OT: Boneyard "Other Football" World Cup Thread

[Carl Spackler]

I agree that would be the "best" way, but also the most unrealistic way. I can say with 100% certainty we won't beat all 3 teams. I can say with about 85% certainty we won't win 2 games. I only give us about a 30% chance of getting out of the group at all.

We only won 1 game in the group stages when we got out of the group in 2002 and 2010. And those were much easier groups.

That's amazing. 100% certainty? Let's go to Vegas and place some bets.

Really - I guess I over-estimate our chances of winning games. I just don't think that we are so very much over-matched against the teams we will face. I think that this group stage is pretty much the equivalent of 3 game playoff series. Got to win at least two of them to advance. Much easier to win 2, if you win the first one.

I think that we can't afford to make mistakes, and if we have a single player at any time not going full speed, that will lead to mistakes - but so it goes.


Here - let me put ti this way - I don't think our A-game is such that we are overmatched with any of the teams in our group. I think that if there is a difference, and I'm sure there is - the difference comes when you start getting to the level's of "B-game, C-game, etc.)

I think we bring our A-game against any other country's A-game - we have good chance.

I think if we bring our B-game against any other country A-game, we lose - and for that matter, the difference going forward, is probably that if we bring our B-game against any other country B-game - we also lose.

Kind of like UCONN football for a while under Edsall - our #1's, when they were developed could go against anyone and compete and win - but when you got to the #2's there was a drop off.

make sense?

all we got to do is bring our A-game, all the time, and we will advance - I think. Easier said than done, obviously.

 

[SubbaBub]

That's amazing. 100% certainty? Let's go to Vegas and place some bets.

Really - I guess I over-estimate our chances of winning games. I just don't think that we are so very much over-matched against the teams we will face. I think that this group stage is pretty much the equivalent of 3 game playoff series. Got to win at least two of them to advance. Much easier to win 2, if you win the first one.

I think that we can't afford to make mistakes, and if we have a single player at any time not going full speed, that will lead to mistakes - but so it goes.

Here - let me put ti this way - I don't think our A-game is such that we are overmatched with any of the teams in our group. I think that if there is a difference, and I'm sure there is - the difference comes when you start getting to the level's of "B-game, C-game, etc.)

I think we bring our A-game against any other country's A-game - we have good chance.

I think if we bring our B-game against any other country A-game, we lose - and for that matter, the difference going forward, is probably that if we bring our B-game against any other country B-game - we also lose.

Kind of like UCONN football for a while under Edsall - our #1's, when they were developed could go against anyone and compete and win - but when you got to the #2's there was a drop off.

make sense?

all we got to do is bring our A-game, all the time, and we will advance - I think. Easier said than done, obviously.

Not so much over-matched as susceptible to catastrophic mistakes. In the past you had to worry about other teams outclassing us with talent. I don't worry about that much anymore.

If the US plays a solid game and gets a good bounce or avoids a bad one, they can beat anyone.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

I think the best way to advance is to score as many goals as possible and win the games. I'm reading about hopes for a tie? Yuck to that attitude.

I understand that USA soccer is not on the level of Brazil, Germany, Portugal, Ghana internationally - but look at this:

Since Jan 1, 2012, the USA soccer team is 32-7-7 W/L/T in international play. I understand there is a big difference between friendly soccer and competition soccer internationally, but even so, we've gotten wins in the past 2 years against teams and in places that we've never won before - Italy, Mexico, Germany.

Going back to 2010, we made it past the first stage of the World Cup.

We have a very tough schedule, and expectations need to be realistic.

We can't win the world cup, if we don't get out of the first stage, and getting out of the first stage, is not going to be easy as we have what all the "knowledgeable" people think is the toughest group in the tournament, and not because we're in it.

I think the best way to get out of the first stage, is to score as many goals as possible and win every game. I don't see any reason, why that can't be realistic, looking at the past few years. I think it's a problem, to look beyond one game at a time though. That's why Ghana has been the entire focus of the program from the top down in leadership for so long.

