OT: World Cup | Page 3 | The Boneyard

OT: World Cup

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Waquoit said:
Speaking of Hooters, did you catch the (male) Orange fan in the stands wearing the enormous fake (I assume) breasts under his shirts for some reason? He made the crowds shots a couple of times.
Expand ...

No and I am now certain that it was a good thing that I listened to the game on my way in to work this afternoon.
 
intlzncster said:
That is an obscene goal on so many levels. From the ball, to the run, to the diving header (resisting the natural urge to bring that ball down), to style of header itself--a chip shot just over the goalie and just under the cross bar.

That is one of the best goals I've seen. Straight out of EA FIFA.
Expand ...


I don't think he resisted the natural urge. I think he faked he was bringing the ball down to his feet. The keeper bit (as did I) and transferred his weight to his front foot anticipating going to ground and Van Persie sent it over while he was flat footed. The genius was to show the natural move and have the skill to do both sell it and skip it. Creativity and brilliance in about 2 seconds. My read anyway. Watch his hands flare out like he is softening his chest to drop it to the feet. The equivalent of a look away in our game.
 
UcannUconn said:
Only in soccer can you sit there for 3 hours to see a 0-0 tie and people claim it was a great game. To attract the american viewer they will need to make some changes to the off side rule and possibly make the field smaller... game is just too boring compared to the 4 major sports here. Its a joke the people in the us dont even watch the games but claim to root for the country their great grandfather was from instead of their own country.
Expand ...

And yet you take the time to post your completely unoriginal opinion in this thread.

Go back to defending Donald Sterling.
 
UcannUconn said:
Only in soccer can you sit there for 3 hours to see a 0-0 tie and people claim it was a great game. To attract the american viewer they will need to make some changes to the off side rule and possibly make the field smaller... game is just too boring compared to the 4 major sports here. Its a joke the people in the us dont even watch the games but claim to root for the country their great grandfather was from instead of their own country.
Expand ...
but watching 3 hours of baseball at 0-0 is better or 3 hours of football when a play lasts for 6 seconds for negative yards and the final score is 9-6 is better... and thats why the game is great is because it's not americanized, they tried that with the way the mls took their pks years ago, they do it with the playoff format which is not like how the rest of the world does it... the offside rule is great as is the size of the field... stop wanting it to be like the xfl
 
UcannUconn said:
Only in soccer can you sit there for 3 hours to see a 0-0 tie and people claim it was a great game. To attract the american viewer they will need to make some changes to the off side rule and possibly make the field smaller... game is just too boring compared to the 4 major sports here. Its a joke the people in the us dont even watch the games but claim to root for the country their great grandfather was from instead of their own country.
Expand ...

Recognizing MLS play is experiencing ongoing improvement and the league attracts the 7th or 8th hughest paid attendance of any league globally, and the US has rising TV ratings for international matches, non-US leagues, and MLS games alike (in English and Spanish), facts simply do not support your perspective. Not liking soccer is OK, and exaggerated NBA-ish/ Duke-ish flopping is rubbish, but shrinking the field is simply ridiculous with absolutely no sound reasoning, the offside rules are fine when called appropriately (similar to good versus bad refereeing in other major sports), etc. It's really OK some people who dislike the sport will always find fault, but getting the facts straight really enhances an opinion. Otherwise, it opens opportunities for comparison with the likes of Ken Krayeske.

Finding baseball or NBA hoops painfully boring does not stop many people, including Yanks, from enjoying the positives of soccer any different than some appreciate a 1-0 pitchers' duo, a low-scoring hockey game, or 7-3 gridiron football games. Similarly, some people enjoy minimal defense NBA games.

Some soccer games suck, but for those with a fair amount of knowledge even a low or no scoring games can be highly entertaining. That doesn't mean everyone will enjoy the sport more or less than everyone will enjoy jazz, classical, rap, or country western music; Turkish, Brazilian, Sichuan, or South African food, red, white, rose, or rice wine, etc. Differing tastes, factual information, and getting the facts straight, are still helpful in any subjective interpretation.
 
Last edited:
.-.
Fifa is to blame for diving..full stop.

