Go Team USA!

[Phil Deakins]

---

Nova Convair wrote:

Check out the 1st quote at top left.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/gary_lineker.html

---

LOL. Yes, I've heard that before. There are exceptions though, like when we beat them 5-1 in Germany, in a world cup qualifying match not long ago, which forced them to cancel a friendly match they'd arranged because they had to play an extra qualifier. They'd assumed they wouldn't need to do that. But it's those exceptions that prove the rule.

ETA: I like one from lower down better though:- "If someone in the crowd spits at you, you've got to swallow it"

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Wow!  :smileysurprised:

Costa Rica  

1 - 0

  Italy

 

---

Yep. England is out.

It's a pity because I haven't seen any team that should trouble England. Unfortunately, it's England, and we are very good at not performing up to our capabilities. We did show some good flashes in the Italy game, but it was Italy that got the winning goal. I don't believe we'd have lost to Uruguay had it not been for Luis Suarez. Just that one player won that game for them.

On the bright side, it's only 2 years to the European Championships

[Medhue Simoni]

Check out this Yahoo article. Ouch!

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/it-s-simple--england-just-isn-t-good-enough-233848430.html

 

BTW - France looked incredible today!

[Phil Deakins]

I haven't read the article but I have read its title in the URL. I disagree with it. England IS good enough at this time by comparison to the other teams that I've watched. I.e. the players are good enough. It's just that England are very very good at not doing as well as their abilities. It's the same in other sports and not just football.

One thing that I've crtiticised England football teams for is that they don't play enough together, so they don't become a very good 'team'. The managers use all the friendly matches to try out different players, and players in different positions, etc., and consequently the team we end up with hasn't gelled into a 'team' like club teams do. Germany's team, for instance, played together as under 21s and so on. They grew up internationally together, and they became a very good senior team. Obviously there must have been changes along the way, but not the wholesale changes that England managers do. I'll always criticise England managers for that, because, imo, it's very detrimental to the 'team'.

[Medhue Simoni]

You should read it. It's not really saying that England isn't good enough. It talks about the English public and how they aren't appaulled that their team isn't as good as it used to be. It's about the public's exceptance, supposedly because they would never have before.

[Phil Deakins]

Ah, ok. I've read the top half of it now and I understand.

It's a good thing that expectation isn't what it used to be, and I agree that it's dead. That way, the players don't get the stick they used to get lol

There are two big reasons why expections should be dead:-

One is that there aren't many English players playing in the top flight of English football any more. Since big money entered the game here, largely through Sky, clubs have been getting overseas players to play for them, because they can pay them fortunes in wages. In any Premier League team these days, you do very well if you can count 3 English players. Some don't have that many on the field. It started when the premier league started in the 90s. Back then, our expections were at worst to reach the quarter-final. In the early part of this century, expections lowered to reaching the last 16 (getting out of the group). With this World Cup, expectations will no longer be that. Instead we will 'hope' to get out of the group. If we don't have English players playing in the Premier league, we can't expect to do well at international level.

The other is that there are no longer any whipping boys in the groups. Not too long ago, every group had one team that would do very well if it got one draw. Countries like Australia, Korea, Costa Rica, Iran, and so on were whipping boys. Not any more. Because of global TV, the quality of football has improved all over the world, as Costa Rica's 2 wins aginst 2 of the world's top 10 ranked countries demonstrates. And if they beat England, they'll have wins against 3 of the world's top 10 ranked countries - and I wouldn't bet against it.

As long as English players are kept out of the Premier League, in favour of overseas players, I can't have any great expectations of English teams, especially since there have been great improvements in all the 'lesser' countries.

I realise that other top footballing countries suffer from overseas players too but maybe not as much as England does. Unless I'm mistaken, England led the march to saturate its club teams with overseas players, because I think it was here where the very big money going into the clubs started.

Note: But as long as Luis Suarez continues to play for my club team (Liverpool) I'm a happy man

 

[Medhue Simoni]

It hurts! It burns! So tough to get over an equalizing goal in extra time. Oh the humanity! The US team just made things much more iffy.