For games, a win gets 3 points, a tie 1, and a loss 0. The 2 teams with the hightest number of points advances. If there is a tie, goal differencial is the first tie breaker. I believe the second tie breaker is total number of goals scored.

As a FYI, there can be a major difference between friedlies and qualifying/cup matches, depending on the timeing and circumstance. Oh, and any US vesus Mexico match is not friendly.

 

[UConnDan97]

The pitch in Manaus looks like a mess. Maybe all these CONCACAF away matches will finally pay off.

http://screamer.deadspin.com/three-days-out-the-world-cup-arena-in-manaus-is-a-disa-1589467690

Quite frankly, that is a friggin' embarrassment. It begs the question, "Why are they playing games in Manaus?" Or perhaps the better question is why they are playing in Brazil, but that's for a different day...

 

[SubbaBub]

Quite frankly, that is a friggin' embarrassment. It begs the question, "Why are they playing games in Manaus?" Or perhaps the better question is why they are playing in Brazil, but that's for a different day...

It's an advantage for the US as they regularly play on worse fields in the Caribbean. Jamaica and Trinidad coke immediately to mind. Playing in Europe, I doubt Portugal has done the same.

 

[meyers7]

That's amazing. 100% certainty? Let's go to Vegas and place some bets.

I doubt anyone (in Vegas) would take the other side of that bet.

Really - I guess I over-estimate our chances of winning games. I just don't think that we are so very much over-matched against the teams we will face.
Here - let me put ti this way - I don't think our A-game is such that we are overmatched with any of the teams in our group. I think that if there is a difference, and I'm sure there is - the difference comes when you start getting to the level's of "B-game, C-game, etc.)

I think we bring our A-game against any other country's A-game - we have good chance.

Yea, you are probably overestimating us. If we bring our A game against Portugal's or Germany's A game, we lose, 9 times out of 10 (the other a lucky draw) . If they bring their B or C game then we got a chance. I'd be ecstatic with a draw with them.

Ghana, I think we are as good as. That could go either way.

all we got to do is bring our A-game, all the time, and we will advance - I think. Easier said than done, obviously.

If we do that we have a chance to advance.

 

[Carl Spackler]

For games, a win gets 3 points, a tie 1, and a loss 0. The 2 teams with the hightest number of points advances. If there is a tie, goal differencial is the first tie breaker. I believe the second tie breaker is total number of goals scored.

As a FYI, there can be a major difference between friedlies and qualifying/cup matches, depending on the timeing and circumstance. Oh, and any US vesus Mexico match is not friendly.

I get that - that's why I think it's a good idea to score as many goals as possible. 4 teams - 3 games each. If one team goes undefeated - that's 9 points. I build my math from there. It's not possible for two teams to be undefeated in the group, so in that scenario - with one undefeated team, the next highest possible total is 6 points. If that second team has 6 points, it means they have beaten the other two teams. In that case, the remaining two teams are eliminated. They can't possibly have more than 6 points. The point scenarios complicate when you don't have an unbeaten, and start considering ties.

I can't conceive of a situation where you win 2 games and don't advance. Is it possible? I don't think so. Beat Ghana, and then we're on our way. One game at a time.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I doubt anyone (in Vegas) would take the other side of that bet.


Yea, you are probably overestimating us. If we bring our A game against Portugal's or Germany's A game, we lose, 9 times out of 10 (the other a lucky draw) . If they bring their B or C game then we got a chance. I'd be ecstatic with a draw with them.

Ghana, I think we are as good as. That could go either way.


If we do that we have a chance to advance.

So the question really is whether or not we have the talent and skill to compete with the level of competition on our schedule - yes?

(BTW: That's hardly unique to soccer as a sport, world cup or little league, or any other sport - that's always the question you have to ask if you want to have a chance at success - whatever, .)

