Since a lot of people watch the World Cup but not club soccer/football, I thought I'd create a separate thread.
Normally, we'd be about 10 weeks out from the beginning of the group stage, but with summer temperatures in Qatar unsuitable for any sort of outdoor activity, this year's competition will be held in November-December.
Qualifying is just about wrapped up, with 27 of the 32 spots already secured from the following confederations:
UEFA: Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Croatia, England, Germany, Portugal, Poland
AFC: Qatar (hosts), Iran, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Japan
CONMEBOL: Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay
CAF: Ghana, Senegal, Tunisia, Morocco, Cameroon
CONCACAF: Canada
There are 13 teams vying for the final five spots:
CONCACAF: Two spots will be secured tomorrow, with the US and Mexico almost certain to be those teams. Costa Rica would need a huge win over the US tomorrow to qualify directly, but most likely they are headed to a June playoff in Qatar with an OFC team.
OFC: New Zealand and the Solomon Islands play tomorrow, with the winner in that June playoff with a CONCACAF team
CONMEBOL: With the final matchday tomorrow; Peru, Columbia and Chile are all alive for a spot in a June playoff with an AFC team.
AFC: Australia and the UAE will play in June to determine who advances to face a CONMEBOL team.
UEFA: The playoff involving Ukraine has been postponed for obvious reasons, with Ukraine now scheduled to face Scotland in June, with the winner playing Wales for the final spot.
Also important to detail that 6,500 migrant workers from South Asia (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022) have died in Qatar since December 2011. 37 of them were related to stadium construction, but the organizing committee classified all but three as being "non-work related". Given that these migrant workers are barely allowed to leave their overcrowded accommodations, this is extremely suspect.
Not particularly excited about this edition, given the situation. The winter timing has already knocked around the schedules for leagues, with MLS having to kick off in February to compensate for the loss of their expected November playoff slots. 2026 will at least be a normal one.
I'm not a big soccer fan but I wish it wasn't held in a medieval era state with slavery and awful human rights.
Quote from: Bruce on March 30, 2022, 01:09:23 AM
Also important to detail that 6,500 migrant workers from South Asia (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022) have died in Qatar since December 2011. 37 of them were related to stadium construction, but the organizing committee classified all but three as being "non-work related". Given that these migrant workers are barely allowed to leave their overcrowded accommodations, this is extremely suspect.
Not particularly excited about this edition, given the situation. The winter timing has already knocked around the schedules for leagues, with MLS having to kick off in February to compensate for the loss of their expected November playoff slots. 2026 will at least be a normal one.
I agree that there are a lot of really bad things about how we got to playing in Qatar in November, but the players worked very hard to get there so I'm going to watch them anyway.
I'm excited to watch Canada in the world cup. It'll be the first time in my lifetime that they're in it!
The late November-early December timing is pretty lame though. The world cup has such a summer vibe for me and watching it during the cold gloomy period in Ontario won't feel right. And of course, as others have mentioned, Qatar is a shit country that shouldn't have been awarded the honours in the first place.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 29, 2022, 06:30:16 PM
CONMEBOL: With the final matchday tomorrow; Peru, Columbia and Chile are all alive for a spot in a June playoff with an AFC team.
Those games were yesterday. Peru beat Paraguay 2-0 to advance by 1 point over Colombia. Peru now has the intercontinental playoff for the second year in a row and will play either UAE or Australia.
Side note, I kind of hope we lose 5-0 tonight to Costa Rica by us kicking it into our own goal 5 times in injury time. That way we still qualify, and, if Mexico loses, they're in the playoff against (likely) New Zealand.
One of the things that bugs me about Qatar that isn't the slave labour and appalling worker safety, or the bribery and corruption, is that they do not have enough cities to host a 32-team World Cup.
I believe there is normally a rule banning a city from having more than 2 stadiums in a city. Even if you ignore that 3 of the 5 cities are basically suburbs of a 4th, one of those 5 cities has 3 of the 8 stadiums. Really though we're looking at a city with 7 stadiums and one not far away with 1.
Russia had 12 stadiums in 11 cities. Brazil and Germany both had 12 stadiums in 12 cities. South Africa had 10 stadiums in 9 cities. Japan and South Korea had 20 stadiums in 20 venues.
Multiple games happening on the same day in a (not huge) Metropolitan area is not good for logistics, security. When they do stuff like the EPL schedule, they will make sure the only place with two games on the same day is London (because there's too many teams to be able to block that) and even then they try hard to make sure that geographically close games are not chronologically close. And UEFA try and make sure there's not two Champions League games in the same city on the same night. All that's out the window here.
On the other hand, why should they categorically ban smaller countries from hosting the World Cup just because of a preference for spreading it out more?
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2022, 04:41:50 PM
On the other hand, why should they categorically ban smaller countries from hosting the World Cup just because of a preference for spreading it out more?
Small countries can always jointly host with another country. Qatar could have done a joint bid with Saudi Arabia.
There has rightfully been a ton of controversy surrounding this tournament. However, what annoys me with people who loudly and proudly claim they're not going to watch is that if your basis for not watching this WC is humanitarian/racial/discrimination/safety/corruption issues in Qatar, you should be thinking about whether watching certain other sports/competitions meets those standards. European club soccer for example is chock-full of corruption, and many of the big teams are owned by the same Middle Eastern oil giants that essentially bought the tournament to Qatar.
While it's much more logical for the tournament to be in the summer, it's going to be fun to be able to watch the World Cup and the NFL, the pinnacles of my two favorite sports to watch, on the same day.
As expected, Mexico and the US wrapped up their spots tonight, bringing the total number of qualified teams to 29:
UEFA: Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Croatia, England, Germany, Portugal, Poland
AFC: Qatar (hosts), Iran, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Japan
CONMEBOL: Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay
CAF: Ghana, Senegal, Tunisia, Morocco, Cameroon
CONCACAF: Canada, Mexicao, USA
The final three spots will get decided in June:
AFC Playoff: Australia vs UAE, with the winner advancing to the AFC-CONMEBOL playoff against Peru
CONCACAF-OFC playoff: Costa Rica vs New Zealand
UEFA Playoff: Scotland vs Ukraine, with the winner playing Wales
The draw for the group stage will be Friday. Teams are placed into four pots based on FIFA rankings updated to include today's matches.
The hosts, Qatar, go into Pot 1 along with the seven highest ranked qualified teams: BRA, BEL, FRA, ARG, ENG, ESP, POR
Next eight highest ranked qualified teams go into Pot 2: NED, GER, MEX, USA, DEN, SUI, CRO, URU
Next eight highest ranked qualified teams go into Pot 3: SEN, IRN, JAP, MAR, SRB, POL, KOR, TUN
Lowest ranked qualified teams go into Pot 4: CAN, CMR, ECU, KSA, GHA
The three June playoff winners will also go into Pot 4.
As hosts, Qatar are placed into Group A. The rest of the Pot 1 teams are randomly drawn into groups B-H.
Then the Pot 2 teams are randomly drawn into groups A-H, and the same for Pot 3, then Pot 4.
There can be no more than 2 European teams per group, and no more than 1 from any other confederation.
If you want to know what the dream draw for the US or Mexico would be, it would be getting drawn into Group A with Qatar, Poland and Ghana. To make it even better, looking ahead to the knockout round, it would include Croatia, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia in Group B, and Portugal heading Group C.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2022, 04:41:50 PMOn the other hand, why should they categorically ban smaller countries from hosting the World Cup just because of a preference for spreading it out more?
It's only a preference if you think safe, secure and well-run events are optional. I know that having a World Cup in Qatar has already compromised that, but...
Co-hosted competitions are perfectly possible and are fairly common (Euro 2000, ACN 2000, WC 2002, Gold Cup 2003, Asian Cup 2008, ACN 2012, Gold Cup 2015, Gold Cup 2019, Euro 2020). And likely the norm in the future World Cups - FIFA going 48 teams has basically ruled out all but the very biggest countries from sensibly being able to host it alone.
The USA didn't think they could go it alone. England felt it needed some help to do it (though that 5-association bid is now for Euro 2028). Spain feels it needs to do a joint bid with Portugal. All three of those are big enough to have the 16 stadiums necessary, but felt that their smaller neighbours helping out would make it easier.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 30, 2022, 04:43:10 PMSmall countries can always jointly host with another country. Qatar could have done a joint bid with Saudi Arabia.
I think politics would have stopped that as there's some beef between those countries.
Quote from: english si on March 31, 2022, 09:20:25 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 30, 2022, 04:41:50 PMOn the other hand, why should they categorically ban smaller countries from hosting the World Cup just because of a preference for spreading it out more?
It's only a preference if you think safe, secure and well-run events are optional. I know that having a World Cup in Qatar has already compromised that, but...
Co-hosted competitions are perfectly possible and are fairly common (Euro 2000, ACN 2000, WC 2002, Gold Cup 2003, Asian Cup 2008, ACN 2012, Gold Cup 2015, Gold Cup 2019, Euro 2020). And likely the norm in the future World Cups - FIFA going 48 teams has basically ruled out all but the very biggest countries from sensibly being able to host it alone.
The USA didn't think they could go it alone. England felt it needed some help to do it (though that 5-association bid is now for Euro 2028). Spain feels it needs to do a joint bid with Portugal. All three of those are big enough to have the 16 stadiums necessary, but felt that their smaller neighbours helping out would make it easier.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 30, 2022, 04:43:10 PMSmall countries can always jointly host with another country. Qatar could have done a joint bid with Saudi Arabia.
I think politics would have stopped that as there's some beef between those countries.
The US certainly could have done it alone. Probably the only country that could actually do a 48 team tournament without crowding too many games into a single city. There are plenty of cities that could host games that aren't in 2026. Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit to name a few. I think the joint bid was a way to make the bid stronger, and to give Mexico and Canada a chance to host where they otherwise never would be able to.
As for Qatar/KSA, yeah, that was a bad example of a possible joint bid. But then, if Qatar can't get along with their neighbor, maybe that's another sign they shouldn't be hosting.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 31, 2022, 09:08:57 AMGroup A with Qatar, Poland and Ghana.
Still pretty hard. The Asian champions, and two other decent sides.
I'd suggest England (who find the US a bogey team at World Cups), Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia (both of whom perform poorly at World Cups in general) would be the dream draw for the US.
We'd very happily take that group too, though we'd prefer Mexico from that very solid second pot as last time England was in a group with the US, the US won the group.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 31, 2022, 09:28:37 AMThe US certainly could have done it alone. Probably the only country that could actually do a 48 team tournament without crowding too many games into a single city. There are plenty of cities that could host games that aren't in 2026. Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit to name a few. I think the joint bid was a way to make the bid stronger, and to give Mexico and Canada a chance to host where they otherwise never would be able to.
Mexico has hosted 2 World Cups before - it's not like they wouldn't otherwise have never been able to (and they could have done a Central American joint bid as an alternative way of hosting). But yes - the US could have held 2026 alone (I said as much).
Several cities, including Chicago, withdrew their bid to host games. And some were offered a chance to bid (eg Green Bay) but were uninterested and so didn't bother. There's 17 candidates from the US in final selection. That wouldn't have given the organisers much choice (just dropping one) if it wasn't for the 5 candidates from the other two countries.
Quote from: english si on March 31, 2022, 09:40:34 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 31, 2022, 09:08:57 AMGroup A with Qatar, Poland and Ghana.
Still pretty hard. The Asian champions, and two other decent sides.
I'd suggest England (who find the US a bogey team at World Cups), Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia (both of whom perform poorly at World Cups in general) would be the dream draw for the US.
We'd very happily take that group too, though we'd prefer Mexico from that very solid second pot as last time England was in a group with the US, the US won the group.
Yes, England has a lame WC history but so does Portugal and right now England is a lot better than Portugal, so if the US doesn't draw Qatar, Portugal would be the second choice from Pot 1. I agree that England would rather get Mexico than the US.
Pretty much the usual suspects in pots 1 and 2, minus Germany being in pot 2 rather than 1 (and obviously Qatar).
For the US, I'd say a group stage exit would be a disappointment, round of 16 is expected, and quarterfinals/beyond would be a very nice surprise.
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 31, 2022, 09:54:24 AM
Quote from: english si on March 31, 2022, 09:40:34 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on March 31, 2022, 09:08:57 AMGroup A with Qatar, Poland and Ghana.
Still pretty hard. The Asian champions, and two other decent sides.
I'd suggest England (who find the US a bogey team at World Cups), Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia (both of whom perform poorly at World Cups in general) would be the dream draw for the US.
We'd very happily take that group too, though we'd prefer Mexico from that very solid second pot as last time England was in a group with the US, the US won the group.
Yes, England has a lame WC history but so does Portugal and right now England is a lot better than Portugal, so if the US doesn't draw Qatar, Portugal would be the second choice from Pot 1. I agree that England would rather get Mexico than the US.
Honestly, I would rather the US draw Portugal than Qatar. The hype and publicity around a US vs. Ronaldo game would be nuts, and would do so much to grow the game here in the states. Qatar would be a much easier victory, but easy victories are not what this young team needs - they need a couple of "real" World Cup matches against elite opponents to help set them up for the 2026 tournament and beyond. And we outplayed Portugal in 2014. While this Portugal team is more talented, the style hasn't changed much, and they still can't figure out who else is going to score besides Ronaldo.
Bruno Fernandes has a pretty decent goal scoring record for country.
I'll take Argentina from Pot A. I'd love us to play Messi. We already played Ronaldo and completely outplayed them until allowing a stupid equalizer at the end.
Quote from: english si on March 31, 2022, 09:40:34 AM
....
We'd very happily take that group too, though we'd prefer Mexico from that very solid second pot as last time England was in a group with the US, the US won the group.
That was a fine example of a variant on the sportscaster's jinx:
(https://www.si.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_300/MTY4MjU5OTkzOTMwMTgwNDgx/image-placeholder-title.webp)
As a reminder: The general schedule for the World Cup will have matches between 2 am and 1 pm Pacific / 5 am and 4 pm Eastern. Not going to be an easy time for those of us who aren't morning people.
https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/2022-world-cup-schedule-dates-and-times-in-usa-and-canada
Quote from: Bruce on March 31, 2022, 01:41:28 PM
As a reminder: The general schedule for the World Cup will have matches between 2 am and 1 pm Pacific / 5 am and 4 pm Eastern. Not going to be an easy time for those of us who aren't morning people.
https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/2022-world-cup-schedule-dates-and-times-in-usa-and-canada
So on Saturday 11/26, I can wake up at 4am, watch 3 WC games, then watch 3 college FB games. I'm gonna try that.