[Medhue Simoni]

USA vs Germany today at 9 am SL time.

[Darren Scorpio]

I'm excited! Bloody rl people better leave me the hell alone for two hours or I will be one pissed off dude. 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Note: But as long as Luis Suarez continues to play for my club team (Liverpool) I'm a happy man

 

---

I wrote that before Luis Suarez bit the italian player. I so wish he hadn't done it. It's the 3rd time he's bit a player. In the first 2 he got 7 and 10 match bans respectively. This time, the world is calling for something like a 2 years ban. I'll have to wait and see what happens. It's a real shame because he is one of the top 2 or 3 players in the world. Imo, he's the best player in the world. Anyway...

Very good luck USA. I'll watch it. I'm sure that Germany will win but I'll be armchair supporting the USA team - and if playing germany wasn't hard enough for them, my support will kill them off completely.

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Note: But as long as Luis Suarez continues to play for my club team (Liverpool) I'm a happy man

 

---

I wrote that before Luis Suarez bit the italian player. I so wish he hadn't done it. It's the 3rd time he's bit a player.

---

Hmm.. have they tried to feed him well before the matches?

 

[Phil Deakins]

Maybe that's it, Coby. He gets to feel hungry during 90 minutes of running around lol.

[arton Rotaru]

SCHLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND :matte-motes-sunglasses-3:

[Tex Monday]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Maybe that's it, Coby. He gets to feel hungry during 90 minutes of running around lol.

---

Sounds like it could be a snickers candy bar commercial....:matte-motes-sunglasses-3:

[Medhue Simoni]

US is onto the next round. It was pretty nerve racking trying to watch both games at the same time, but that also made it exciting.

[Medhue Simoni]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Note: But as long as Luis Suarez continues to play for my club team (Liverpool) I'm a happy man

 

---

I wrote that before Luis Suarez bit the italian player. I so wish he hadn't done it. It's the 3rd time he's bit a player.

---

Hmm.. have they tried to feed him well before the matches?

 

---

I say make him wear a muzzle!

[Phil Deakins]

The final games in the group stage are often exciting like that, because they are played simultaneously, and even a single goal in one of the matches can change whether or not a country gets through. They can be more exciting that the knockout games that follow.

I remember one such pair of games (I think it was when the World Cup was in the U.S.) where all 4 of the teams could finish top or bottom of the group During thosemes, the positions moved all over the place as each was scored.

[Dillon Levenque]

I've tried really hard to see all this in a positive light, but I'm done. I haven't been actually following it much but I do lake a look every day in which there are matches to see who is going ahead and who is not.

I was astonished to learn that in Group play the first tie-breaker was goal differential. I would normally expect the first tie-breaker to be based on head-to-head competition between the teams involved, and in Group play everyone plays each other. That is always the number one decider when two teams in the US wind up with matching records (except baseball, where if two teams wind up with matching records they play against each other until their records damned well don't match).

I was not happy about goal differential being a decider in Group play but I let it go. Then I looked at the standings today. There were two draws: Chile v Brazil and Costa Rica v Greece. In both cases the team with the highest goal differential moves on, the other team is out. That is so incredibly wrong that I can't get my head around it. A team scored more goals against some other team that wasn't even on the schedule of the team to which they're being compared, and they ADVANCE? Sorry, soccer fans. Your sport bites.

Never mind that it's really boring to watch. Never mind that most of the time a small plane could land on the playing field without seriously disturbing play. I am fully aware that if I actually understood the skills and strategies needed to win at soccer I'd probably enjoy watching it. I've talked to people unfamiliar with baseball who found it incredibly boring because all they watched was the ball. I assume the same thing holds true for soccer.  HOWEVER: I will never pay the slightest attention to any sport in which tournament play does not require contests to be played to victory, however many extra periods it takes. Moon Over Miami (a little hint, for those who have, like the BBC, been quick to point out that some American sports allow tie games).