I listened and watched to Klinsmann talk on ESPN the other day, as well as the players, and they told me that they have the ability to compete - and beat - the competition on the schedule and watched more soccer in the past few weeks and over the past year really, than ever, and I don't doubt them.

So to me, it's a matter of going out and winning, and I don't see any difference with any other country that is in this tournament.

I'm reminded of something a Dukie told me about Coach Krsygstan a long time ago. When preparing for the tournament, long long ago before any of his championship success - Coach K, put up a full bracket on the overhead projector - yeah one of those old things. Then he said you can't win this in one game. Then he progressively reduced the bracket on the overhead, making the same statement, until he got down just to Duke's first round matchup - and then he said to the team, we need to win this game, to advance. This game is all that matters. He's done essentially the same thing, every year since. True story.

Essentially, what Klinsmann has done with the USA soccer program in preparing for this world cup tournament, is the same thing. It got misinterpreted in the media - saying that winning the whole thing is not realistic - it's not realistic right now, just as winnign the entire NCAA championship is not realistic for Kryzewski at the first round of every tournmanet.

It's expectations that Klinsmann was talking about. Realistically, The USA is not at the point where it should be expected that they win the World Cup. Germany, Brazil, Italy, Argentina, etc....these are programs were expectations are such.

I think it's very realistic though, that we can beat Ghana, and that we can beat the others when we match up with them.

I'm getting myself really excited for a soccer game

Holy sh----t do we need winning football at UCONN again. LOL

 

[StevieDude]

Great start for Brazil. An own goal and some lights out in stadium

 

[DarthGrumpy]

No, 6 points gets a team to the next round; but, it could be as a 1 seed or a 2 seed.

For example, if the US and Germany are both undefeated going into the third game, both will want to win because the strong prefernece is to play 2H (maybe Russia) instead of 1H (Belgium). Plus, if Germany/US get past Belgium, that would likley get the winner a match with Argentina in the quarterfinals.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Great start for Brazil. An own goal and some lights out in stadium

And Brazil ties it on a shot the Croatian keeper should have been in postion to step considering how far away it was shot from. Anyone see the video from Copacabana? Many, that would be a fun place to be; though, I may injure my eye balls staring at the best Brazil has to offer

 

[whaler11]

I get that - that's why I think it's a good idea to score as many goals as possible. 4 teams - 3 games each. If one team goes undefeated - that's 9 points. I build my math from there. It's not possible for two teams to be undefeated in the group, so in that scenario - with one undefeated team, the next highest possible total is 6 points. If that second team has 6 points, it means they have beaten the other two teams. In that case, the remaining two teams are eliminated. They can't possibly have more than 6 points. The point scenarios complicate when you don't have an unbeaten, and start considering ties.

I can't conceive of a situation where you win 2 games and don't advance. Is it possible? I don't think so. Beat Ghana, and then we're on our way. One game at a time.

US Beats Ghana and Port
Port beats ghana and germany
Germany beats ghana and US

Someone with 6 points doesn't advance. Pretty simple.

 

[pepband99]

...and the FIFA fix is in. Didn't take long. That yellow was horrendous.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

70 minutes into the first game and the first dive and first BS call by the blind mice, PK and goal for Brazil.

 

[Carl Spackler]

US Beats Ghana and Port
Port beats ghana and germany
Germany beats ghana and US

Someone with 6 points doesn't advance. Pretty simple.

Never claimed math was my strong suit. Ha.

What did that player do wrong to get that Croatian goal waived off? I hope we get good officials.

 

[whaler11]

Never claimed math was my strong suit. Ha.

What did that player do wrong to get that Croatian goal waived off? I hope we get good officials.

There is no such thing as good officials.

 

[rich1122]

Croatia got jobbed.