During the 2002 World Cup, I set my alarm clock for 1:45 AM for the USA—Mexico game, got up and watched it, and went back to bed for two or three hours afterwards. But that was one game and I was 20 years younger. Not sure how I'll do this time around.
IIRC, for the group stage, they try to slot games in a way that maximizes TV audiences, so they'll as much as the draw allows, they'll put Asian and Oceania team into the earliest games and North/South American games into the later ones.
Quote from: Bruce on March 31, 2022, 01:41:28 PM
As a reminder: The general schedule for the World Cup will have matches between 2 am and 1 pm Pacific / 5 am and 4 pm Eastern. Not going to be an easy time for those of us who aren't morning people.
https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/2022-world-cup-schedule-dates-and-times-in-usa-and-canada
But not so bad for those of us in the right time zone.
Quote from: Alps on March 31, 2022, 06:04:15 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 31, 2022, 01:41:28 PM
As a reminder: The general schedule for the World Cup will have matches between 2 am and 1 pm Pacific / 5 am and 4 pm Eastern. Not going to be an easy time for those of us who aren't morning people.
https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/2022-world-cup-schedule-dates-and-times-in-usa-and-canada
But not so bad for those of us in the right time zone.
I was told recently that East Coasters want permanent DST because they regularly sleep past 8am, so this will be rough for them too
US has drawn into group B, headed by England. The US-England game will be on Friday 11/25 (day after Thanksgiving). Other two games will be Monday 11/21 against Wales/Scotland/Ukraine and Tuesday 11/29 against Iran.
Tough draw for the US, but also pretty funny that there will be several Group B matches with some, uh, history. US/England, US/Iran, potentially England/Scotland, England/Wales, or Ukraine ends up in a group with two major NATO countries. We're no doubt the second best team in the group, but there won't be any easy wins.
Saudi Arabia is going to be a punching bag. Oh no, so sad.
Iran might be a better team than you'd expect.
Canada got a fairly difficult draw, but even if they do escape to the knockout rounds they'll have to play a team from the Group of Death.
My guess for advancing teams in bold.
Group A
Qatar
Ecuador
Netherlands
Senegal
Group B
England
United States
Iran
Ukraine/Scotland/Wales
Group C
Argentina
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Poland
Group D
France
UAE/Australia/Peru
Denmark
Tunisia
Group E
Spain
Costa Rica/New Zealand
Germany
Japan
Group F
Belgium
Canada
Morocco
Croatia
Group G
Brazil
Serbia
Switzerland
Cameroon
Group H
Portugal
Ghana
Uruguay
South Korea
Not too many upsets. It seems like other than group A, C, & H there are two teams clearly better than the others.
I'll save my official picks for when the 32 teams are set.
Quote from: thspfc on April 01, 2022, 02:35:15 PM
I'll save my official picks for when the 32 teams are set.
I obviously reserve the right to change if there are injuries, etc., but I don't think I'll pick any of the play-in teams. Maybe an inspired Ukraine side would be bad for us?
A1 Netherlands B2 England
C1 Argentina D2 Denmark
E1 Germany F2 Canada
G1 Brazil H2 Portugal
B1 USA A2 Qatar
D1 France C2 Mexico
F1 Belgium E2 Spain
H1 Uruguay G2 Switzerland
England
Argentina
Germany
Brazil
USA
France
Belgium
Uruguay
Argentina
Brazil
France
Belgium
Argentina
France
France
Quote from: thspfc on April 01, 2022, 01:31:53 PM
Tough draw for the US, but also pretty funny that there will be several Group B matches with some, uh, history. US/England, US/Iran, potentially England/Scotland, England/Wales, or Ukraine ends up in a group with two major NATO countries. We're no doubt the second best team in the group, but there won't be any easy wins.
Saudi Arabia is going to be a punching bag. Oh no, so sad.
It may affect my outlook if Wales makes it with Gareth Bale. USA could end up third for fun
Game times have been assigned for all matches. Here is the full US schedule (times EST):
Monday 11/21: USA vs Wales/Ukraine/Scotland 2:00 p.m.
Friday 11/25: England vs USA 2:00 p.m.
Tuesday 11/29: Iran vs USA 2:00 p.m.
The US and Ecuador from group A are the only Western Hemisphere teams playing on those days, and with the US having by far the larger TV audience it's no surprise the US got the latest time slot each day.
If the US advances as group B runners-up, they will play the Group A winners on Saturday 12/3 at 10:00 a.m.
If the US advances as group B winners, they will play the Group A runners-up on Sunday 12/4 at 2:00 p.m.
In either path, a potential quarterfinal would be on Friday 12/9.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 02, 2022, 09:09:59 AM
Friday 11/25: England vs USA 2:00 p.m.
That day, of course, is Black Friday - a day when there are usually several nationally televised college football games in the 3:30 Eastern (2:30 Central) time slot. The competition for TV audiences will be intense...
Or maybe this year, the college football games that would usually be played on Black Friday will take place on the Saturday instead. What do you think?
Quote from: KCRoadFan on April 03, 2022, 01:26:54 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 02, 2022, 09:09:59 AM
Friday 11/25: England vs USA 2:00 p.m.
That day, of course, is Black Friday - a day when there are usually several nationally televised college football games in the 3:30 Eastern (2:30 Central) time slot. The competition for TV audiences will be intense...
Or maybe this year, the college football games that would usually be played on Black Friday will take place on the Saturday instead. What do you think?
With a 2 pm start, football could push back to 4:30
Quote from: Alps on April 03, 2022, 02:01:28 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on April 03, 2022, 01:26:54 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 02, 2022, 09:09:59 AM
Friday 11/25: England vs USA 2:00 p.m.
That day, of course, is Black Friday - a day when there are usually several nationally televised college football games in the 3:30 Eastern (2:30 Central) time slot. The competition for TV audiences will be intense...
Or maybe this year, the college football games that would usually be played on Black Friday will take place on the Saturday instead. What do you think?
With a 2 pm start, football could push back to 4:30
FOX obviously needs to push their games back as they are broadcasting the World Cup, but I doubt ESPN/ABC or CBS alter their schedules at all.
Ukraine just defeated Scotland 3-1 to advance to a match Sunday against Wales, with that winner joining the US, England and Iran in Group B.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 01, 2022, 04:44:17 PM
Ukraine just defeated Scotland 3-1 to advance to a match Sunday against Wales, with that winner joining the US, England and Iran in Group B.
Imagine the scenes of angry Europeans on Twitter if the US beats Ukraine. Because we can't manage to separate sports and politics for one month.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on April 03, 2022, 08:22:27 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 03, 2022, 02:01:28 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on April 03, 2022, 01:26:54 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 02, 2022, 09:09:59 AM
Friday 11/25: England vs USA 2:00 p.m.
That day, of course, is Black Friday - a day when there are usually several nationally televised college football games in the 3:30 Eastern (2:30 Central) time slot. The competition for TV audiences will be intense...
Or maybe this year, the college football games that would usually be played on Black Friday will take place on the Saturday instead. What do you think?
With a 2 pm start, football could push back to 4:30
FOX obviously needs to push their games back as they are broadcasting the World Cup, but I doubt ESPN/ABC or CBS alter their schedules at all.
FOX often broadcasts Big10 games such as Iowa vs Nebraska on Black Friday. This year, the Huskers schedule says its on BTN instead of the local FOX station. Keep in mind, FOX often broadcasts Pac-12 games in the later Black Friday afternoon timeslot, so that 430PM EST time would be ok for them.
How FOX positions those World Cup games this year...will be rather interesting. Then again, FIFA was nice enough to give FOX the US/Canada/Mexico hosted 2026 World Cup (with 48 teams instead of 32) because of this year's scheduling issue. Little did they know that when they granted the rights extension in 2015, they would be letting FOX and Telemundo broadcast 16 extra games and pay essentially nothing for it.
cool to see argentina see off italy so easily last night. biggest surprise is another clean sheet. good to see dybala back involved aswell.
There were several shaky moments on defense that required Matt Turner to work harder than anybody wanted, but the offense looked better than it has in a long time with two absolutely fantastic goals plus a penalty in the US 3-0 friendly win over Morocco, who is no slouch at #24 in the FIFA rankings. #13 Uruguay is up Sunday, later in the day after the historic Wales-Ukraine match.
Wales ended Ukraine's emotional story with a 1-0 win today. Wales will join the US, Iran and England in Group B.
US with a scoreless draw against Uruguay, three days after Uruguay stomped Mexico 3-0.
that was a big win for argentina against italy. messi was all over the pitch and resembled his old self but with pressing.
The last two World Cup spots will be clinched in the next few days:
Australia will play Peru and Costa Rica will play New Zealand.
I'll take both the Spanish speaking countries.
Oh wow the World Cup isn't until November, just noticed that :spin:
Quote from: ET21 on June 13, 2022, 03:26:01 PM
Oh wow the World Cup isn't until November, just noticed that :spin:
You can thank Qatar for buying all the FIFA higher ups. The corruption in that organization is amazing. :-|
Normally the World Cup would be running now. But since this year it's played in Hell, they are waiting for that to cool down a bit.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 13, 2022, 03:49:08 PM
Normally the World Cup would be running now. But since this year it's played in Hell, they are waiting for that to cool down a bit.
To be fair, even if the US had won the right to host in 2022, the temperatures wouldn't be much better in many cities. (Doha is currently in the 90s, but will be in the 110s soon)
https://twitter.com/pkedit/status/1536424648841175041
Climatology is the name of the game here though, since it's obviously impossible to forecast years in advance. Most of the US is currently in the grips of an unusually strong heat wave. Average highs in July in all of those cities:
Dallas 96.9
Houston 92.9
Kansas City 90.2
Monterrey 94.6
Denver 89.9
Nashville 90.9
--
Doha 107.4F
Also, despite its desert location, the humidity in Qatar is extremely high. Apparently the dew point there is 82 as I type this - even in the most humid parts of the US, dew points rarely ever get much over 80. Being right next to a warm shallow tropical sea will do that.
Australia is in. Peru is out.
Ended in a PK shootout right after Australia changed their goalkeeper. That gamble paid off.
https://twitter.com/FIFAWorldCup/status/1536452327179173890
Perhaps also worth noting that of the cities in the running to host games in 2026, the following all have either indoor or retractable-roof venues: Vancouver, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta.
But it's interesting, I recall one of the complaints some of the Europeans, as well as some of the American stooge fans who blindly follow whatever the Europeans say and do, had about the World Cup being held in the USA was the heat and humidity you get in June and July here.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 13, 2022, 05:27:27 PM
But it's interesting, I recall one of the complaints some of the Europeans, as well as some of the American stooge fans who blindly follow whatever the Europeans say and do, had about the World Cup being held in the USA was the heat and humidity you get in June and July here.
Europeans gotta find
something wrong with the US-hosted tournament. Nobody was complaining about heat when it was in Brazil.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 13, 2022, 12:09:41 PM
The last two World Cup spots will be clinched in the next few days:
Australia will play Peru and Costa Rica will play New Zealand.
I'll take both the Spanish speaking countries.
I was neutral on Australia/Peru. I'd root NZ over CR.
Quote from: Bruce on June 13, 2022, 04:12:11 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 13, 2022, 03:49:08 PM
Normally the World Cup would be running now. But since this year it's played in Hell, they are waiting for that to cool down a bit.
To be fair, even if the US had won the right to host in 2022, the temperatures wouldn't be much better in many cities. (Doha is currently in the 90s, but will be in the 110s soon)
https://twitter.com/pkedit/status/1536424648841175041
It's like the hottest day of the year in the US 💀 is this guy serious?
Having the World Cup as a backdrop to the holiday season - not to mention, going right up against the NFL on Thanksgiving - will be interesting, to say the least.
Quote from: KCRoadFan on June 13, 2022, 11:26:52 PM
Having the World Cup as a backdrop to the holiday season - not to mention, going right up against the NFL on Thanksgiving - will be interesting, to say the least.
The NFL is still going to win big against the WC in the US.
I'm rooting for New Zealand, so we can see both sides of the World in the same group :sombrero: (they would land together with Spain, which is at their Antipodes).
Quote from: thspfc on June 14, 2022, 07:58:55 AM
Quote from: KCRoadFan on June 13, 2022, 11:26:52 PM
Having the World Cup as a backdrop to the holiday season - not to mention, going right up against the NFL on Thanksgiving - will be interesting, to say the least.
The NFL is still going to win big against the WC in the US.
Of course the NFL will beat the World Cup! No shat, Sherlock! They get 15 to 20 million TV viewers approximately every season! How many do you think the World Cup will have? 4 to 5 million maybe?! Feel free to educate me on the actual numbers, if you so choose. The NFL ALWAYS beats everybody because it's the only sport in the fall fans gravitate to the most. If you combine the viewership of collegiate football, say SEC or ACC for example, they'd still beat the World Cup ratings by a looooong mile!
The 2018 World Cup averaged just over 5 million viewers on Fox and Telemundo, despite not having the USMNT. The final was watched by 17.8 million in the United States.
I couldn't find the averages for other editions, but here's some of the finals numbers from past years:
Year | Viewers | Networks |
2018 | 17.8 million | Fox/Telemundo |
2014 | 26.7 million | ABC/Univision |
2010 | 24.7 million | ABC/Univision |
2006 | 18.8 million | ABC/Univision |
2002 | 6.1 million | ABC |
1998 | 8.6 million | ABC |
1994 | 14.5 million | ABC |
(2002 and 2018 both began before noon Eastern, which is a factor in their lower numbers)
With the field set, here are my picks:
Group A
1. Netherlands
2. Senegal
3. Ecuador
4. Qatar
Group B
1. England
2. USA
3. Wales
4. Iran
Group C
1. Argentina
2. Poland
3. Mexico
4. Saudi Arabia
Group D
1. France
2. Denmark
3. Australia
4. Tunisia
Group E
1. Spain
2. Germany
3. Costa Rica
4. Japan
Group F
1. Belgium
2. Morocco
3. Canada
4. Croatia
Group G
1. Brazil
2. Switzerland
3. Serbia
4. Cameroon
Group H
1. Portugal
2. Uruguay
3. Ghana
4. South Korea
Round of 16
2B. USA over 1A. Netherlands
1C. Argentina over 2D. Denmark
1E. Spain over 2F. Morocco
1G. Brazil over 2H. Uruguay
1B. England over 2A. Senegal
1D. France over 1C. Poland
2E. Germany over 1F. Belgium
2G. Switzerland over 1H. Portugal
Quarters
Argentina over USA
Spain over Brazil
France over England
Germany over Switzerland
Semis
Argentina over Spain
France over Germany
Final
Argentina over France
The only major critique I have of yours is that Morocco, to me, is pretty clearly the worst team in that group.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 17, 2022, 08:59:18 AM
The only major critique I have of yours is that Morocco, to me, is pretty clearly the worst team in that group.