FIFA lose.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I've tried really hard to see all this in a positive light, but I'm done. I haven't been actually following it much but I do lake a look every day in which there are matches to see who is going ahead and who is not.

I was astonished to learn that in Group play the first tie-breaker was goal differential. I would normally expect the first tie-breaker to be based on head-to-head competition between the teams involved, and in Group play everyone plays each other. That is always the number one decider when two teams in the US wind up with matching records (except baseball, where if two teams wind up with matching records they play against each other until their records damned well don't match).

I was not happy about goal differential being a decider in Group play but I let it go. Then I looked at the standings today. There were two draws: Chile v Brazil and Costa Rica v Greece. In both cases the team with the highest goal differential moves on, the other team is out. That is so incredibly wrong that I can't get my head around it. A team scored more goals against some other team that wasn't even on the schedule of the team to which they're being compared, and they ADVANCE? Sorry, soccer fans. Your sport bites.

Never mind that it's really boring to watch. Never mind that most of the time a small plane could land on the playing field without seriously disturbing play. I am fully aware that if I actually understood the skills and strategies needed to win at soccer I'd probably enjoy watching it. I've talked to people unfamiliar with baseball who found it incredibly boring because all they watched was the ball. I assume the same thing holds true for soccer.  HOWEVER: I will never pay the slightest attention to any sport in which tournament play does not require contests to be played to victory, however many extra periods it takes. Moon Over Miami (a little hint, for those who have, like the BBC, been quick to point out that some American sports allow tie games).

FIFA lose.

---

Maybe it's time for Bill Maher to do "Sportulous".

I don't much enjoy watching sports. I'd rather play. But I did like sitting in the center field bleachers at Milwaukee Country Stadium when I was young, watching pitches from behind the pitcher, where it was pretty clear that they weren't nearly as varied or extreme as the radio announcer declared. Like religion, I've learned that sports is full of delusion, deception and just plain wierdness.

Mom visits the Unitarian Church for their killer potlucks. I go to local softball games for the chili-dogs.

And I still think Golf should have a defense.

[Dillon Levenque]

I did a quick google after writing this and found that my hint phrase led to nothing anyone could use, mostly because I'm so damned old nobody else remembers it.

A playoff game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Miami Dolphins (American football) was tied after regulation. They played a 'fifth quarter' and were still tied, so they went on to  a sixth. The game was of course televised. At one point a camera pointed into the night sky to show the Moon (the game had started and was expected to end in broad daylight). The announcer (Howard Cosell?) said, "Moon over Miami". That was the name of an old (even then)  song/movie. The comment has been repeated a bazillion times in talks about sports and the game itself, which is quite famous, is usually called by that title. Yet a search of google shows only the original song and movie.

If you're interested, you can see the NFL's article about the game here .

 

Woohoo. I meant to 'Edit' my post and managed instead to click 'Reply'. I'll retake Forums 101.

[Dillon Levenque]

As for playing versus watching, I quite agree. I am not sure but I believe the game of 'workups' has vanished. When I was a kid you could not go past a schoolyard on a weekend or a summer day without seeing a game of 'workups' in progress. It was a constant.

Workups meant you worked up to a being a batter. However many kids were there formed a defense: pticher, infielders, outfielders. The extra kids were batters. The starting position was Right Field. Everytime a batter made an out, the assignments would switch. The current pitcher would become a batter, the batter who made the out would become the right fielder, and everyone else would move up one position. It varied wildly depending on how many kids were there. If there were few, Right Field would usually be called foul terrrirtory so you didn't need a right fielder. If there were tons of kids, you might even have a catcher (which was usually covered by one of the batters) and people waiting to get into right field.

There was no keeping score (something the moderns have been working on for twenty years) since of course there was no 'other team'. You just played to the best of  your ability. I played workups in games with girls way before Little League included girls in their rosters.

[Kelli May]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

...