If the players knew that they could face a 3 game ban for diving in the box, they would not do it. Right now, the risk/ reward of diving is so skewed, it begs for players to do it.

Win the match for my country/club or a yellow card?

Fifa uses video technology post match on all red cards to determine a 1 match- 3 match ban. They could do the same for all pks given in the box.

And a note to refs..if a player rolls around 125489631225478 times...he isn't really hurt....just walk over to him on roll number ,say 8 or 9 and give him the yellow for unsportsmanlike behavior...the shit would stop too.
 
uconnjunkie said:
Fifa is to blame for diving..full stop.

If the players knew that they could face a 3 game ban for diving in the box, they would not do it. Right now, the risk/ reward of diving is so skewed, it begs for players to do it.

Win the match for my country/club or a yellow card?

Fifa uses video technology post match on all red cards to determine a 1 match- 3 match ban. They could do the same for all pks given in the box.

And a note to refs..if a player rolls around 125489631225478 times...he isn't really hurt....just walk over to him on roll number ,say 8 or 9 and give him the yellow for unsportsmanlike behavior...the would stop too.
Expand ...
thats a much better idea for the diving than stopping and doing replay during the game... will players still do it, of course but not as many and once that player gets a ban the others will notice... the slow motion replay makes things seem a lot worse than they are
 
UcannUconn said:
Its a terrible spectator sport.
Expand ...

It's a great spectator sport. It hasn't succumbed to TV timeouts. You get 90+ minutes of play in less than 2 hours. As opposed to football and baseball where it takes over 3 hours to get about 11 minutes of action. It's your loss. If you enjoyed soccer you would be having a great month.
 
Waquoit said:
It's a great spectator sport. It hasn't succumbed to TV timeouts. You get 90+ minutes of play in less than 2 hours. As opposed to football and baseball where it takes over 3 hours to get about 11 minutes of action. It's your loss. If you enjoyed soccer you would be having a great month.
Expand ...
 
.-.
The American referee in this Greece-Colombia match has done a great job ignoring dives. If more referees call games like that, it'll help. It looked like Greece was legitimately clipped (slightly) outside the box around the 60th minute, but after all the embellishment, he didn't give it. And the Greek forward gave up an opportunity by falling down.
 
Gurleyman said:
The American referee in this Greece-Colombia match has done a great job ignoring dives. If more referees call games like that, it'll help. It looked like Greece was legitimately clipped (slightly) outside the box around the 60th minute, but after all the embellishment, he didn't give it. And the Greek forward gave up an opportunity by falling down.
Expand ...
up until the second goal i felt Greece was the better team, Columbia had some moments but Greece was the most consistent and created more chances
 
Belgium and Colombia are my dark horses. Feeling pretty good about Colombia after that result.
 
Da_Aisijimo_Gou said:
Recognizing MLS play is experiencing ongoing improvement and the league attracts the 7th or 8th hughest paid attendance of any league globally, and the US has rising TV ratings for international matches, non-US leagues, and MLS games alike (in English and Spanish), facts simply do not support your perspective. Not liking soccer is OK, and exaggerated NBA-ish/ Duke-ish flopping is rubbish, but shrinking the field is simply ridiculous with absolutely no sound reasoning, the offside rules are fine when called appropriately (similar to good versus bad refereeing in other major sports), etc. It's really OK some people who dislike the sport will always find fault, but getting the facts straight really enhances an opinion. Otherwise, it opens opportunities for comparison with the likes of Ken Krayeske.
Expand ...

Shrinking the field might be the worst soccer 'improvement' I've ever heard.
 
.-.
FIFA, much like MLB, is very tradition-driven and is very reluctant to make changes to the rules or to how the matches are officiated. They take pride that a match amongst two teams of teenagers in Africa has the same rules and roster of officiating crew as the World Cup.

I agree that it should change and goal scoring is infrequent enough that instant replay could be incorporated.
I would like to see the yellow card more readily enforced for flopping but IMHO the degree of impact from penalties also needs to change. I would like to see a sendoff similar to hockey, where a player receiving a 2nd yellow or less egregious red is gone from the game but his position is out for an interval of time, say 10 minutes and a more egregious red (deliberate head butt or dangerous foul) would be out for a longer period of time.
It is a beautiful game and the flow is very attractive to spectators. The goals in Italy v. England have been of the highest quality.
 