My reasoning for having Croatia so low is that with the WC being in the middle of the club season, their aging core of their squad might not bring the same energy level. And my reasoning for Morocco above Canada is that Canada is going to be everyone else's sleeper team so I guess I'll just go with Morocco as mine. Also Morocco hung tough in every game at the last WC. They lost to Iran on a 95th minute OG, had chances to equalize against Portugal, and were a couple minutes away from beating Spain.
Quote from: thspfc on June 17, 2022, 10:57:57 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 17, 2022, 08:59:18 AM
The only major critique I have of yours is that Morocco, to me, is pretty clearly the worst team in that group.
My reasoning for having Croatia so low is that with the WC being in the middle of the club season, their aging core of their squad might not bring the same energy level. And my reasoning for Morocco above Canada is that Canada is going to be everyone else's sleeper team so I guess I'll just go with Morocco as mine. Also Morocco hung tough in every game at the last WC. They lost to Iran on a 95th minute OG, had chances to equalize against Portugal, and were a couple minutes away from beating Spain.
Fair enough. They just looked like shit against us in the friendly not too long ago, and they had their main guys playing. I know friendlies are friendlies, but it took them out of my sleeper picks.
In case anybody is curious, here are the specific World Cup/NFL overlaps. All times Eastern
Thursday 11/24 (Thanksgiving): 2pm: Brazil vs Croatia 2pm ET; 12:30 pm: BUF at DET
Sunday 11/27: 2pm: Spain vs Germany; 1pm: TB at CLE, CIN at TEN, HOU at MIA, CHI at NYJ, ATL at WAS, DEN at CAR, BAL at JAX
Sunday 12/4: 2pm: R16 B1 (potentially USA) vs A2; 1pm: PIT at ATL, GB at CHI, JAX at DET, NYJ at MIN, WAS at NYG, TEN at PHI, DEN at BAL, CLE at HOU
No World Cup games on 12/11 as they're in between the quarterfinals and semifinals. The final on 12/18 starts at 10am so it will be over by the time the NFL kicks off.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 19, 2022, 12:51:35 PM
In case anybody is curious, here are the specific World Cup/NFL overlaps. All times Eastern
Thursday 11/24 (Thanksgiving): 2pm: Brazil vs Croatia 2pm ET; 12:30 pm: BUF at DET
Sunday 11/27: 2pm: Spain vs Germany; 1pm: TB at CLE, CIN at TEN, HOU at MIA, CHI at NYJ, ATL at WAS, DEN at CAR, BAL at JAX
Sunday 12/4: 2pm: R16 B1 (potentially USA) vs A2; 1pm: PIT at ATL, GB at CHI, JAX at DET, NYJ at MIN, WAS at NYG, TEN at PHI, DEN at BAL, CLE at HOU
No World Cup games on 12/11 as they're in between the quarterfinals and semifinals. The final on 12/18 starts at 10am so it will be over by the time the NFL kicks off.
While Detroit typically plays one of their best games of the year for the home folks on Thanksgiving, I can see people switching to the WC in the second half if Buffalo is blowing them out. Or even if they're not because those aren't huge fan bases (though both fan groups are very loyal) and Brazil is usually fun to watch. Spain vs Germany may be more interesting than any of concurrent games other than CIN at TEN. (I'm not expecting Watson to play for Cleveland this year.) I'm a Packer fan so there's no way am I watching the WC on 12/4 even if the USMNT plays though I'll probably have to go to a bar to see Packers/Bears vs at home for the USMNT.
Quote from: skluth on June 19, 2022, 01:37:16 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 19, 2022, 12:51:35 PM
In case anybody is curious, here are the specific World Cup/NFL overlaps. All times Eastern
Thursday 11/24 (Thanksgiving): 2pm: Brazil vs Croatia 2pm ET; 12:30 pm: BUF at DET
Sunday 11/27: 2pm: Spain vs Germany; 1pm: TB at CLE, CIN at TEN, HOU at MIA, CHI at NYJ, ATL at WAS, DEN at CAR, BAL at JAX
Sunday 12/4: 2pm: R16 B1 (potentially USA) vs A2; 1pm: PIT at ATL, GB at CHI, JAX at DET, NYJ at MIN, WAS at NYG, TEN at PHI, DEN at BAL, CLE at HOU
No World Cup games on 12/11 as they're in between the quarterfinals and semifinals. The final on 12/18 starts at 10am so it will be over by the time the NFL kicks off.
While Detroit typically plays one of their best games of the year for the home folks on Thanksgiving, I can see people switching to the WC in the second half if Buffalo is blowing them out. Or even if they're not because those aren't huge fan bases (though both fan groups are very loyal) and Brazil is usually fun to watch. Spain vs Germany may be more interesting than any of concurrent games other than CIN at TEN. (I'm not expecting Watson to play for Cleveland this year.) I'm a Packer fan so there's no way am I watching the WC on 12/4 even if the USMNT plays though I'll probably have to go to a bar to see Packers/Bears vs at home for the USMNT.
FOX's Thanksgiving game isn't until later so they can have the Brazil/Croatia game on their broadcast network.
There's zero chance that NFL games don't occupy FOX broadcast on 11/27 or 12/4, so the Spain/Germany game and the R16 game will have to go elsewhere. FS1 is the obvious choice but that channel only reaches 83 million households. The better in-house option is FX, but that still only nets you an additional 6 million households. For the Spain/Germany game that may work, but if the US wins their group, it would be a bad look to have the host nation's knockout round game available to < 100 million households.
I don't know if such a thing is possible, but it would be nice if FOX could/would make a deal with ABC or NBC to let them carry that one game. Keep the FOX announcers, production, etc, but have it on a broadcast network.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 19, 2022, 02:06:29 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 19, 2022, 01:37:16 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 19, 2022, 12:51:35 PM
In case anybody is curious, here are the specific World Cup/NFL overlaps. All times Eastern
Thursday 11/24 (Thanksgiving): 2pm: Brazil vs Croatia 2pm ET; 12:30 pm: BUF at DET
Sunday 11/27: 2pm: Spain vs Germany; 1pm: TB at CLE, CIN at TEN, HOU at MIA, CHI at NYJ, ATL at WAS, DEN at CAR, BAL at JAX
Sunday 12/4: 2pm: R16 B1 (potentially USA) vs A2; 1pm: PIT at ATL, GB at CHI, JAX at DET, NYJ at MIN, WAS at NYG, TEN at PHI, DEN at BAL, CLE at HOU
No World Cup games on 12/11 as they're in between the quarterfinals and semifinals. The final on 12/18 starts at 10am so it will be over by the time the NFL kicks off.
While Detroit typically plays one of their best games of the year for the home folks on Thanksgiving, I can see people switching to the WC in the second half if Buffalo is blowing them out. Or even if they're not because those aren't huge fan bases (though both fan groups are very loyal) and Brazil is usually fun to watch. Spain vs Germany may be more interesting than any of concurrent games other than CIN at TEN. (I'm not expecting Watson to play for Cleveland this year.) I'm a Packer fan so there's no way am I watching the WC on 12/4 even if the USMNT plays though I'll probably have to go to a bar to see Packers/Bears vs at home for the USMNT.
FOX's Thanksgiving game isn't until later so they can have the Brazil/Croatia game on their broadcast network.
There's zero chance that NFL games don't occupy FOX broadcast on 11/27 or 12/4, so the Spain/Germany game and the R16 game will have to go elsewhere. FS1 is the obvious choice but that channel only reaches 83 million households. The better in-house option is FX, but that still only nets you an additional 6 million households. For the Spain/Germany game that may work, but if the US wins their group, it would be a bad look to have the host nation's knockout round game available to < 100 million households.
I don't know if such a thing is possible, but it would be nice if FOX could/would make a deal with ABC or NBC to let them carry that one game. Keep the FOX announcers, production, etc, but have it on a broadcast network.
They would need to work around the Macy's Day Parade on NBC, whatever ABC broadcasts (basketball?). Etc.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 19, 2022, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 19, 2022, 02:06:29 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 19, 2022, 01:37:16 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on June 19, 2022, 12:51:35 PM
In case anybody is curious, here are the specific World Cup/NFL overlaps. All times Eastern
Thursday 11/24 (Thanksgiving): 2pm: Brazil vs Croatia 2pm ET; 12:30 pm: BUF at DET
Sunday 11/27: 2pm: Spain vs Germany; 1pm: TB at CLE, CIN at TEN, HOU at MIA, CHI at NYJ, ATL at WAS, DEN at CAR, BAL at JAX
Sunday 12/4: 2pm: R16 B1 (potentially USA) vs A2; 1pm: PIT at ATL, GB at CHI, JAX at DET, NYJ at MIN, WAS at NYG, TEN at PHI, DEN at BAL, CLE at HOU
No World Cup games on 12/11 as they're in between the quarterfinals and semifinals. The final on 12/18 starts at 10am so it will be over by the time the NFL kicks off.
While Detroit typically plays one of their best games of the year for the home folks on Thanksgiving, I can see people switching to the WC in the second half if Buffalo is blowing them out. Or even if they're not because those aren't huge fan bases (though both fan groups are very loyal) and Brazil is usually fun to watch. Spain vs Germany may be more interesting than any of concurrent games other than CIN at TEN. (I'm not expecting Watson to play for Cleveland this year.) I'm a Packer fan so there's no way am I watching the WC on 12/4 even if the USMNT plays though I'll probably have to go to a bar to see Packers/Bears vs at home for the USMNT.
FOX's Thanksgiving game isn't until later so they can have the Brazil/Croatia game on their broadcast network.
There's zero chance that NFL games don't occupy FOX broadcast on 11/27 or 12/4, so the Spain/Germany game and the R16 game will have to go elsewhere. FS1 is the obvious choice but that channel only reaches 83 million households. The better in-house option is FX, but that still only nets you an additional 6 million households. For the Spain/Germany game that may work, but if the US wins their group, it would be a bad look to have the host nation's knockout round game available to < 100 million households.
I don't know if such a thing is possible, but it would be nice if FOX could/would make a deal with ABC or NBC to let them carry that one game. Keep the FOX announcers, production, etc, but have it on a broadcast network.
They would need to work around the Macy's Day Parade on NBC, whatever ABC broadcasts (basketball?). Etc.
Parade is long over by 2pm, and I don't believe the NBA or NHL play early games on Thanksgiving.
We're now just 45 days away from the opening of the 2022 World Cup. All national teams have played their final friendlies/nations league games before the tournament begins. Brazil will enter the tournament as the world's top ranked team, with Belgium, Argentina, France, England, Italy (not qualified), Spain and the Netherlands rounding out the top 8.
The US looked really bad in their last two tuneups, falling 2-0 to Japan and failing to score in a 0-0 draw against Saudi Arabia. USA captain and best player Christian Pulisic is not playing much for his club (Chelsea) and that is causing concerns about his form heading into the tournament.
I don't expect much from the US
Quote from: ET21 on October 07, 2022, 12:19:19 PM
I don't expect much from the US
They need a massive leadership overhaul from the get-go. It may not fix everything right away, but it's a start. My major questions are the following, in no fabric of order: Why should people invest in US soccer if they're going to continually flop in major tournaments like the World Cup or CONCACAF? Let alone MLS? Why should the major TV outlets pump millions of dollars into a failing brand that is seemingly getting worse over time? Do you really want to take the plunge into US soccer or would you rather your remote and wallet say no thanks and switch to other sports? I would love it if they can fix a lot of what's holding them back. But, I guess that proves very lofty, and unattainable, doesn't it?
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 09, 2022, 02:53:21 PM
Quote from: ET21 on October 07, 2022, 12:19:19 PM
I don't expect much from the US
They need a massive leadership overhaul from the get-go. It may not fix everything right away, but it's a start. My major questions are the following, in no fabric of order: Why should people invest in US soccer if they're going to continually flop in major tournaments like the World Cup or CONCACAF? Let alone MLS? Why should the major TV outlets pump millions of dollars into a failing brand that is seemingly getting worse over time? Do you really want to take the plunge into US soccer or would you rather your remote and wallet say no thanks and switch to other sports? I would love it if they can fix a lot of what's holding them back. But, I guess that proves very lofty, and unattainable, doesn't it?
Or watch the USA women's team, which isn't failing?
Quote from: 1 on October 09, 2022, 02:58:25 PM
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 09, 2022, 02:53:21 PM
Quote from: ET21 on October 07, 2022, 12:19:19 PM
I don't expect much from the US
They need a massive leadership overhaul from the get-go. It may not fix everything right away, but it's a start. My major questions are the following, in no fabric of order: Why should people invest in US soccer if they're going to continually flop in major tournaments like the World Cup or CONCACAF? Let alone MLS? Why should the major TV outlets pump millions of dollars into a failing brand that is seemingly getting worse over time? Do you really want to take the plunge into US soccer or would you rather your remote and wallet say no thanks and switch to other sports? I would love it if they can fix a lot of what's holding them back. But, I guess that proves very lofty, and unattainable, doesn't it?
Or watch the USA women's team, which isn't failing?
Or don't.
Quote from: ET21 on October 07, 2022, 12:19:19 PM
I don't expect much from the US
I don't expect much, but there's progress. Far more of the starting XI will be coming from high level clubs than ever before.