I was not happy about goal differential being a decider in Group play but I let it go. Then I looked at the standings today. There were two draws: Chile v Brazil and Costa Rica v Greece. In both cases the team with the highest goal differential moves on, the other team is out. That is so incredibly wrong that I can't get my head around it. A team scored more goals against some other team that wasn't even on the schedule of the team to which they're being compared, and they ADVANCE? Sorry, soccer fans. Your sport bites.

...

---

Either I've misunderstood what you wrote there, or you misunderstand the knockout stage rules. Chile vs Brazil and Costa Rica vs Greece were not decided on goal difference. The games went to a 1-1 draw in normal time. There was then 15 minutes each way of extra time. At the end of extra time, with no deciding goals scored, the game went to a penalty shoot-out. The games were decided on penalties scored, head-to-head, in those particular matches.

eta: It's also worth mentioning that in the group stages no progression was actually decided on goal difference apart from the Group G, where goal difference favoured USA over Portugal. The USA vs Portugal game was... a 2-2 draw, so the head-to-head was irrelevant. Everyone else went through on points. 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I did a quick google after writing this and found that my hint phrase led to nothing anyone could use, mostly because I'm so damned old nobody else remembers it.

A playoff game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Miami Dolphins (American football) was tied after regulation. They played a 'fifth quarter' and were still tied, so they went on to  a sixth. The game was of course televised. At one point a camera pointed into the night sky to show the Moon (the game had started and was expected to end in broad daylight). The announcer (Howard Cosell?) said, "Moon over Miami". That was the name of an old (even then)  song/movie. The comment has been repeated a bazillion times in talks about sports and the game itself, which is quite famous, is usually called by that title. Yet a search of google shows only the original song and movie.

If you're interested, you can see the NFL's article about the game

here

.

 

Woohoo. I meant to 'Edit' my post and managed instead to click 'Reply'. I'll retake Forums 101.

---

How about The 10 Longest MLB Games of All Time?

Can you imagine a pitcher today going 26 innings?

 

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Kelli May wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

...

I was not happy about goal differential being a decider in Group play but I let it go. Then I looked at the standings today. There were two draws: Chile v Brazil and Costa Rica v Greece. In both cases the team with the highest goal differential moves on, the other team is out. That is so incredibly wrong that I can't get my head around it. A team scored more goals against some other team that wasn't even on the schedule of the team to which they're being compared, and they ADVANCE? Sorry, soccer fans. Your sport bites.

...

---

Either I've misunderstood what you wrote there, or you misunderstand the knockout stage rules. Chile vs Brazil and Costa Rica vs Greece were not decided on goal difference. The games went to a 1-1 draw in normal time. There was then 15 minutes each way of extra time. At the end of extra time, with no deciding goals scored, the game went to a

penalty shoot-out

. The games were decided on penalties scored, head-to-head, in those particular matches.

eta: It's also worth mentioning that in the group stages no progression was actually decided on goal difference apart from the Group G, where goal difference favoured USA over Portugal. The USA vs Portugal game was... a 2-2 draw, so the head-to-head was irrelevant. Everyone else went through on points. 

---

 

You understood what I wrote; I misunderstood (or more accurately did not research) the scores.  My bad. I did not look at the full accounts of the games but made my comments based on my misiinformation.

I do get the 'penaly kick' thing. I don't like it, any more than I like it in hockey, the only somewhat major American sport that has such rules. Even with hockey I believe that tournament/playoff games must be decided by final score and if the game is tied at the end of regulation periods are added until one team is victorious.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

The Dutch team was promised a TRIP TO SPACE!! if they win the world cup.  : )

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/world_cup/193567/holland-squad-promised-free-trip-into-space-if-they-win-the-world-cup.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/worldcup/netherlands-vs-mexico-dutch-squad-promised-free-trip-into-space-if-they-win-the-2014-world-cup-9570051.html

 

Personally, I'm in a quandary, as I was rooting for both Netherlands and Costa Rico, and now they play each other in the Quarter finals.  Also, the winner of that game could conceivably play USA....arrgh!