 

[RioDog]

And Brazil ties it on a shot the Croatian keeper should have been in postion to step considering how far away it was shot from. Anyone see the video from Copacabana? Many, that would be a fun place to be; though, I may injure my eye balls staring at the best Brazil has to offer

Actually I think the distance from goal when Neymar struck the ball was actually a hindrance for the keeper- with intervening players it took him a moment to track the ball, and by then it was too late- I also believe that the ball was slightly deflected on its way toward the goal.

 

[RioDog]

Croatia got jobbed.

Wrong. The penalty should have been a no-call, but ultimately Brazil was gonna win that game. Croatia is tough and disciplined, but lack offensive firepower, as demonstrated by the fact that Brazil scored ALL of the goals in the game. Take away the bad calls and freak plays and that game goes to Brazil 2-0.

 

[RioDog]

Never claimed math was my strong suit. Ha.

What did that player do wrong to get that Croatian goal waived off? I hope we get good officials.

You mean the play where the Brazilian keeper had established position on the ball and the Croatian climbed over his back? Can't do it in hoops and you can't do it to a goalie in soccer. The "goal" was kicked after the whistle.

 

[UConnDan97]

Wrong. The penalty should have been a no-call, but ultimately Brazil was gonna win that game. Croatia is tough and disciplined, but lack offensive firepower, as demonstrated by the fact that Brazil scored ALL of the goals in the game. Take away the bad calls and freak plays and that game goes to Brazil 2-0.

How can you say "wrong" with a straight face? I'm being serious now. How can you say that, honestly? They were handed a goal that was not theirs to have, and Croatia had a goal removed that was not a foul. I'm not going to get into the Neymar yellow-red thing. I'm just going to talk about the two goals that were made / removed by the ref. That game likely would have ended a tie, and even if it didn't, it should have happened on its own merits and not the farce of a way that it did...

EDIT: Look where Olic's arms are. "Climbed" over Cesar, my a!!...

 

[SubbaBub]

No penalty kick.
Correct disallowing goal.
Third goal is garbage.

Brazil may have won, but a draw wouldn't have been a surprise until the PK.

 

[Mots010]

The penalty kick was a joke. The ref was just itching to call anything in the box. Brazil had barely mustered an attack in the second half and the game was on its way to a tie. The foul on the keeper on the other end seemed like a 50/50 ball that the Brazilian keeper muffed, but you'll see that one called a lot more than a guy flopping with his back to the goal.

On the other hand, the Croatian keeper was just brutal. He let up two awful goals.

 

[RioDog]

How can you say "wrong" with a straight face? I'm being serious now. How can you say that, honestly? They were handed a goal that was not theirs to have, and Croatia had a goal removed that was not a foul. I'm not going to get into the Neymar yellow-red thing. I'm just going to talk about the two goals that were made / removed by the ref. That game likely would have ended a tie, and even if it didn't, it should have happened on its own merits and not the farce of a way that it did...

EDIT: Look where Olic's arms are. "Climbed" over Cesar, my a!!...

Dan, I don't know if you watched the game but I did. If you're basing your view on a still photo I can't help you. You should watch the video. What he did to the goalie is a foul. There is no question. Again, barring bad calls and freak plays, that game is probably 2-0 Brazil, 1-0 at worst.

 

[RioDog]

The penalty kick was a joke. The ref was just itching to call anything in the box. Brazil had barely mustered an attack in the second half and the game was on its way to a tie. The foul on the keeper on the other end seemed like a 50/50 ball that the Brazilian keeper muffed, but you'll see that one called a lot more than a guy flopping with his back to the goal.

On the other hand, the Croatian keeper was just brutal. He let up two awful goals.

Bad call for sure, though I'm not sure how you could say (or know) the ref was "itching". The Croatian keeper seemed slow to react on the two goals, though I really think he his view was obstructed in both cases. I'm ceratin he didn't expect Oscar to take a shot when he did. That being said he damn near blocked Neymar's penalty kick.