I want to comment on the "low scoring equals boring" criticism of soccer, since I hear it in so many venues from fellow Americans. It's a ridiculous statement, and the main reason why it's ridiculous is because it's often made by football fans who would rather see scores of 21-7 a lot more than 3-1.

But here's the catch: Let's take a soccer goal, and award the same amount of points as a touchdown (including extra point, which are rarely missed). Today's results would have been:

Colombia 21 - Greece 0
Costa Rica 21 - Uruguay 7
Italy 14 - England 7
Japan 7 - Ivory Coast 0 (first half)

Is soccer any more exciting, now that I've treated it like football? And here's the better experiment. Let's just award 1 point for a touchdown. Is football any more boring if it ends 3 - 1? It's just such a dumb argument...
 
So far there have been an average of 3.5 goals scored per match.
Only 2 teams have failed to score.
Zero draws.
 
Today the Greatest Player in the world takes the pitch
 
.-.
Da_Aisijimo_Gou said:
the offside rules are fine when called appropriately
Expand ...
The offside rule is silly, arbitrary, leads to the defense attempting to form lines in the back row to "catch" the offense offsides rather than simply playing D, is very difficult to call because it requires visualization of two places at once, and takes away from the game.

Better would be to get rid of the offsides rule entirely, or, if offsides is absolutely desired to avoid goal sitting, make it a hockey style line.

Having the offsides line depend on where the defenders are standing takes away from the game.

I recognize that stalwarts will defend it because "that's the way the game is played and I am a purist," but it detracts from the game.
 
Strummer said:
The offside rule is silly, arbitrary, leads to the defense attempting to form lines in the back row to "catch" the offense offsides rather than simply playing D, is very difficult to call because it requires visualization of two places at once, and takes away from the game.

Better would be to get rid of the offsides rule entirely, or, if offsides is absolutely desired to avoid goal sitting, make it a hockey style line.

Having the offsides line depend on where the defenders are standing takes away from the game.

I recognize that stalwarts will defend it because "that's the way the game is played and I am a purist," but it detracts from the game.
Expand ...
it's strategy, when executed correctly it works very well... it's dangerous because if a defender is slow stepping up then they're screwed... do you realize how stupid, sloppy, and ugly the game would be if there was no offisides? same thing with having lines in hockey... the field is bigger with more players, the offisides moves with the game so instead of having your forwards standing on a line waiting for a ball, they have to move with the defense, make runs, check to the ball etc. offsides can be within the six yard box all the way to a step before half field, it moves with the game
 
Strummer said:
The offside rule is silly, arbitrary, leads to the defense attempting to form lines in the back row to "catch" the offense offsides rather than simply playing D, is very difficult to call because it requires visualization of two places at once, and takes away from the game. Better would be to get rid of the offsides rule entirely, or, if offsides is absolutely desired to avoid goal sitting, make it a hockey style line. Having the offsides line depend on where the defenders are standing takes away from the game. I recognize that stalwarts will defend it because "that's the way the game is played and I am a purist," but it detracts from the game.
Expand ...

A lot of soccer in-game strategy is territorial. You want to own more of the territory so that you can get more of your players forward, so the idea is to pinch your back line up the field and shorten the yardage that you have to cover defensively. The further up you get the offsides line, the further forward your midfielders can go and get into the offensive attack. If there's automatically 80 yards of space for midfielders to cover, they won't move forward since there will be a huge amount of space for the other team to work with between the midfield and the defense, and their first responsibility would be to defend that area. When teams don't trust their back four to handle the speed of the other team, they don't push forward with their offsides line and sit back and play 9 or 10 behind the ball, which is indeed boring soccer, but that's the way just about everyone would play with no offsides.

The rules also reward speed from your strikers and attacking midfielders. With no offsides line, you would see more lumbering unathletic types who could camp out right around the box for 90 minutes.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,326
Messages
4,564,185
Members
10,462
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom