Super User burleytog Posted June 29, 2009 Super User Posted June 29, 2009 I think most American's hate of soccer is related to xenophobia and ignorance There's ignorance all right... : Quote
Super User Dan: Posted June 29, 2009 Super User Posted June 29, 2009 What a great game!! Final score was Brazil 3 USA 2. If you saw it then you know. If you didn't.....sorry. big time choke Quote
srv1990 Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 What a great game!! Final score was Brazil 3 USA 2. If you saw it then you know. If you didn't.....sorry. big time choke Not a choke in my opinion. The US was beaten by the better team, a team who can control the ball and the play as good as or better than any in the world. Yes, it was disappointing we got up 2-0 and couldn't find a way to put the screws to Brazil, but this was no choke. Quote
Super User CWB Posted June 29, 2009 Super User Posted June 29, 2009 Why is it that a baseball game with a zero/zero score going into extra innings is a great feat but a soccer game at zero/zero is boring. The reason is that Americans understand the nuances of the game of baseball (or golf - the most boring sport of all). If you understand the game of soccer it is not boring. To the casual observer I can understand why it looks that way. Soccer: No timeouts, No helmets, No shoulder pads, No halftime shows. So if that is what you need, go play football you WUSS. I dare you to call a 280 lb. lineman a wuss. No halftime shows? What about all the fights and nonsense that goes on in the stands? Also I think bowling is right up there with golf and soccer as the most boring to watch, but again, all 3 are great to play. Quote
Super User Dan: Posted June 29, 2009 Super User Posted June 29, 2009 What a great game!! Final score was Brazil 3 USA 2. If you saw it then you know. If you didn't.....sorry. big time choke Not a choke in my opinion. The US was beaten by the better team, a team who can control the ball and the play as good as or better than any in the world. Yes, it was disappointing we got up 2-0 and couldn't find a way to put the screws to Brazil, but this was no choke. Giving up a 2-0 lead at the half by allowing 3 unanswered goals in the second half = choke. Quote
Super User CWB Posted June 29, 2009 Super User Posted June 29, 2009 Didn't they lose their first 2 games and still make the finals? Interesting how that works. I could be mistaken as I don't follow the sport. Sound like it was a good game though. Quote
avid Posted June 30, 2009 Author Posted June 30, 2009 Stop this choke nonesense. Our boys played beyond all expectations. It is not unusual in soccer for a dominant team to be losing early on, only to come back late in the game. It has to do with the skill level of the better team gradually wearing down the lesser team untill the fatigue and mental strain starts causing them to make mistakes. That is one reason why soccer is such a great game. No time outs...limit is three subs...it's a war of attrition. The fact that we beat their defense at all, let alone twice is amazing. I repeat it was a great game. If you saw it then you know. If you didn't then you don't Quote
Super User Dan: Posted June 30, 2009 Super User Posted June 30, 2009 Stop this choke nonesense. Our boys played beyond all expectations. It is not unusual in soccer for a dominant team to be losing early on, only to come back late in the game. It has to do with the skill level of the better team gradually wearing down the lesser team untill the fatigue and mental strain starts causing them to make mistakes. That is one reason why soccer is such a great game. No time outs...limit is three subs...it's a war of attrition. The fact that we beat their defense at all, let alone twice is amazing. I repeat it was a great game. If you saw it then you know. If you didn't then you don't I'm not buying that. In the second half they looked like crap. They played much better in the first half and I think they gave up in the second. I know they weren't given a chance to win, but when you win like they did against Spain and then go up 2-0 against Brazil in the first half, you can't say they just weren't up to the same level. Quote
atx_newbie Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Didn't they lose their first 2 games and still make the finals? Interesting how that works. I could be mistaken as I don't follow the sport. Sound like it was a good game though. Yes, they did lose the first 2 games. In the big tournaments it works like this: The teams are split into "groups" of 4, and those 4 play a round robin against each other. Your win/loss record is irrelevant, because you are given points based on the game: 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and no points for a loss. Then the two teams from each group with the highest point totals advance to a bracketed, single-elimination tournament. Quote
Super User Tin Posted June 30, 2009 Super User Posted June 30, 2009 Blowing a 2-0 lead in soccer is like blowing a 6 run lead in baseball, they blew it imo. They were in a position to get some great publicity and gain some band-wagon fans and they blew it. Quote
Super User CWB Posted June 30, 2009 Super User Posted June 30, 2009 Didn't they lose their first 2 games and still make the finals? Interesting how that works. I could be mistaken as I don't follow the sport. Sound like it was a good game though. Yes, they did lose the first 2 games. In the big tournaments it works like this: The teams are split into "groups" of 4, and those 4 play a round robin against each other. Your win/loss record is irrelevant, because you are given points based on the game: 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and no points for a loss. Then the two teams from each group with the highest point totals advance to a bracketed, single-elimination tournament. So if I understand it, you can go 1-2, a losing record, and still play for the championship in your bracket? Ties in the playoffs? Man, all sports should have playoffs like that. On second thought, Maybe a team with a losing record doesn't deserve to play for the championship. In my opinion, won/loss record should be the determining factor, not irrelevant. If ties are allowed, why keep score? JMHO. Still, hats off to our guys! Quote
srv1990 Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 What a great game!! Final score was Brazil 3 USA 2. If you saw it then you know. If you didn't.....sorry. big time choke Not a choke in my opinion. The US was beaten by the better team, a team who can control the ball and the play as good as or better than any in the world. Yes, it was disappointing we got up 2-0 and couldn't find a way to put the screws to Brazil, but this was no choke. Giving up a 2-0 lead at the half by allowing 3 unanswered goals in the second half = choke. Dan, thanks for clarifying my opinion of the game for me. We'll just agree to disagree and move on. Let's go U.S. in the Gold Cup! Quote
atx_newbie Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Didn't they lose their first 2 games and still make the finals? Interesting how that works. I could be mistaken as I don't follow the sport. Sound like it was a good game though. Yes, they did lose the first 2 games. In the big tournaments it works like this: The teams are split into "groups" of 4, and those 4 play a round robin against each other. Your win/loss record is irrelevant, because you are given points based on the game: 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and no points for a loss. Then the two teams from each group with the highest point totals advance to a bracketed, single-elimination tournament. So if I understand it, you can go 1-2, a losing record, and still play for the championship in your bracket? Ties in the playoffs? Man, all sports should have playoffs like that. On second thought, Maybe a team with a losing record doesn't deserve to play for the championship. In my opinion, won/loss record should be the determining factor, not irrelevant. If ties are allowed, why keep score? JMHO. Still, hats off to our guys! They were 2-2 before losing to Brazil in the finals. And they were able to advance because they were tied with another team in their group, and advanced off of goal differential (their goals for to goals against ratio was higher than the team they were tied with). The playoffs in other sports are very similar, maybe even more forgiving. In basketball, a team can be well below .500 and make the playoffs, and pretty close to that in football. Look at the chargers from this past year. Then for baseball, once you make the post-season, you can lose a lot of games (9 out of 16) and still make it all the way to game 7 of the World Series. Remember, there is no regular "league" for the national teams. So when these tournaments come around every year or two, the group stage essentially acts as the "regular season," and the elimination stage could be looked on as the "playoffs." Quote
1inStripes Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I had a feeling it was over after the first quick goal of the second half. It appeared as though the US team felt so too. Brazil is the better team, but the US layed down and choked after they gave up the first goal. As a whole, Howard played well, the rest of the teeam played horrible ball control and D in the second half. Quote
dave Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Suddenly women's golf is growin' on me. ;D b (who said baseball was better? Hank Hill?) Are you sure that's your golf growin? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.