in winter and finishes up in the early summer just as baseball is getting cracking. Those three corporate entities NFL, MLB and NBA have pretty much succeeded in keeping any other sport from threatening them by virtue of eating up the entire broadcast year.
Second, the cultural deal is huge, the 3 American sports, are, well, American. All of them are pretty unique to this country. Baseball is outside of Japan which has a historical quirk in it, is pretty much confined to the US and Caribbean nations, though it's played and followed in Mexico a lot also. But beyond that it really didn't spread. Football is an old game - one side pushes another side to cross some sort of line - put into a very American context that readily accepted technological innovation and keeps on changing the rules and even the field to accommodate the new game and it's really only played in the US (largely because its technological base has made it really, really, expensive). And basketball, which has spread to the rest of the world and is really the 'other' game the world plays besides soccer now.
The adapting to the growing physical prowess though has been hard on soccer as the result of the players getting better and better, the scores have not increased, but decreased and that kinda sucks.
But here's how soccer comes to the US. By the girls. It's 2.5 generations of American girls who've played soccer growing up and who - unlike the American men - really kick ass. Where the best little boys are feed into the baseball/basketball/football leagues, the girls do soccer. Soccer is it for female jocks in the US I think, and the US has a very strong culture for female jocks. (Even though that love ought to go to the NCAA women's baseball teams, who are really awesome.) It will be the women who eventually get a league going that people get really interested in. It's still a problem finding a place to fit in the league championship.
But this World Cup got more interest in the US than previous ones, so yeah never know. But for soccer to become a real 'world game' there has to be a different structure than every four years.
Quote from: tekla on June 30, 2010, 10:57:47 AM
But for soccer to become a real 'world game' there has to be a different structure than every four years.
Think you'll find it already is a world game. The only nation that doesn't fully participate is the US.
However, can you describe what you mean about a different structure than ever four years?
Post Merge: June 30, 2010, 05:20:37 AM
I've just done a quick Wikipedia search on the popularity of soccer.
They give a map, but I'm pretty certain, whoever compiled it, doesn't know what they are on about.
It suggests barely any support in Africa, while the same level of support in the US as in England.
And it also suggests that Scotland has less of a following than either England or the US.
(And Scots reading this, please don't blame me for this blasphamy. I'm just reporting it ;) )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Football_world_popularity.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Football_world_popularity.png)
Edit. Correction, just had another look and it seems the Soccer is, according to this map, more popular than anywhere else.
What if you don't want to vent?
What if your team went farther than the USA team and then lost to another you like? xD I'm quite happy with the World Cup currently.
How did I not see this thread?! At the beginning I supported New Zealand OF COURSE and they did so well despite not making it through. The game against Italy was amazing, I was hollering at the TV while my flatmates slept. So, now that NZ are out, I support GERMANY to the end! Sorry to all the England fans on here heh heh, but I am 3/4 German. Although I do think they should have gotten that goal, I was not above yelling shammmmmeeee! at the tv.
I'm looking forward to Germany vs Argentina next.
Quote from: elvistears on June 30, 2010, 11:17:37 PM
How did I not see this thread?! At the beginning I supported New Zealand OF COURSE and they did so well despite not making it through. The game against Italy was amazing, I was hollering at the TV while my flatmates slept. So, now that NZ are out, I support GERMANY to the end! Sorry to all the England fans on here heh heh, but I am 3/4 German. Although I do think they should have gotten that goal, I was not above yelling shammmmmeeee! at the tv.
I'm looking forward to Germany vs Argentina next.
So am I!
I was going for England originally (I'm such a bad American [jk]) and now I'm all for Germany. Both places rock.
Quote from: Shang on June 30, 2010, 11:27:51 AM
What if you don't want to vent?
What if your team went farther than the USA team and then lost to another you like? xD I'm quite happy with the World Cup currently.
Everything's to vent at in WC. Reffing, certain players, conditions, plays, etc. It's not USA-centric anymore, this thread.
Alright lads! And ladies.
Stayed in a sports bar all day watching both the Holland-Brazil game and the Ghana-Uruguay.
Final: Holland - 2, Brazil - 1. I was definitely rooting for Holland, and god help them, they did it with two headers that couldn't have been better aimed, and completely took Brazil by surprise. I couldn't help but laugh at the times when they got their long Nederlands legs mixed up in the dramatic defencive dances with Brazil.
Final: Uruguay - 1(4), Ghana - 1(2). Let me just start off by informing the reader that I was rooting for Ghana, despite some qualms I have with their contact issues. This was a rough, raw, and long game, lasting well into late night Johannesburg. I was sharing the bar with about twenty Somalians and one Mexican, with whom I had a fleeting but utterly meaningful relationship. Fists were bumped, chants were created, shoulders patted, and, finally, the cool marble-top of the bar shared equally between our foreheads to bear a communal moment of defeat.
Amazing play from both teams, but I sensed inexperience in the Ghanaian attacks, and hesitance in the Uruguayan. Towards the end, each shot became an agonizing miss, with the final penalty from Gyan (in the final, absolute last second of overtime, mind you) hitting over the crossbar. Uruguayan Abreu, a late substitute but definitely a ->-bleeped-<-ing machine on the pitch, had the tendency to overstep into offside or attack too early.
Inkoom, Ghana's right-back, has only gained more momentum since the Ghana game with the US. He was everywhere on the pitch, with his hands everywhere on the Uruguayans. This kid already has a stellar under-20s career, and he's going to do well into his 20s, but I think perhaps he should play a few matches with his arms duct-taped to his sides just to get a feel for what that's like.
Fouls, as always, were rampant. The worse was nearly the very end, the reason for Gyan's penalty kick. Luis Saurez's save... For his own goal... With his own hands. If he hadn't done, from what I remember, Adiyiah's header would've made it over him but into the net, thereby saving Ghana and the rest of Africa a lot of tears tonight.
It came down to the shootout, which I knew Ghana just couldn't win against the stronger players and better goal keep of Uruguay.
Uruguay is /not/ going to be a very popular team in South Africa into the semi-finals against Holland.
Quote from: no_id on June 29, 2010, 08:58:04 AM
More countries suffered from the fact that FIFA has not allowed any technological elements to aid referees in making the best decisions possible.
I heard that soccer is the only sport that does not allow technology improvements to help with referee decisions. I'm not really into sports, but I do watch soccer once in a while, especially with the world cup.
A case of needed technology was in the México - Argentina game where Argentina's first goal was clearly offside. It probably would not have made a difference in the final outcome, yet, I think that first goal gave Argentina more momentum and probably was a big downer for México - so who knows how much it affected the teams.
I just have to say, pobre México - I was sad to see them go home. Alas, may the best team win.
The USA's penchant for giving up early goals caught up with them. The first ten minutes of a game is crucial. Personally, I felt that the US and Ghana were evenly matched. Ghana has speed and quickness in which I don't believe could match.
The US got far on hard work and determination. Now they need to continue to build on and learn from the experience.
Gennee
What I mean by a structure is more of a single structure that (outside of the World Cup/Olympics deal has regularly structured teams, in divisions and leagues. That have a more constant player-ship and annual championships. Will not most of these good players now go play English Premier League, or some other European League, while others go back and play for their Olympic/national teams in an entirely different round of competitions? It's all too confusing.
And its not just the technological elements in the reffing, I think that they should have, oh like 20 years ago now, expanded the goal one foot on either side, and perhaps even one foot higher. The skill of the players - particularly the goalie grew - but the game did not. Defense tends to have the advantage in most games, but in soccer it's almost overwhelming.
And oh yeah, the penalty kick deal, it's iccky, there has to be a better way to end tie games.
Quote from: tekla on July 03, 2010, 10:41:52 AM
And oh yeah, the penalty kick deal, it's iccky, there has to be a better way to end tie games.
i agree , though it adds more drama , but it's unfair IMO , there has to be another way , better way
Quote from: DaddySplicer on July 02, 2010, 06:19:46 PM
Uruguay is /not/ going to be a very popular team in South Africa into the semi-finals against Holland.
totally , i was so bummed about ghana ,it was going to be the first african nation in history to get in the semi finals or so i've been told , but meh
but WOW , Germany kicked Argentina's ass , i was surprised 4:0 :O , saw the highlights of the game , and from what i've seen , it seems that Germany is the one who's going home with the world cup this time
But Uruguay is going to be the only 'third' world team there in the battle of the Euro Superpowers, they are the huge underdog, they'll have more fans then you think.
Quote from: eNTROPY on July 03, 2010, 03:05:17 PM
but WOW , Germany kicked Argentina's ass , i was surprised 4:0 :O , saw the highlights of the game , and from what i've seen , it seems that Germany is the one who's going home with the world cup this time
I woke myself up in time to watch the full thing. PITY Mueller won't be in the semis, but of course the team is so tight that I think they'll do fine even without him.
Really, I can't stress enough how aware this team is. The match today was just watching Germany alone on a pitch. Where the hell was Argentina? Who's Messi? Anyway, what a fantastic team. The best I've ever seen with my eyes in my lifetime, I'm going to say it. They're going to get the cup because they're the best, simple as that.
The Spain - Paraguay game was a snore, eh? I only needed to have watched the last twenty minutes to get the idea, jesus.
Germany has scored 4 points in like 3 different games now, and I think England was the only team to even get a point over on them. So whoever is going to play them has to figure that even if they play a perfect defense, it's still very possible that Germany still might score two goals, they just seem that good. So how in the hell do you get 3 points on the board to beat the German 2? Might prove to be impossible.
After the game of Ghana-Uruguay, I think no country is eligible for venting about the WC, except Ghana.
Barbie~~
Quote from: barbie on July 03, 2010, 10:20:32 PM
After the game of Ghana-Uruguay, I think no country is eligible for venting about the WC, except Ghana.
Barbie~~
Agree, cheating is cheating. The penalty was inappropriate in both meanings. It was a goal. The ball crossed the line (in my view).
I hate boy sports they are just full of themselves,
Cindy
Quote from: tekla on July 03, 2010, 10:41:52 AM
What I mean by a structure is more of a single structure that (outside of the World Cup/Olympics deal has regularly structured teams, in divisions and leagues. That have a more constant player-ship and annual championships. Will not most of these good players now go play English Premier League, or some other European League, while others go back and play for their Olympic/national teams in an entirely different round of competitions? It's all too confusing.
And its not just the technological elements in the reffing, I think that they should have, oh like 20 years ago now, expanded the goal one foot on either side, and perhaps even one foot higher. The skill of the players - particularly the goalie grew - but the game did not. Defense tends to have the advantage in most games, but in soccer it's almost overwhelming.
And oh yeah, the penalty kick deal, it's iccky, there has to be a better way to end tie games.
I can't comment on the technical ideas. I once suggested that they could decemalise it by having 10 players and matches lasting a total of 80 minutes. I have to say that, from what little I know of the game, there seems little point in expanding the goal size. I understand that the penalty shoot-outs are a European innovation and not part of the English game, but I may be wrong.
As for the good players, I tend to think that the best players will go where they get the best pay and conditions. English clubs tend to pay their players more than anyone else, apart from the Spanish.
As to the confusion. It seems perfectly straight forward to me. Individual kicks a ball around. Gets spotted by a talent scout from an amateur club. The amateur club trains them, then they get offered a place of a profession team. The profession team trains them more then they are offered a place on a premier team. They get paid loads of dosh. Get picked for the national team when they go to the world cup competition where they drink loads of alcohol, party with loads of women, play badly, lose then return home where their agent will release a load of nonsense to the press about mental strain, attending clinics and their difficult child hood. Later they will return to their club and the process starts all over.
But the real question remains about this and any other sport.
How can so many, otherwise intelegent people be suckered into paying loads of their cash, spending a considerable amount of their time and form so many apparently knowlegable opinions when all they actually do is watch someone else having fun?
It just all seems like pornography to me. Pointless and a waste of time.
But then, I'm not the sporting type. :)
I wonder if the Spanish commentators are enjoying the game? :laugh: :laugh: ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtUWZccFoII# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtUWZccFoII#)
hahaha! Impartiality FAIL.
On an unrelated note, I do hope that Germany destroy Spain today.
This is the moment where I do need to go 'wow'.
After 32 years my little country has made it into the WC finals once again. The inventors of 'total football' (totaal voetbal) set foot in the WC finals only in '74 and '78 but never took the cup home... Now it's 2010 and a defensive Orange (Oranje) that hasn't shown the most beautiful soccer this competition can finally get rid of the semi-finals elimination nightmare. This might even become a replica of the '74 finals; Netherlands - Germany... Would be nice if we took the cup home this time though. :)
:o against all odds spain is the one meeting NL in the final . kinda felt all along that holland is getting to the final but to be honest not spain , someone told me though before the germany game that spain have a very strong defence , i root for holland which is the only one i rooted for in this WC and didn't lose (ghana , germany , usa ,argentina ) but i'm optimistic this time
Bag 'm and tag 'm, the World Cup has come to an end with a final that must qualify as one of the ugliest finals in history.
Unfortunately my country lost but that's the way of the game and although my fellow Dutchmen and I are sad we're also rational enough to admit that the better team won. Personally, of course I woudl've been overjoyed if my team won, but I'd rather see the Dutch play the game the way they used to: beautifull soccer but perhaps less rewarded.
Either way, it was an ugly game and apparently claimed a record: most cards during a World Cup final with 14 cards if I'm not mistaking (the previous record was at 6... makes you wonder ne?).. Howard Webb probably shouldn't go on holidays to Spain, The Netherlands or Poland this summer especially the last since their government announced a kill on his head. o.O
that ref was anything but fair , at first i thought he was unfair only with NL , but then he was unfair with spain too sometimes , it's not courage what he did it's total misgudgement at sometimes and totally missing somethings with no punishment , like that time when a player from spain pushed a player netherland on purpose right after the latter took the ball from him.
Done and dusted for another 4 years. After all the complaints I wonder whether FIFA will actually go ahead with a video ref?
Having watched the Women's World Cup, at least the girls don't cheat like the men, or act bitchy!
QuoteAfter all the complaints I wonder whether FIFA will actually go ahead with a video ref?
not likely , i don't think so . they are so hung up in the rules as if it was sacred rules or something
hard luck for NL , their loss makes me wonder why is it that every single team i rooted for in this tournament lost
on a slightly separate note , does anyone know where i can find the full closing ceremony video? i've looked all over and all i can find is the part shakira was on . i kinda missed the whole thing and heard it was awesome
It wasn't exactly the game to give people 'soccer fever' who've never watched it before.
I'd be awful hard pressed, like back to the good old days 'cold war' Olympics, to find a bunch of officiating that sucked that hard.
If I NEVER hear another game with those vuvuzelas horns blaring in the background I'm going to die happy.
QuoteIf I NEVER hear another game with those vuvuzelas horns blaring in the background I'm going to die happy.
lol , itotally don't get it , why in the world would someone pay ,let's say, 50$ to just stand , not interacting with the game ,barely watching , and just blowing in a horn . kinda mystery
Oh no, it's a cultural deal, I get that. And I don't think it was unfair as some claimed, as the volume was equal for both teams on the pitch. And it can be a factor, teams hate playing in places like Autzen Stadium because it's just so loud
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alqi5jzfmkM&feature=related# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alqi5jzfmkM&feature=related#) (turn up the volume, it's wicked), it's just that I'm not from that culture and simply find it annoying. So too the drunken sing-along that England does during its games.
yeah that too was loud , but i mean people enthusiastic cheering sound is cool , understandable , even tolerable to some point. but that thing.. Gah!! too frickin' annoying .i mean i live in africa , i get it (the horn itself i mean) , and even though we have none of those where i live but i'm familiar with this horn going off occasionally during a game playing anywhere in africa , and it was pretty cool . but all game long?and evveryone? that's just too much
i mean even south africa wasn't like that , i remember long ago egypt played in S.Africa on African Cup of Nations tournament , it wasn't continuous , it wasn't like that at all . it was actually nice ,like when there's heat you occasionally hear it , but not like that . that sudden appearance in the confederations cup tournament is still a mystery to me , i mean it's different now than the original cultural habit that i actually used to like .
Well see I didn't know that, its like an American learning that instead of the 'Boo' deal, in some places they whistle to display the same sense of an entire crowd going 'you suck.'
But they are gone, what's next Rio in it's trial run for the Olympics. That's going to be a whole different set of problems.
I really think some major rule changes are in order however. Major changes in reffing need to occur, vid replay, and maybe moving from one to three refs. I think if you changes the onside rule it would be higher scoring, and hence, a lot more interesting.
Octopus Paul is the bigger news than Spain's win here in my country :)
Barbie~~
Quote from: barbie on July 12, 2010, 11:11:10 AM
Octopus Paul is the bigger news than Spain's win here in my country :)
Barbie~~
yeah this octopus deal is so epic , hard to believe but it happened
Quote from: eNTROPY on July 12, 2010, 11:25:25 AM
yeah this octopus deal is so epic , hard to believe but it happened
Yep goes to show the odds of a 1 in 2 chance. The stats don't change for how many repetitions it's still a 50% chance of calling it right (or wrong) each time. There are no cumulative odds. But it is different if you are betting on the octopus!
I think it demonstrates that the octopus was totally unbiased.