Obviously some spots are up in the air, but the favorites are:
Matt Turner (Arsenal/EPL)
Walker Zimmerman (Nashville/MLS)
Aaron Long (NYRB/MLS)
Sergino Dest (AC Milan/Serie A)
Antonee Robinson (Fulham/EPL)
Weston McKennie (Juventus/Serie A)
Tyler Adams (Leeds/EPL)
Yunus Musah (Valencia/La Liga)
Christian Pulisic (Chelsea/EPL)
Gio Ryena (Dortmund/Bundesliga)
Jesus Fereira (Dallas/MLS)
So that's 8 guys playing in the top 4 European leagues and 3 playing in MLS. Now, you probably only get 2-3 more guys from the Top 4 European leagues to fill out the roster, so there's still work to be done, but I think we're headed towards a 2026 WC roster with 15-20 guys from the Top 4 leagues.
The thing about the US is that soccer just isn't as popular here as it is in other countries compared to other sports. In most of the world, soccer is basically the sport. Most of the really talented American athletes might play soccer at some point growing up but wind up playing things like (American) football or basketball or baseball instead.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 09, 2022, 02:53:21 PM
Quote from: ET21 on October 07, 2022, 12:19:19 PM
I don't expect much from the US
They need a massive leadership overhaul from the get-go. It may not fix everything right away, but it's a start. My major questions are the following, in no fabric of order: Why should people invest in US soccer if they're going to continually flop in major tournaments like the World Cup or CONCACAF? Let alone MLS? Why should the major TV outlets pump millions of dollars into a failing brand that is seemingly getting worse over time? Do you really want to take the plunge into US soccer or would you rather your remote and wallet say no thanks and switch to other sports? I would love it if they can fix a lot of what's holding them back. But, I guess that proves very lofty, and unattainable, doesn't it?
US Soccer doesn't flop in CONCACAF tournaments for the most part. In fact, the men's team has won everything in this cycle except for top placement in the Octagonal, but that has no trophy attached anyway.
Since the US aren't the top dog of the world in this sport, it's appealing to those who actually want to watch an underdog story while rooting for their country. There's a lot of systematic problems (pay-to-play, lack of infrastructure, scouting networks missing good prospects, referee shortages) but progress is being made at a steady rate. Just over a decade ago, the first MLS academies were starting to become a thing and now they churn out players who can compete in European leagues and play for the national team.
Unlocking the soccer-first fans in this country is also key to this, and MLS is taking steps by trying to integrate more closely with Liga MX (the most popular league in this country, despite the PL bias shown by English-speaking media). Next year, all teams from both leagues will be playing in a huge tournament (the Leagues Cup) with CCL spots on the line.
Most of the national team rosters for the World Cup are out now. The U.S. roster features three players who played for the Sounders or their reserve side at one point (Morris, Roldan, Yedlin, Long). Add in a fifth member (McKennie) who was born on Fort Lewis and Washington is punching well above its weight in terms of supplying the USMNT.
As luck would have it, I'm scheduled to be in my office next Monday. Going to have to watch the US-Wales game on my phone.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 14, 2022, 07:45:53 AM
As luck would have it, I'm scheduled to be in my office next Monday. Going to have to watch the US-Wales game on my phone.
So will I. In the past WC games got played on the downstairs cafe TVs, and people will gather by the windows to watch for a few minutes. In my case: go Wales! Sorry, but USA has no chance anyway so may as well pick a fun team to support.
Quote from: Alps on November 14, 2022, 05:30:35 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 14, 2022, 07:45:53 AM
As luck would have it, I'm scheduled to be in my office next Monday. Going to have to watch the US-Wales game on my phone.
So will I. In the past WC games got played on the downstairs cafe TVs, and people will gather by the windows to watch for a few minutes. In my case: go Wales! Sorry, but USA has no chance anyway so may as well pick a fun team to support.
Seems like a strange rationale. I would argue Wales and the U.S. have similar chances and I would say we're relatively fun if not good.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 14, 2022, 07:45:53 AM
As luck would have it, I'm scheduled to be in my office next Monday. Going to have to watch the US-Wales game on my phone.
I'll be in my home office, but I work for someone who scorns sports and would never understand the concept of reshuffling one's work day to watch a soccer game, even the World Cup. But, because I'll be in my home office, I can at least have it playing on my personal PC while I work
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 14, 2022, 06:04:36 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 14, 2022, 05:30:35 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 14, 2022, 07:45:53 AM
As luck would have it, I'm scheduled to be in my office next Monday. Going to have to watch the US-Wales game on my phone.
So will I. In the past WC games got played on the downstairs cafe TVs, and people will gather by the windows to watch for a few minutes. In my case: go Wales! Sorry, but USA has no chance anyway so may as well pick a fun team to support.
Seems like a strange rationale. I would argue Wales and the U.S. have similar chances and I would say we're relatively fun if not good.
+1, and I'm not sure what's so fun about Wales. Beyond the typical "small underdog country good" narrative.
Quote from: thspfc on November 14, 2022, 08:14:26 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 14, 2022, 06:04:36 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 14, 2022, 05:30:35 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 14, 2022, 07:45:53 AM
As luck would have it, I'm scheduled to be in my office next Monday. Going to have to watch the US-Wales game on my phone.
So will I. In the past WC games got played on the downstairs cafe TVs, and people will gather by the windows to watch for a few minutes. In my case: go Wales! Sorry, but USA has no chance anyway so may as well pick a fun team to support.
Seems like a strange rationale. I would argue Wales and the U.S. have similar chances and I would say we're relatively fun if not good.
+1, and I'm not sure what's so fun about Wales. Beyond the typical "small underdog country good" narrative.
Just watched Welcome to Wrexham? (which was excellent)
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 14, 2022, 07:45:53 AM
As luck would have it, I'm scheduled to be in my office next Monday. Going to have to watch the US-Wales game on my phone.
So today my boss asked me to be in my office an extra day in December. She offered to let me work from home next week instead of being in the office. I told her that since she asked very nicely, I'd "rearrange" my schedule to make it work.
Now I won't have to be on the road Sunday, and will be home all next week.
I just now realized I never did predictions. Here they are:
A: Netherlands, Qatar
B: England, USA
C: Argentina, Mexico
D: France, Denmark
E: Spain, Japan
F: Belgium, Canada
G: Brazil, Serbia
H: Uruguay, South Korea
Round of 16:
USA over Netherlands
Argentina over Denmark
Canada over Spain
Brazil over South Korea
England over Qatar
France over Mexico
Belgium over Japan
Serbia over Uruguay
Quarterfinals:
Argentina over USA
Brazil over Canada
France over England
Belgium over Serbia
Semifinals:
Argentina over Brazil
France over Belgium
3rd place:
Brazil over Belgium
Final:
France over Argentina
Qatar is screwing this world cup up badly. Now, two days before the tournament starts, they announce no beer in the stadium. Budweiser, the official beer sponsor, has to be none too pleased.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 18, 2022, 10:14:07 AM
Qatar is screwing this world cup up badly. Now, two days before the tournament starts, they announce no beer in the stadium. Budweiser, the official beer sponsor, has to be none too pleased.
I've seen (unfounded) suggestions that the Ecuador and Senegal federations are suddenly flush with cash.
Time to update this and do the knockout round too. Group winners in bold, second place in italics.
Group A
Qatar
Ecuador
Netherlands
Senegal
Group B
England
United States
Iran
Wales
Group C
Argentina
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Poland
Group D
France
Australia
Denmark
Tunisia
Group E
Spain
Costa Rica
Germany
Japan
Group F
Belgium
Canada
Morocco
Croatia
Group G
Brazil
Serbia
Switzerland
Cameroon
Group H
Portugal
Ghana
Uruguay
South Korea
Netherlands vs. United States
Argentina vs. Denmark
Spain vs. Belgium
Brazil vs. South Korea
England vs. Ecuador
France vs. Mexico
Croatia vs. Germany
Portugal vs. Switzerland
Netherlands vs. Argentina
Spain vs. Brazil
England vs. France
Germany vs. Switzerland
Argentina vs. Brazil
France vs. Germany
Brazil vs. Germany
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 18, 2022, 10:14:07 AM
Qatar is screwing this world cup up badly. Now, two days before the tournament starts, they announce no beer in the stadium. Budweiser, the official beer sponsor, has to be none too pleased.
The shitshow keeps getting worse and worse. And FIFA is acting like it's all rainbows and unicorns, too. Watch them ban women and LGBTQ+ people from the stadiums next.
Thoughts on the US's draw with Wales today? I think the US played great in the first half but they squandered most of the good chances they got. Most irritating to me was that they weren't winning set pieces at all. If they won a couple more of those, I bet we see a US win in the books. The halftime adjustment from Wales was incredible. Around the 60th minute, I pretty much knew they would equalize at some point. Overall, I feel that while USMNT is moving in a positive direction, they still won't make it out of the group stage this WC.
The problem with set pieces and also with our strategy in general is that the Welsh players were simply bigger than us. I don't know why we try to cross it in from far away all the time, because most of the time we're not going to win those balls.
The play leading up to the PK call was started by a throw-in that was taken with a foot that was over the line. Should've been called by the AR.
(https://i.imgur.com/WtdrsbG.png)
Quote from: Bruce on November 22, 2022, 12:49:20 AM
a throw-in that was taken with a foot that was over the line
Law 15
Quotehave part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the
touchline
Wow, if you got up early this morning you got to see quite the upset!
Quote from: CoreySamson on November 21, 2022, 11:46:49 PM
Thoughts on the US's draw with Wales today? I think the US played great in the first half but they squandered most of the good chances they got. Most irritating to me was that they weren't winning set pieces at all. If they won a couple more of those, I bet we see a US win in the books. The halftime adjustment from Wales was incredible. Around the 60th minute, I pretty much knew they would equalize at some point. Overall, I feel that while USMNT is moving in a positive direction, they still won't make it out of the group stage this WC.
I think a bunch of casual football fans in the US are going to learn about the importance of goal differential in group standings, assuming US and Wales both beat Iran and lose to England.
Quote from: GaryV on November 22, 2022, 07:04:58 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 22, 2022, 12:49:20 AM
a throw-in that was taken with a foot that was over the line
Law 15
Quotehave part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the
touchline
This rule strikes me as being the equivalent to holding in football. It happens all the time but only gets called when it's blatant.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 22, 2022, 07:13:26 AM
Wow, if you got up early this morning you got to see quite the upset!
xG had the game at something like 2.8 - 0.2.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 22, 2022, 07:58:55 AM
Quote from: GaryV on November 22, 2022, 07:04:58 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 22, 2022, 12:49:20 AM
a throw-in that was taken with a foot that was over the line
Law 15
Quotehave part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the
touchline
This rule strikes me as being the equivalent to holding in football. It happens all the time but only gets called when it's blatant.
The picture Bruce posted shows the foot on the line. So there's nothing to call.
Make it two embarrassing losses to Asian nations for Germany in their last two World Cup games. They were burned on the counter several times, including the two goals. Even so, what really killed them was finishing. They created more than enough chances to win the game. 26 shots may well be a tournament high for any team, and it's not like they were all 25-yard prayers.
Quote from: thspfc on November 23, 2022, 10:29:11 AM
Make it two embarrassing losses to Asian nations for Germany in their last two World Cup games. They were burned on the counter several times, including the two goals. Even so, what really killed them was finishing. They created more than enough chances to win the game. 26 shots may well be a tournament high for any team, and it's not like they were all 25-yard prayers.
Having Timo Werner miss the WC through injury is hurting them for sure.
Quote from: US 89 on November 19, 2022, 01:16:57 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 18, 2022, 10:14:07 AM
Qatar is screwing this world cup up badly. Now, two days before the tournament starts, they announce no beer in the stadium. Budweiser, the official beer sponsor, has to be none too pleased.
The shitshow keeps getting worse and worse. And FIFA is acting like it's all rainbows and unicorns, too. Watch them ban women and LGBTQ+ people from the stadiums next.
They're not banning LGBTQ people (because how would you be able to tell), but they are banning people from wearing rainbow apparel.
Given that the US team is of questionable odds to win anyway, maybe it would be best if we demonstrated how much the First Amendment matters to Americans by bowing out of the tournament.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2022, 10:13:08 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 19, 2022, 01:16:57 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 18, 2022, 10:14:07 AM
Qatar is screwing this world cup up badly. Now, two days before the tournament starts, they announce no beer in the stadium. Budweiser, the official beer sponsor, has to be none too pleased.
The shitshow keeps getting worse and worse. And FIFA is acting like it's all rainbows and unicorns, too. Watch them ban women and LGBTQ+ people from the stadiums next.
They're not banning LGBTQ people (because how would you be able to tell), but they are banning people from wearing rainbow apparel.
Given that the US team is of questionable odds to win anyway, maybe it would be best if we demonstrated how much the First Amendment matters to Americans by bowing out of the tournament.
I don't know. Nothing the Qataris have done violates the First Amendment, since it has not yet been incorporated against foreign governments. :-D
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on November 23, 2022, 10:47:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2022, 10:13:08 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 19, 2022, 01:16:57 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 18, 2022, 10:14:07 AM
Qatar is screwing this world cup up badly. Now, two days before the tournament starts, they announce no beer in the stadium. Budweiser, the official beer sponsor, has to be none too pleased.
The shitshow keeps getting worse and worse. And FIFA is acting like it's all rainbows and unicorns, too. Watch them ban women and LGBTQ+ people from the stadiums next.
They're not banning LGBTQ people (because how would you be able to tell), but they are banning people from wearing rainbow apparel.
Given that the US team is of questionable odds to win anyway, maybe it would be best if we demonstrated how much the First Amendment matters to Americans by bowing out of the tournament.
I don't know. Nothing the Qataris have done violates the First Amendment, since it has not yet been incorporated against foreign governments. :-D
No shit?
Here, let me rephrase it.
Given that the US team is of questionable odds to win anyway, maybe it would be best if we demonstrated that the right to free speech is more important to America than soccer.
Quote from: Bruce on March 30, 2022, 01:09:23 AM
Also important to detail that 6,500 migrant workers from South Asia (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022) have died in Qatar since December 2011. 37 of them were related to stadium construction, but the organizing committee classified all but three as being "non-work related". Given that these migrant workers are barely allowed to leave their overcrowded accommodations, this is extremely suspect.
Not particularly excited about this edition, given the situation. The winter timing has already knocked around the schedules for leagues, with MLS having to kick off in February to compensate for the loss of their expected November playoff slots. 2026 will at least be a normal one.
Normally MLS starts in late February/early March, so they would probably start on 25 February in 2023.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2022, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on November 23, 2022, 10:47:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2022, 10:13:08 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 19, 2022, 01:16:57 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 18, 2022, 10:14:07 AM
Qatar is screwing this world cup up badly. Now, two days before the tournament starts, they announce no beer in the stadium. Budweiser, the official beer sponsor, has to be none too pleased.
The shitshow keeps getting worse and worse. And FIFA is acting like it's all rainbows and unicorns, too. Watch them ban women and LGBTQ+ people from the stadiums next.
They're not banning LGBTQ people (because how would you be able to tell), but they are banning people from wearing rainbow apparel.
Given that the US team is of questionable odds to win anyway, maybe it would be best if we demonstrated how much the First Amendment matters to Americans by bowing out of the tournament.
I don't know. Nothing the Qataris have done violates the First Amendment, since it has not yet been incorporated against foreign governments. :-D
No shit?
Here, let me rephrase it.
Given that the US team is of questionable odds to win anyway, maybe it would be best if we demonstrated that the right to free speech is more important to America than soccer.
We should have skipped the Olympics too then?
Boycotting is a tricky venture. Yes, you send a message by boycotting, but you also lose the platform to speak out against the inequality you're protesting.
The inherent problem with FIFA is that the majority of its membership are poorer African, Asian and other small nations who are never going to play in a World Cup but get the huge money it provides. Those nations aren't going to vote to take away a World Cup from a place like Qatar.
Sounds like Europe might force the issue by considering leaving FIFA to form their own organization, which would be the end of FIFA.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2022, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on November 23, 2022, 10:47:56 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 23, 2022, 10:13:08 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 19, 2022, 01:16:57 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 18, 2022, 10:14:07 AM
Qatar is screwing this world cup up badly. Now, two days before the tournament starts, they announce no beer in the stadium. Budweiser, the official beer sponsor, has to be none too pleased.
The shitshow keeps getting worse and worse. And FIFA is acting like it's all rainbows and unicorns, too. Watch them ban women and LGBTQ+ people from the stadiums next.
They're not banning LGBTQ people (because how would you be able to tell), but they are banning people from wearing rainbow apparel.
Given that the US team is of questionable odds to win anyway, maybe it would be best if we demonstrated how much the First Amendment matters to Americans by bowing out of the tournament.
I don't know. Nothing the Qataris have done violates the First Amendment, since it has not yet been incorporated against foreign governments. :-D
No shit?
Of course. I apologize for any confusion here.
If you are in a country that is not your own, you abide by their rules and customs. It is very simple, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on November 25, 2022, 11:22:27 AM
If you are in a country that is not your own, you abide by their rules and customs. It is very simple, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
Mike
Right, which is why, because their rules and customs are egregious, I think our representatives shouldn't be in that country. FIFA should have never put the World Cup there.
(fuck the Olympics too if they pull the same garbage.)
The hosts didn't even last six days before being eliminated from contention.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 25, 2022, 12:59:07 PM
The hosts didn't even last six days before being eliminated from contention.
Really good investment they made there. Their one goal today was really nice though.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 25, 2022, 12:59:07 PM
The hosts didn't even last six days before being eliminated from contention.
Earliest exit by a host nation in the 92-year history of the World Cup.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on November 25, 2022, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 25, 2022, 12:59:07 PM
The hosts didn't even last six days before being eliminated from contention.
Earliest exit by a host nation in the 92-year history of the World Cup.
Well, there's only been one other host nation not to make it and the second game is the earliest a team
can be eliminated.
England have still never beaten the USA in the World Cup. USA are 1—0—2 against them (won in 1950, tied in 2010 and today).
The draw would feel a lot better if we didn't still have to beat Iran. Realistically I think we should win, but at this tournament anyone can beat anyone and anyone can draw 0-0 with anyone. Iran will be sitting deep knowing they only need a draw.
Nonetheless, even if we don't get through, a result against England shows that we can at least be competitive with the world's top nations.
Quote from: thspfc on November 25, 2022, 04:37:54 PM
The draw would feel a lot better if we didn't still have to beat Iran. Realistically I think we should win, but at this tournament anyone can beat anyone and anyone can draw 0-0 with anyone. Iran will be sitting deep knowing they only need a draw.
Nonetheless, even if we don't get through, a result against England shows that we can at least be competitive with the world's top nations.
The biggest obstacle is going to be that Iran can advance with a draw and it's really hard to beat a team in that situation, even if you're the better team.
If we can't beat a team much less talented than us that's parking the bus, we don't deserve to advance anyway.
I feel like a 0—0 tie should count as a loss for both teams. If you go out and play a hard game and the score ends up 1-1, then yeah, count it as a draw, because you played the game and tied. But a 0—0 score is exactly what you would end up if both teams went out onto the pitch and just stood there on their phones for an hour without touching the ball.
This is especially true since there are apparently situations where someone can advance by tying (I don't know the game mechanics that cause this, but that seems squirrelly to me). Making it so a team has to at least score 1 point to advance would at least limit how much tanking a team could do. (Get your 1 point, and then tank–hey, you might even win on accident!)
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 25, 2022, 11:08:24 PM
I feel like a 0—0 tie should count as a loss for both teams. If you go out and play a hard game and the score ends up 1-1, then yeah, count it as a draw, because you played the game and tied. But a 0—0 score is exactly what you would end up if both teams went out onto the pitch and just stood there on their phones for an hour without touching the ball.
This is especially true since there are apparently situations where someone can advance by tying (I don't know the game mechanics that cause this, but that seems squirrelly to me). Making it so a team has to at least score 1 point to advance would at least limit how much tanking a team could do. (Get your 1 point, and then tank–hey, you might even win on accident!)
Scott, I agree with your opinions almost 100% on this site. No. For a hundred different reasons I could type, no.
I mean, I'd be interested in some of the reasons. I get that most 0-0 games are just matters of evenly matched defense and offense, but if a team is in the position that a tie is all they need to advance, what is the incentive to even field an offense, versus just loading the field with good defenders?
Keep in mind that I'm looking at this through the lens of a game designer, not someone interested in athletics. "Never incentivize not taking the game seriously" is generally sound advice when one is designing a set of game rules.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 25, 2022, 11:08:24 PM
This is especially true since there are apparently situations where someone can advance by tying (I don't know the game mechanics that cause this, but that seems squirrelly to me).
How this might happen:
Each group has four teams in it. Top two advance to the next round, as determined by points. For each group stage match, a win gets you 3 points, a draw gets 1, a loss gets 0. Let’s say the group stage goes down like this:
Logan beats Oklahoma, 3-0
Cleveland draws McClain, 0-0
Logan beats Cleveland, 2-0
Oklahoma draws McClain, 0-0
Logan beats McClain, 1-0
Oklahoma draws Cleveland, 1-1
Looking at points, Logan is clearly the group winner and advances with 9 points. Everyone else has 2 points, so we need to move on to the first tiebreaker, which is goal differential, to determine who else advances. Essentially, this is the number of goals a team scores minus the number of goals a team concedes. In this case, that is +6 for Logan, -3 for Oklahoma, -2 for Canadian, and -1 for McClain. So McClain wins that tiebreaker and advances to the next round, despite never scoring a goal in the group stage.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2022, 12:20:47 AM
I mean, I'd be interested in some of the reasons. I get that most 0-0 games are just matters of evenly matched defense and offense, but if a team is in the position that a tie is all they need to advance, what is the incentive to even field an offense, versus just loading the field with good defenders?
Keep in mind that I'm looking at this through the lens of a game designer, not someone interested in athletics. "Never incentivize not taking the game seriously" is generally sound advice when one is designing a set of game rules.
That first scenario is called "parking the bus" and is often deployed by a team that is a clear underdog and need to get out with whatever result they can. I don't think many would have faulted the USMNT for parking the bus, but they performed well above expectations and really deserved a goal or two (Pulisic's crossbar shot was painful).
And if two teams happen to meet and could collude to both advance, then it'd be a repeat of the Disgrace of Gijón (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gij%C3%B3n). It's the reason why the last games in group stages are now played simultaneously (and why 3-team groups as proposed for 2026 are a disaster).
A scoreless draw can still be very exciting, especially if both teams are actively creating chances and are just off target or having their shots saved by an in-form goalkeeper. England's more creative players were being shut down by the U.S., while the U.S. doesn't have a big-game forward who can convert the half-chances they were creating. It's unfortunate that casual viewers might have been turned away by the result and ignored all of the tension that this match was played through.
It seems like the point system for the tournament is the cause of some of the more bizarre outcomes (collusion to advance, teams advancing without scoring). Is there any advantage this system has over a single- or double-elimination tournament of the type often used in US sports?
Or when both teams realize they can both advance on a specific result and decide to do so: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijon)
EDIT: I posted this not knowing that Page 2 had started, so I didn't see Bruce's post or Scott5114's.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2022, 01:10:46 AM
It seems like the point system for the tournament is the cause of some of the more bizarre outcomes (collusion to advance, teams advancing without scoring). Is there any advantage this system has over a single- or double-elimination tournament of the type often used in US sports?
Playing in groups guarantees every team three meaningful games, with most teams not being guaranteed of advancement or elimination until after their third game.
The third games in each group are played simultaneously, which eliminates most of the opportunities for collusion. Even in the rare cases where two opponents can both be guaranteed advancement with a draw, regardless of the other game, there is still value in finishing first in the group over second with regards to your placement in the knockout bracket.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 25, 2022, 11:08:24 PM
I feel like a 0—0 tie should count as a loss for both teams. If you go out and play a hard game and the score ends up 1-1, then yeah, count it as a draw, because you played the game and tied. But a 0—0 score is exactly what you would end up if both teams went out onto the pitch and just stood there on their phones for an hour without touching the ball.
This is especially true since there are apparently situations where someone can advance by tying (I don't know the game mechanics that cause this, but that seems squirrelly to me). Making it so a team has to at least score 1 point to advance would at least limit how much tanking a team could do. (Get your 1 point, and then tank–hey, you might even win on accident!)
Yikes.
Quote from: 1 on November 26, 2022, 07:12:09 AM
Or when both teams realize they can both advance on a specific result and decide to do so: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijon)
That scenario almost happened in the NFL just this year. https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2022/1/10/22875988/raiders-chargers-playoffs-no-tie
While I don't know what the solution is, I don't like a point system in which some games are statistically worth less than other games. The system soccer uses suffers from that problem because a game won by one team is worth an aggregate three points (three to the winner, none to the loser), but a tie is worth an aggregate two points (one point to each team). One point mysteriously disappeared. The NHL's system suffers from the reverse version of that problem–a game won in regulation is worth an aggregate two points (two to the winner, none to the loser), but if it goes to overtime because they abolished ties, suddenly it's worth an aggregate three points (two to the winner, one to the loser). One point mysteriously appears out of thin air just because a game goes to overtime. We all know that some games matter more as an emotional or momentum matter (big rival, or breaking a losing streak) or simply through the luck of the draw (the US—Iran game Tuesday is a good example of a must-win as a result of how the other games ended). That's fine. What I don't think is right is for one game to be statistically more valuable in the standings than another game is, or at least when that fact cannot be known in advance. (That is, I believe some auto racing series have sometimes had "double points" races. I could see making the Indy 500 worth more due to the prestige factor, for example. If that's known in advance, I have no gripe with it.)
But I don't know what the solution is. In the NHL, assuming for discussion purposes that they will never return to allowing ties, the solution is seemingly easy: Make a regulation win worth three points and an overtime win worth two. That way every game would be worth an aggregate three. Some owners have objected to this because it would "distort point totals compared to historic records," but that's already happened under the current system.
But I don't know what the solution would be in soccer's system where you have tie games. Having an incentive to play to win isn't necessarily a bad thing, but making the game worth more than some other game doesn't strike me as the right way to do it as a matter of statistical principle.
(Then there was that bizarre point system the NASL used: Six for a win, three for a tie, plus up to three bonus points for goals scored regardless of whether you won, lost, or tied. Of course they abolished ties in favor of the shootout at some point. I understand wanting to encourage teams to score goals, but the NASL system suffered from the same flaw of the number of total available standings points being unknown–indeed, unknowable–in advance.)
The concept behind three points for a win is that it's harder to win one game out of two than to tie both. Plus, a game where teams are trying to win is far more entertaining than when one or both teams is playing to not lose.
I've seen suggestions that in draws other than 0-0, the team that was last ahead gets 2 points and the other team 1 point, and I rather like that idea. Scoreless draws would still be one point each.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2022, 12:20:47 AM
I mean, I'd be interested in some of the reasons. I get that most 0-0 games are just matters of evenly matched defense and offense, but if a team is in the position that a tie is all they need to advance, what is the incentive to even field an offense, versus just loading the field with good defenders?
Keep in mind that I'm looking at this through the lens of a game designer, not someone interested in athletics. "Never incentivize not taking the game seriously" is generally sound advice when one is designing a set of game rules.
Soccer is the most random major sport. A lot of analysis has been done (see the book
Net Gains) that shows that the highest correlation to winning is the amount of shots on goal, but even those don't have anywhere close to a 100% confidence interval. So, you could have a team that absolutely peppers the other team with shots, dominates possession, and doesn't let the other team even get a shot off much less a shot on goal and still never score. A team that dominates in this case doesn't deserve to lose as they clearly "went for it".
If you were the manager of a team that knew they only needed a tie to advance, how would you play? Would you keep all 11 men in the box and "park the bus"? That would mean you're going to have nearly all of the possession in the game be in your defensive end, which could very well allow a goal that then puts you on the attack to get your tie back. If you want to be cautiously aggressive instead, you're still susceptible to the counter attack and could allow a goal making your whole plan moot. Playing for a tie for an entire match is much harder than one would think. This is why soccer is brilliant and sometimes the best defense is having an opportunistic offense that prevents the other team from throwing too many men forward.
The only way to play to a tie and have it be the truly optimal strategy is to have the other team also want to play for a tie. As
Bruce referenced above, the Disgrace of Gijon was an example of this, and was rightfully condemned in the football world. That's why they now play the final match of the group stage simultaneous to the other game in the group, so no one can do this with a guarantee of success. In the case of this year's Group B, England and Iran can both advance with a tie. The problem is Wales and the U.S. have the incentive not to allow that to happen, so, while they might change strategy late in game if the scores are in their favor (subbing in more defensemen, using stalling tactics, keeping men from going forward, etc.), as I said above, this is a really risky strategy to pursue for an entire game when a loss can knock you out. England is obviously in the driver's seat as they'd have to lose by 4 goals to Wales to have any chance of elimination, but Iran specifically can't play for a draw until maybe the 80th minute of a tie game.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 26, 2022, 09:24:51 AM
While I don't know what the solution is, I don't like a point system in which some games are statistically worth less than other games. The system soccer uses suffers from that problem because a game won by one team is worth an aggregate three points (three to the winner, none to the loser), but a tie is worth an aggregate two points (one point to each team). One point mysteriously disappeared. The NHL's system suffers from the reverse version of that problem–a game won in regulation is worth an aggregate two points (two to the winner, none to the loser), but if it goes to overtime because they abolished ties, suddenly it's worth an aggregate three points (two to the winner, one to the loser). One point mysteriously appears out of thin air just because a game goes to overtime. We all know that some games matter more as an emotional or momentum matter (big rival, or breaking a losing streak) or simply through the luck of the draw (the US—Iran game Tuesday is a good example of a must-win as a result of how the other games ended). That's fine. What I don't think is right is for one game to be statistically more valuable in the standings than another game is, or at least when that fact cannot be known in advance. (That is, I believe some auto racing series have sometimes had "double points" races. I could see making the Indy 500 worth more due to the prestige factor, for example. If that's known in advance, I have no gripe with it.)
But I don't know what the solution is. In the NHL, assuming for discussion purposes that they will never return to allowing ties, the solution is seemingly easy: Make a regulation win worth three points and an overtime win worth two. That way every game would be worth an aggregate three. Some owners have objected to this because it would "distort point totals compared to historic records," but that's already happened under the current system.
But I don't know what the solution would be in soccer's system where you have tie games. Having an incentive to play to win isn't necessarily a bad thing, but making the game worth more than some other game doesn't strike me as the right way to do it as a matter of statistical principle.
(Then there was that bizarre point system the NASL used: Six for a win, three for a tie, plus up to three bonus points for goals scored regardless of whether you won, lost, or tied. Of course they abolished ties in favor of the shootout at some point. I understand wanting to encourage teams to score goals, but the NASL system suffered from the same flaw of the number of total available standings points being unknown–indeed, unknowable–in advance.)
No game is worth less than others before the game starts; they all have 3 points on offer. If no team gets the breakthrough for the win, that's when a point disappears into the ether. From an entertainment standpoint alone, it makes sense to incentivize people to go for the win late in games rather than being happy with a tie. Depending on the talent levels of the teams and the odds of who is likelier to win, some teams are quite happy with a draw (i.e. Bournemouth playing at Manchester City, Bournemouth fans would be thrilled with a point), but it's almost never the case that both teams are satisfied with dropping points, in case, quite often the opposite with both teams ruing missed opporunities.
tl;dr, don't fuck with soccer. It's the perfect sport. :)
Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2022, 11:47:30 AM
Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.
How many high schools have a separate field for soccer anyway? At mine, we only had one field with markings for football, soccer, and lacrosse.
Quote from: US 89 on November 26, 2022, 01:23:52 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2022, 11:47:30 AM
Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.
How many high schools have a separate field for soccer anyway? At mine, we only had one field with markings for football, soccer, and lacrosse.
Not many, but I've been to a couple high schools that had a separate field for soccer.
My high school in Colorado had a separate soccer field.
It's typical for teams here to share a main stadium (often with a turf surface) for soccer, football, and track & field, with separate practice fields (often grass/mud). Gets a bit tougher when space is at a premium, though.
Oklahoma has had a few professional-ish teams for some time now, but one of them is going on hiatus due to a lack of a suitable venue that meets D2 standards.
Yeah, I think one of them is playing in the football stadium of one of OKC's inner-city high schools. Every time MAPS is up for renewal there's talk of building a soccer stadium somewhere but it never seems to make it to the final ballot proposal.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2022, 07:42:31 PM
Yeah, I think one of them is playing in the football stadium of one of OKC's inner-city high schools. Every time MAPS is up for renewal there's talk of building a soccer stadium somewhere but it never seems to make it to the final ballot proposal.
OKC Energy was playing at Taft Stadium, but it doesn't meet the minimum field dimensions required by USL (the D2 league). The team were hoping to move into the MAPS 4 stadium (https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-4/multipurpose-stadium) that is behind schedule.
There was also a short-lived competing team (Rayo OKC) in the other D2 league of the time, NASL. It didn't survive for various reasons and the league tanked anyway, so no one can really fault Energy for jumping into the market.
Yup, that's the one I was thinking of, although I misremembered that Taft is actually a middle school.
We're now through two games for each team.
Three teams--France, Brazil and Portugal--have six points and have already secured passage to the knockout round.
Two teams--Qatar and Canada--have zero points and have already been eliminated from qualifying for the knockout round.
The remaining teams all have somewhere between one and four points, with four points usually, but not always securing advancement.
The US are the only team with two points, which means they are also the only team with neither a win nor a loss so far.
A loss or draw against Iran eliminates the US. A win sends them through as the second placed team in the group, unless England somehow loses to Wales, or draws Wales and the US win by > 4 goals.
Additionally, there are three teams, Spain, England and Netherlands that would take basically miracles not to advance.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2022, 11:47:30 AM
Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.
I went to high school in Tulsa and I am dating myself, but 35 years ago in high school we certainly had soccer teams, boys and girls. That was the era of the Tulsa Roughnecks winning the 1983 NASL championship over the Toronto Blizzard and ever since soccer has been huge in Tulsa. Tulsa currently has FC Tulsa in the tier 2 pro USL Championship and the Tulsa Athletic in the semi-pro NPSL.
My kid's suburban Tulsa high school has a 10,000 seat football stadium that is shared by the soccer and lacrosse teams, but the soccer teams do have a two field soccer specific practice facility.
Final table from Group A:
Netherlands 7
Senegal 6
Ecuador 4
Qatar 0
Most likely, the Netherlands will face the US or Iran in the Round of 16, with Senegal almost certainly facing England, which should be interesting with Senegal's keeping playing professionally at Chelsea.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 29, 2022, 12:31:54 PM
Final table from Group A:
Netherlands 7
Senegal 6
Ecuador 4
Qatar 0
Most likely, the Netherlands will face the US or Iran in the Round of 16, with Senegal almost certainly facing England, which should be interesting with Senegal's keeping playing professionally at Chelsea.
Thought my Ecuador pick was good when Mane was hurt for Senegal, but right after tying it up, Ecuador conceded. It was a really good game.
Quote from: swake on November 28, 2022, 10:09:37 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2022, 11:47:30 AM
Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.
I went to high school in Tulsa and I am dating myself, but 35 years ago in high school we certainly had soccer teams, boys and girls. That was the era of the Tulsa Roughnecks winning the 1983 NASL championship over the Toronto Blizzard and ever since soccer has been huge in Tulsa. Tulsa currently has FC Tulsa in the tier 2 pro USL Championship and the Tulsa Athletic in the semi-pro NPSL.
My kid's suburban Tulsa high school has a 10,000 seat football stadium that is shared by the soccer and lacrosse teams, but the soccer teams do have a two field soccer specific practice facility.
Like most things, the soccer-playing divide here is much more about urban/suburban vs. rural than it is about entire states or regions. OKC and Tulsa are likely no less interested in soccer than other American urban areas of their size.
Quote from: thspfc on November 29, 2022, 03:38:05 PM
Quote from: swake on November 28, 2022, 10:09:37 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 26, 2022, 11:47:30 AM
Fair enough, I suppose. I'm from a part of the country where soccer is a complete and total non-entity. Literally, my school didn't even have a soccer pitch, much less a team! So of course none of the neighborhood kids ever wanted to play a pick-up game with the actual rules. (At most we got "let's kick this weird ball back and forth until we get bored".) So I don't have enough experience with it to really understand what the strategic implications of the rules are–I probably understand volleyball of all things better than soccer, since at least I played that in PE.
I went to high school in Tulsa and I am dating myself, but 35 years ago in high school we certainly had soccer teams, boys and girls. That was the era of the Tulsa Roughnecks winning the 1983 NASL championship over the Toronto Blizzard and ever since soccer has been huge in Tulsa. Tulsa currently has FC Tulsa in the tier 2 pro USL Championship and the Tulsa Athletic in the semi-pro NPSL.
My kid's suburban Tulsa high school has a 10,000 seat football stadium that is shared by the soccer and lacrosse teams, but the soccer teams do have a two field soccer specific practice facility.
Like most things, the soccer-playing divide here is much more about urban/suburban vs. rural than it is about entire states or regions. OKC and Tulsa are likely no less interested in soccer than other American urban areas of their size.
Perhaps–I didn't go to school in OKC proper, though; I was in what could be called an exurb if you were feeling particularly charitable. Our school sports were categorized as Class A (most large urban high schools in Oklahoma are Class 6A, so we were five divisions below that).
Accordingly, we were missing a lot of sports, it wasn't just soccer. We didn't have a swim team either, for instance.
Oh my what a finish!
USA advances as 2nd place in Group B and plays the Netherlands Saturday at 10am ET. England win Group A and face Senegal Saturday at 2pm ET.
Final Group B table:
England 7
USA 5
Iran 3
Wales 1
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 29, 2022, 04:07:54 PM
Oh my what a finish!
USA advances as 2nd place in Group B and plays the Netherlands Saturday at 10am ET. England win Group A and face Senegal Saturday at 2pm ET.
Final Group B table:
England 7
USA 5
Iran 3
Wales 1
Despite Gregg's woooooeful substitutions. Shaq Moore and Haji Wright were horrific.
I believe "Iran" is more properly spelled "Also Ran."
:bigass:
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 29, 2022, 04:09:32 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 29, 2022, 04:07:54 PM
Oh my what a finish!
USA advances as 2nd place in Group B and plays the Netherlands Saturday at 10am ET. England win Group A and face Senegal Saturday at 2pm ET.
Final Group B table:
England 7
USA 5
Iran 3
Wales 1
Despite Gregg's woooooeful substitutions. Shaq Moore and Haji Wright were horrific.
Their strikers are so bad, why not just put Aaronson out in Weah's spot and let Weah be a false 9?
A big reason why Iran was able to build up so freely and consistently in the last ~25 minutes was how far the US forwards and wingers, particularly Wright, were dropping into defense. The difference between 10 and 9 players sitting behind the ball in the defensive third is little to none. With that many it becomes difficult to coordinate the defensive effort since organization goes out the window and everyone is expecting everyone else to do their job. Wright should have stayed higher to put pressure on Iran's center backs following clearances. And in a back 5, which the US switched to, wingers shouldn't have to do the jobs of fullbacks. Dropping so deep 1) allowed Iran to get the ball back up quickly and easily, and 2) gave us no chance of holding the ball.
So in short, I think the team panicked defensively late in the game, which often leads to giving up goals. There should have been a calming influence from one of the players, but with it being such a young team (missing Pulisic at that), it's not surprising that there wasn't.
In the end, it doesn't matter. They're through. Netherlands is very beatable, and I think a performance similar to the England game would earn a victory against Netherlands.
My predictions are 4/4 so far, with the order being correct except for 3. Wales and 4. Iran.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 29, 2022, 04:18:44 PM
Their strikers are so bad, why not just put Aaronson out in Weah's spot and let Weah be a false 9?
Or maybe play arguably our best player, Gio Reyna?
Quote from: thspfc on November 29, 2022, 04:48:55 PM
A big reason why Iran was able to build up so freely and consistently in the last ~25 minutes was how far the US forwards and wingers, particularly Wright, were dropping into defense. The difference between 10 and 9 players sitting behind the ball in the defensive third is little to none. With that many it becomes difficult to coordinate the defensive effort since organization goes out the window and everyone is expecting everyone else to do their job. Wright should have stayed higher to put pressure on Iran's center backs following clearances. And in a back 5, which the US switched to, wingers shouldn't have to do the jobs of fullbacks. Dropping so deep 1) allowed Iran to get the ball back up quickly and easily, and 2) gave us no chance of holding the ball.
So in short, I think the team panicked defensively late in the game, which often leads to giving up goals. There should have been a calming influence from one of the players, but with it being such a young team (missing Pulisic at that), it's not surprising that there wasn't.
In the end, it doesn't matter. They're through. Netherlands is very beatable, and I think a performance similar to the England game would earn a victory against Netherlands.
My predictions are 4/4 so far, with the order being correct except for 3. Wales and 4. Iran.
I think the worst part of our play late game was due to the substitutions. Haji Wright did literally nothing well. He didn't hold the ball up; he didn't apply any pressure. When he got the ball, instead of making a decent pass or dribbling to the corner flag, he tried a shot that I could have accomplished just as well. Shaq Moore did nothing well either. He didn't use his pace to intercept a pass; he ignored Turner's call and headed an easy to read ball out for an unnecessary corner.
Switching to a 5-4-1 was also just horrible given how horrible our "1" was. Zimmerman was fine, but putting in Reyna would have allowed us to have possession when Iran wasted theirs and would relieve the pressure on the back without sitting back and absorbing. CCV and Ream were doing just fine back there and didn't appear to be tiring like our midfielders so it was the midfield who could have used more help.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 29, 2022, 04:12:43 PM
I believe "Iran" is more properly spelled "Also Ran."
I(also)ran :D
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 29, 2022, 05:02:51 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 29, 2022, 04:18:44 PM
Their strikers are so bad, why not just put Aaronson out in Weah's spot and let Weah be a false 9?
Or maybe play arguably our best player, Gio Reyna?
Quote from: JayhawkCO on November 29, 2022, 05:07:10 PM
Quote from: thspfc on November 29, 2022, 04:48:55 PM
A big reason why Iran was able to build up so freely and consistently in the last ~25 minutes was how far the US forwards and wingers, particularly Wright, were dropping into defense. The difference between 10 and 9 players sitting behind the ball in the defensive third is little to none. With that many it becomes difficult to coordinate the defensive effort since organization goes out the window and everyone is expecting everyone else to do their job. Wright should have stayed higher to put pressure on Iran's center backs following clearances. And in a back 5, which the US switched to, wingers shouldn't have to do the jobs of fullbacks. Dropping so deep 1) allowed Iran to get the ball back up quickly and easily, and 2) gave us no chance of holding the ball.
So in short, I think the team panicked defensively late in the game, which often leads to giving up goals. There should have been a calming influence from one of the players, but with it being such a young team (missing Pulisic at that), it's not surprising that there wasn't.
In the end, it doesn't matter. They're through. Netherlands is very beatable, and I think a performance similar to the England game would earn a victory against Netherlands.
My predictions are 4/4 so far, with the order being correct except for 3. Wales and 4. Iran.
I think the worst part of our play late game was due to the substitutions. Haji Wright did literally nothing well. He didn't hold the ball up; he didn't apply any pressure. When he got the ball, instead of making a decent pass or dribbling to the corner flag, he tried a shot that I could have accomplished just as well. Shaq Moore did nothing well either. He didn't use his pace to intercept a pass; he ignored Turner's call and headed an easy to read ball out for an unnecessary corner.
Switching to a 5-4-1 was also just horrible given how horrible our "1" was. Zimmerman was fine, but putting in Reyna would have allowed us to have possession when Iran wasted theirs and would relieve the pressure on the back without sitting back and absorbing. CCV and Ream were doing just fine back there and didn't appear to be tiring like our midfielders so it was the midfield who could have used more help.
Pulisic and Weah are both plalying well, so you aren't taking them away. Aaronson has been the first sub over Reyna for whatever reason. I'd start all three of Pulisic, Weah and Aaronson up front and have Reyna be the first sub off the bench.
Sargent can subbed in if they fall behind.
As for the back, no more Moore. Use Yedlin if you need to sub off Dest or Robinson.
Reyna is injury-prone and a risk. Saving him for the Round of 16 may be the smarter move.
7 am on Saturday is something I'm not looking forward to. As long as the 2030 World Cup is awarded to the right bid (Southern Cone), the next two will be in much better times for us West Coasters.
Quote from: Bruce on November 29, 2022, 09:38:01 PM
Reyna is injury-prone and a risk. Saving him for the Round of 16 may be the smarter move.
You don't save anyone for anything at the World Cup. It's too short for comfort to begin with. The only possible exception is if you're already locked into the round of 16 before the final group game. In that scenario it's understandable to rest a star player if they're slightly hurt.
Final Group D table:
France 6 (+3)
Australia 6 (-1)
Tunisia 4
Denmark 1
Australia is a potential quarterfinal matchup for the US if both can pull upsets in the round of 16.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 29, 2022, 07:45:25 PM
Pulisic and Weah are both plalying well, so you aren't taking them away. Aaronson has been the first sub over Reyna for whatever reason. I'd start all three of Pulisic, Weah and Aaronson up front and have Reyna be the first sub off the bench.
Sargent can subbed in if they fall behind.
As for the back, no more Moore. Use Yedlin if you need to sub off Dest or Robinson.
Give me:
Sargent (If healthy)
Pulisic Weah
Aaronson Reyna
Adams
Robinson Ream Carter-Vickers Dest
Turner
McKennie and Musah sit. McKennie hasn't looked great for me this tourney and while Musah is everywhere, he tired super quickly last game so he can be first sub. If Sargent can't play, put in Musah and put Weah and Aaronson up front with Pulisic tucked in behind.
Final Group C table:
Argentina 6
Poland 4 (+/- 0)
Mexico 4 (-1)
Saudi Arabia 3
Mexico came up one goal short of advancing. Argentina faces Australia in the Round of 16, with the winner meeting the USA/Netherlands winner in the quarterfinals. Poland gets France in the Round of 16, with the winner facing the England/Senegal winner in the quarterfinals.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 29, 2022, 07:45:25 PM
Pulisic and Weah are both plalying well, so you aren't taking them away. Aaronson has been the first sub over Reyna for whatever reason. I'd start all three of Pulisic, Weah and Aaronson up front and have Reyna be the first sub off the bench.
Sargent can subbed in if they fall behind.
As for the back, no more Moore. Use Yedlin if you need to sub off Dest or Robinson.
When they were both subbed off at the exact same time, that was the Weah Dest moment of our IR game. (:
Final Group F table:
Morocco 7
Croatia 5
Belgium 4
Canada 0
Big shock that Belgium fail to advance. Canada join Qatar in exiting without registering a single point.
Final Group E table:
Japan 6
Spain 4 (+6)
Germany 4 (+1)
Costa Rica 3
Japan plays Croatia and Spain faces Morocco in the Round of 16.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 01, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Final Group E table:
Japan 6
Spain 4 (+6)
Germany 4 (+1)
Costa Rica 3
Japan plays Croatia and Spain faces Morocco in the Round of 16.
For a few minutes when Costa Rica was winning, Spain AND Germany were both out.
So much to unpack from today's games.
First off, group E is the embodiment of why you run up the score at tournaments like this. The USWNT was bashed hard for not letting up against Thailand in 2019. Admittedly, the difference between Spain's 7-0 vs. Costa Rica and 13-0 isn't much in terms of benefit since it's such a large margin either way, but as long as you have the opportunity to cushion your position a little more, why not do it? Some would say that it was pretty much a guarantee that the USWNT was going to advance out of that group anyways, but could the same not be said of Spain after they thrashed CRC? Nobody predicted that Spain would only take 1 point from their final two matches, and if it weren't for how they piled it onto CRC, they wouldn't have advanced. Not to mention that the CRC/Germany game could easily have been a blowout in Germany's favor, as Germany hit the post no fewer than three times and had many other excellent chances on top of the four they scored.
Spain, though, might rather face Morocco than Croatia, who Japan will face. Spain will have no trouble holding possession against Morocco. It should be a breeze if they finish their chances and don't make major defensive mistakes. But today showed that those are big "ifs".
Speaking of Morocco, I picked them to advance :spin: Belgium is washed.
Overall it's just been a very weird group stage. 3 of 6 group winners thus far have a loss, which is unusual. But through all the chaos it's hard to dispute that the teams who made it through are the ones who have earned it (aside from Poland who put in an awful performance against Argentina, but Mexico weren't too impressive either).
Quote from: JayhawkCO on June 17, 2022, 08:59:18 AM
The only major critique I have of yours is that Morocco, to me, is pretty clearly the worst team in that group.
@OldTakesExposed
Japan's second goal was judged to be valid because the ball was a millimeter in bounds:
(https://i.imgur.com/KsNzEzu.png)
The 3 minutes where Costa Rica looked like they were going through were also hilarious.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 01, 2022, 04:07:54 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 01, 2022, 03:57:25 PM
Final Group E table:
Japan 6
Spain 4 (+6)
Germany 4 (+1)
Costa Rica 3
Japan plays Croatia and Spain faces Morocco in the Round of 16.
For a few minutes when Costa Rica was winning, Spain AND Germany were both out.
And if Spain had managed to score in extra time, they would have knocked Japan out.
I saw a take today that the World Cup is now a bigger deal in the US than the World Series. I haven't followed soccer at all, but curious if anyone thinks that's true, and/or has any thoughts on the apparent shift.
It's not. Especially for matches that don't involve USA
Quote from: webny99 on December 01, 2022, 10:40:23 PM
I saw a take today that the World Cup is now a bigger deal in the US than the World Series. I haven't followed soccer at all, but curious if anyone thinks that's true, and/or has any thoughts on the apparent shift.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's true, but if the World Series only happened once every four years, it would be bigger than the World Cup here for sure.
Quote from: thspfc on December 01, 2022, 10:55:46 PM
Quote from: webny99 on December 01, 2022, 10:40:23 PM
I saw a take today that the World Cup is now a bigger deal in the US than the World Series. I haven't followed soccer at all, but curious if anyone thinks that's true, and/or has any thoughts on the apparent shift.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's true, but if the World Series only happened once every four years, it would be bigger than the World Cup here for sure.
This is along my lines. If the USA is in the cup, then it's sort of like the Olympics - a lot more people will care. If there's certain regions that have a large number of people from a certain country that's in, they will care. But otherwise, while the World Series will mostly have fans from the cities that are playing, a decent portion of the country will care.
Overall though, it's a passing interest many people have, but they won't necessarily go out of their way to watch it.
Quote from: webny99 on December 01, 2022, 10:40:23 PM
I saw a take today that the World Cup is now a bigger deal in the US than the World Series. I haven't followed soccer at all, but curious if anyone thinks that's true, and/or has any thoughts on the apparent shift.
Ever since the Brewers were eliminated from contention in the NL Central a few months ago, I've had zero interest in Baseball. The WS is still going?
Mike
Quote from: webny99 on December 01, 2022, 10:40:23 PM
I saw a take today that the World Cup is now a bigger deal in the US than the World Series. I haven't followed soccer at all, but curious if anyone thinks that's true, and/or has any thoughts on the apparent shift.
It's certainly as compelling as the World Series. I don't normally follow soccer either, but the decision to hold this year's World Cup in the late fall was a masterstroke.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 02, 2022, 05:31:39 AM
Quote from: webny99 on December 01, 2022, 10:40:23 PM
I saw a take today that the World Cup is now a bigger deal in the US than the World Series. I haven't followed soccer at all, but curious if anyone thinks that's true, and/or has any thoughts on the apparent shift.
It's certainly as compelling as the World Series. I don't normally follow soccer either, but the decision to hold this year's World Cup in the late fall was a masterstroke.
It's awful for anyone who likes soccer. All the league schedules have been adjusted, lots of pre-tournament injuries due to the shortened summer offseason, and the missing summer vibes that should come with a World Cup as a Northern Hemisphere viewer. No outdoor viewing parties this year, it's too damn cold.
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2022, 06:27:23 AM
No outdoor viewing parties this year, it's too damn cold.
Kansas City still representing.
I think the World Cup being a big deal in the US is not all that surprising, at least when the US team is playing (I don't recall Russia 2018 getting much attention at all after the qualifying debacle). If there's one thing the US does well and that many Americans get into, it's a "big event," and the World Cup is undoubtedly that.
To some extent, for casual sports viewers, I think the World Cup is sort of like hockey at the Winter Olympics–they watch that event and then go back to ignoring it for the next four years.
Quote from: mgk920 on December 02, 2022, 12:50:58 AM
Quote from: webny99 on December 01, 2022, 10:40:23 PM
I saw a take today that the World Cup is now a bigger deal in the US than the World Series. I haven't followed soccer at all, but curious if anyone thinks that's true, and/or has any thoughts on the apparent shift.
Ever since the Brewers were eliminated from contention in the NL Central a few months ago, I've had zero interest in Baseball. The WS is still going?
Mike
Google might be able to tell you.
Quote from: webny99 on December 01, 2022, 10:40:23 PM
I saw a take today that the World Cup is now a bigger deal in the US than the World Series. I haven't followed soccer at all, but curious if anyone thinks that's true, and/or has any thoughts on the apparent shift.
I've watched more WC games live than I did watching WS games live this year, and my Astros were in the WS, so I guess it might be a bigger deal for me. The US vs. Wales and US vs. Iran games were some of the most tense games I've ever watched (It helps when you are watching on the biggest TV screen in Oklahoma with at least 60 other college student soccer fans from around the world; the Wales game in particular was crazy with all the college students from Europe present). Game 6 of the WS was very fun to watch, however. For me it's a wash.
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 02, 2022, 10:58:12 AM
Quote from: webny99 on December 01, 2022, 10:40:23 PM
I saw a take today that the World Cup is now a bigger deal in the US than the World Series. I haven't followed soccer at all, but curious if anyone thinks that's true, and/or has any thoughts on the apparent shift.
I've watched more WC games live than I did watching WS games live this year, and my Astros were in the WS, so I guess it might be a bigger deal for me. The US vs. Wales and US vs. Iran games were some of the most tense games I've ever watched (It helps when you are watching on the biggest TV screen in Oklahoma with at least 60 other college student soccer fans from around the world; the Wales game in particular was crazy with all the college students from Europe present). Game 6 of the WS was very fun to watch, however. For me it's a wash.
Since most of the sports media is driven by 40+ old white dudes, I think they underestimate the amount of millennials who would much rather watch a game of soccer than a game of baseball, no matter who is playing.
The main part of the millennial generation is getting close to age 40 anyway. (Never mind the fact that there's no way soccer is more popular than baseball for millennials)
Quote from: ran4sh on December 02, 2022, 11:52:07 AM
The main part of the millennial generation is getting close to age 40 anyway. (Never mind the fact that there's no way soccer is more popular than baseball for millennials)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/filipbondy/2018/01/08/soccer-will-soon-be-americas-third-favorite-spectator-sport/?sh=6ce2ec903c53
Maybe not millennials, but Gen Z and Gen Alpha 100%.
Final Group H table:
Portugal 6
South Korea 4 (4 GS, 4 GA)
Uruguay 4 (2 GS, 2 GA)
Ghana 3
Portugal allows a meaningless (to them) goal to South Korea late that jumps them over Uruguay. Hmmm . . .
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 02, 2022, 12:22:55 PM
Final Group H table:
Portugal 6
South Korea 4 (4 GS, 4 GA)
Uruguay 4 (2 GS, 2 GA)
Ghana 3
Portugal allows a meaningless (to them) goal to South Korea late that jumps them over Uruguay. Hmmm . . .
My boy Sonny with a ridiculous run and pass to set it up. Very happy for him.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 02, 2022, 11:24:07 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 02, 2022, 10:58:12 AM
Quote from: webny99 on December 01, 2022, 10:40:23 PM
I saw a take today that the World Cup is now a bigger deal in the US than the World Series. I haven't followed soccer at all, but curious if anyone thinks that's true, and/or has any thoughts on the apparent shift.
I've watched more WC games live than I did watching WS games live this year, and my Astros were in the WS, so I guess it might be a bigger deal for me. The US vs. Wales and US vs. Iran games were some of the most tense games I've ever watched (It helps when you are watching on the biggest TV screen in Oklahoma with at least 60 other college student soccer fans from around the world; the Wales game in particular was crazy with all the college students from Europe present). Game 6 of the WS was very fun to watch, however. For me it's a wash.
Since most of the sports media is driven by 40+ old white dudes, I think they underestimate the amount of millennials who would much rather watch a game of soccer than a game of baseball, no matter who is playing.
For comparison there were only about 15 interested people watching Game 6 of the WS (which happened at a more convenient time for students to watch). I think there would've been even more people watching the WC games if they happened after classes ended for the day.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 02, 2022, 08:29:33 AM
I think the World Cup being a big deal in the US is not all that surprising, at least when the US team is playing (I don't recall Russia 2018 getting much attention at all after the qualifying debacle). If there's one thing the US does well and that many Americans get into, it's a "big event," and the World Cup is undoubtedly that.
To some extent, for casual sports viewers, I think the World Cup is sort of like hockey at the Winter Olympics–they watch that event and then go back to ignoring it for the next four years.
Fair enough, but for casual fans, the fact that the WC only occurs once every four years actually makes it appointment viewing.
English-speaking sports media is stuck in the Stone Ages wrt. soccer coverage in this country, so it's no surprise they've been bungling it for a while. Fox's production this year has been particularly bad, and we're stuck with them through 2026.
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2022, 03:03:21 PM
English-speaking sports media is stuck in the Stone Ages wrt. soccer coverage in this country, so it's no surprise they've been bungling it for a while. Fox's production this year has been particularly bad, and we're stuck with them through 2026.
This may just be a "minor thing that bothers me", but I absolutely hate the way the commentator Fox uses for US's WC games calls goals. European soccer commentators are much better at calling goals.
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 02, 2022, 03:15:36 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2022, 03:03:21 PM
English-speaking sports media is stuck in the Stone Ages wrt. soccer coverage in this country, so it's no surprise they've been bungling it for a while. Fox's production this year has been particularly bad, and we're stuck with them through 2026.
This may just be a "minor thing that bothers me", but I absolutely hate the way the commentator Fox uses for US's WC games calls goals. European soccer commentators are much better at calling goals.
John Strong isn't all that bad, and certainly better than the British ones who put you to sleep. Have to remember that they have to bring a distinctly American flavor to commentary to reel in the casuals.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 02, 2022, 02:10:51 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 02, 2022, 08:29:33 AM
I think the World Cup being a big deal in the US is not all that surprising, at least when the US team is playing (I don't recall Russia 2018 getting much attention at all after the qualifying debacle). If there's one thing the US does well and that many Americans get into, it's a "big event," and the World Cup is undoubtedly that.
To some extent, for casual sports viewers, I think the World Cup is sort of like hockey at the Winter Olympics–they watch that event and then go back to ignoring it for the next four years.
Fair enough, but for casual fans, the fact that the WC only occurs once every four years actually makes it appointment viewing.
Isn't that more or less what the final sentence of mine that you quoted says?
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2022, 03:03:21 PM
English-speaking sports media is stuck in the Stone Ages wrt. soccer coverage in this country, so it's no surprise they've been bungling it for a while. Fox's production this year has been particularly bad, and we're stuck with them through 2026.
It's hard to take complaints like this seriously when people complain about basically every broadcast in every sport.
Final Group G table:
Brazil 6 (+2)
Switzerland 6 (+1)
Cameroon 4
Serbia 1
Round of 16 is set:
Saturday: Netherlands vs USA, Argentina vs Australia
Sunday: England vs Senegal, France vs Poland
Monday: Japan vs Croatia, Brazil vs South Korea
Tuesday: Morocco vs Spain, Portugal vs Switzerland
Most likely group winners to lose: Morocco, Japan, Netherlands
Least likely group winners to lose: Brazil, France, Argentina
I got 11 of the 16 overall teams right. I missed Senegal, Morocco, Japan, Poland, and Australia.
I got 6 of the 8 group winners. I missed Morocco and Japan (as I'm sure everyone else did).
I got 4 of the 8 groups exactly right as far as winner and runner-up: A, B, G, H.
My worst group was Group F where I didn't get anyone exactly right. I had Croatia winning the group and Belgium going second. Every other group I at least got one thing exactly right.
Not horrible, not great.
Quote from: thspfc on December 02, 2022, 04:09:19 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2022, 03:03:21 PM
English-speaking sports media is stuck in the Stone Ages wrt. soccer coverage in this country, so it's no surprise they've been bungling it for a while. Fox's production this year has been particularly bad, and we're stuck with them through 2026.
It's hard to take complaints like this seriously when people complain about basically every broadcast in every sport.
Telemundo is also an option.
Quote from: thspfc on December 02, 2022, 04:09:19 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2022, 03:03:21 PM
English-speaking sports media is stuck in the Stone Ages wrt. soccer coverage in this country, so it's no surprise they've been bungling it for a while. Fox's production this year has been particularly bad, and we're stuck with them through 2026.
It's hard to take complaints like this seriously when people complain about basically every broadcast in every sport.
Not being a sports person, it's kind of hard for me to imagine how, exactly, TV sports commentary can actually be done badly enough that a sports person would actually notice. It seems like every time I see an NFL game, there's some commentator saying something along the lines of "well, what Detroit really needs to do now is move the football," which really makes me wonder why the network thinks they're getting their money's worth out of employing this person.
(Obviously, radio commentators are a whole different beast, due to the need to actually describe what's happening in a way that someone can understand it without seeing it.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 02, 2022, 06:26:53 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 02, 2022, 04:09:19 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2022, 03:03:21 PM
English-speaking sports media is stuck in the Stone Ages wrt. soccer coverage in this country, so it's no surprise they've been bungling it for a while. Fox's production this year has been particularly bad, and we're stuck with them through 2026.
It's hard to take complaints like this seriously when people complain about basically every broadcast in every sport.
Not being a sports person, it's kind of hard for me to imagine how, exactly, TV sports commentary can actually be done badly enough that a sports person would actually notice. It seems like every time I see an NFL game, there's some commentator saying something along the lines of "well, what Detroit really needs to do now is move the football," which really makes me wonder why the network thinks they're getting their money's worth out of employing this person.
(Obviously, radio commentators are a whole different beast, due to the need to actually describe what's happening in a way that someone can understand it without seeing it.)
There's strong nostalgia and survivorship bias when it comes to sports commentators. Genuinely, the only
bad major sports commentators I can think of hearing are some who call barely relevant Saturday afternoon college football between teams with .500 records. There's definitely many more bad ones out there I'm not familiar with, but in general, the top ones are fine. Fans just want their old favorite commentators back, which I think stems more from a longing for a previous era of sports or life altogether than from the commentators themselves.
I was 12/16 on knockout teams, 6/8 on group winners. The four I missed were Australia, Japan, Croatia, and South Korea.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 18, 2022, 08:53:01 AM
A: Netherlands, Qatar
B: England, USA
C: Argentina, Mexico
D: France, Denmark
E: Spain, Japan
F: Belgium, Canada
G: Brazil, Serbia
H: Uruguay, South Korea
Missed 7 of 16. I clearly undervalued Asia and Africa and overvalued North America.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 18, 2022, 08:53:01 AM
Round of 16:
USA over Netherlands
Argentina over Denmark
Canada over Spain
Brazil over South Korea
England over Qatar
France over Mexico
Belgium over Japan
Serbia over Uruguay
Quarterfinals:
Argentina over USA
Brazil over Canada
France over England
Belgium over Serbia
Semifinals:
Argentina over Brazil
France over Belgium
3rd place:
Brazil over Belgium
Final:
France over Argentina
I still like France to win, but I now think they face Brazil in the final, not Argentina. I think Morocco gets the semifinal slot that obviously can't be Belgium.
Ranking the final 16 based strictly on points/goal differential/goals scored:
1 England
2 Netherlands
3 Morocco
4 France
5 Argentina
6 Portugal
7 Brazil
8 Senegal
9 Japan
10 Switzerland
11 Australia
12 Croatia
13 USA
14 Spain
15 South Korea
16 Poland
Unfortunately tomorrow morning's match will be Netherlands vs. Pulisic's nether regions.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 02, 2022, 07:16:26 PM
Ranking the final 16 based strictly on points/goal differential/goals scored:
1 England
2 Netherlands
3 Morocco
4 France
5 Argentina
6 Portugal
7 Brazil
8 Senegal
9 Japan
10 Switzerland
11 Australia
12 Croatia
13 USA
14 Spain
15 South Korea
16 Poland
I would love to see a historical breakdown of how these metrics impacted previous tournaments. It's been 56 years since England brought it home.
Quote from: Road Hog on December 02, 2022, 08:57:00 PM
Unfortunately tomorrow morning's match will be Netherlands vs. Pulisic's nether regions.
It'll be nuts if the US wins.
For those wondering why soccer players seem fine after going down with an injury, there's an explanation buried in this article about magic (freezing) spray (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/magic-spray-world-cup-soccer-rcna59872):
QuoteIt's common for soccer players to take impacts in bony areas, which can cause pain but don't often lead to lasting injuries.
While there's a lot of theatrics (especially when certain teams are involved), sometimes players just need a minute to get through the pain and get back into the game.
Quote from: Bruce on December 03, 2022, 12:03:34 AM
For those wondering why soccer players seem fine after going down with an injury, there's an explanation buried in this article about magic (freezing) spray (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/magic-spray-world-cup-soccer-rcna59872):
QuoteIt's common for soccer players to take impacts in bony areas, which can cause pain but don't often lead to lasting injuries.
While there's a lot of theatrics (especially when certain teams are involved), sometimes players just need a minute to get through the pain and get back into the game.
The flopping is out of control and takes away from the flow of the game. Make any injured player sit for 2 - 5 minutes and we'll quickly see who is truly injured
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 03, 2022, 01:28:46 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 03, 2022, 12:03:34 AM
For those wondering why soccer players seem fine after going down with an injury, there's an explanation buried in this article about magic (freezing) spray (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/magic-spray-world-cup-soccer-rcna59872):
QuoteIt's common for soccer players to take impacts in bony areas, which can cause pain but don't often lead to lasting injuries.
While there's a lot of theatrics (especially when certain teams are involved), sometimes players just need a minute to get through the pain and get back into the game.
The flopping is out of control and takes away from the flow of the game. Make any injured player sit for 2 - 5 minutes and we'll quickly see who is truly injured
There is now the ability to go to VAR for an egregious flop and issue a yellow card so it's subsided somewhat.
Starting XI:
Turner
Robinson Ream Zimmerman Dest
McKennie Adams Musah
Pulisic Ferreira Weah
Sargent unavailable due to injury
Quote from: Road Hog on December 02, 2022, 09:03:23 PM
I would love to see a historical breakdown of how these metrics impacted previous tournaments. It's been 56 years since England brought it home.
Well, it didn't have to go far. :-D
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 03, 2022, 01:28:46 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 03, 2022, 12:03:34 AM
For those wondering why soccer players seem fine after going down with an injury, there's an explanation buried in this article about magic (freezing) spray (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/magic-spray-world-cup-soccer-rcna59872):
QuoteIt's common for soccer players to take impacts in bony areas, which can cause pain but don't often lead to lasting injuries.
While there's a lot of theatrics (especially when certain teams are involved), sometimes players just need a minute to get through the pain and get back into the game.
The flopping is out of control and takes away from the flow of the game. Make any injured player sit for 2 - 5 minutes and we'll quickly see who is truly injured
MLS Next is doing just that, and eventually it could be implemented in pro leagues. That said, soccer subs work too differently to allow for a revolving door of players on the field, and sometimes players just need a breather.
The U.S. is on pace to do worse than Qatar in this Round of 16 game (Trailing 2-0 at halftime, on pace to lose 4-0).
On pace to lose 3-1. Better than being shut out, but still..........
The U.S. are now out
A young team that managed to play well in the group stage despite their inexperience and held England to a shutout. I'm content with the performances, but wish there was better finishing up top. The team is missing a lethal striker.
Maybe next time we could try playing defense. Missed chances, ok, whatever, every team misses chances. There's no reason why Netherlands should have scored 3 goals, and had great opportunities for a couple more, considering how little possession they had inside our half. Robinson in particular was uninterested in defending Dumfries. Reyna wasn't the game changer he's been cracked up to be.
Overall though, I would consider this tournament to be mostly a success for the US. Only 3 goals in 4 matches is disappointing, but we did show the ability to possess the ball for long stretches and create chances against top teams like England and Netherlands. Sitting deep and defending the whole game might work once, maybe twice if you're lucky, but in order to make a really deep run at a WC, you have to control the game, and we showed we can do that. The main focus going forward will be finding a true no. 9 who puts it in the net.
Since the USA got eliminated, I'm gonna have to cheer for England now.
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2022, 03:27:58 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 02, 2022, 03:15:36 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2022, 03:03:21 PM
English-speaking sports media is stuck in the Stone Ages wrt. soccer coverage in this country, so it's no surprise they've been bungling it for a while. Fox's production this year has been particularly bad, and we're stuck with them through 2026.
This may just be a "minor thing that bothers me", but I absolutely hate the way the commentator Fox uses for US's WC games calls goals. European soccer commentators are much better at calling goals.
John Strong isn't all that bad, and certainly better than the British ones who put you to sleep. Have to remember that they have to bring a distinctly American flavor to commentary to reel in the casuals.
I like the announcer (Derek Rae) on the ARG/AUS game. You can only understand about every 3rd word, so you can totally ignore him.
Quote from: GaryV on December 03, 2022, 03:09:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2022, 03:27:58 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 02, 2022, 03:15:36 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2022, 03:03:21 PM
English-speaking sports media is stuck in the Stone Ages wrt. soccer coverage in this country, so it's no surprise they've been bungling it for a while. Fox's production this year has been particularly bad, and we're stuck with them through 2026.
This may just be a "minor thing that bothers me", but I absolutely hate the way the commentator Fox uses for US's WC games calls goals. European soccer commentators are much better at calling goals.
John Strong isn't all that bad, and certainly better than the British ones who put you to sleep. Have to remember that they have to bring a distinctly American flavor to commentary to reel in the casuals.
I like the announcer (Derek Rae) on the ARG/AUS game. You can only understand about every 3rd word, so you can totally ignore him.
I have zero issues understanding him.
Throw shade at me all you want, but the U.S. men's team is not World Cup worthy regardless of the age of the team itself. One bad decision after another and that's all we show these soccer fans in this year's World Cup? Might as well keep them out of the 2026 World Cup, too.
That's an . . . interesting take.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on December 03, 2022, 09:48:53 PM
Throw shade at me all you want, but the U.S. men's team is not World Cup worthy regardless of the age of the team itself. One bad decision after another and that's all we show these soccer fans in this year's World Cup? Might as well keep them out of the 2026 World Cup, too.
The CONCACAF champions in several competitions who also finished top 3 in the qualifying rounds does not deserve to be in the World Cup? Then who do?
Mexico? Costa Rica? Canada? They all crashed out of the group stage.
I find it interesting that two USA team players are local to me and both play for Leeds in Premier League. Shows how we've grown since 1994.
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2022, 12:58:22 AM
I find it interesting that two USA team players are local to me and both play for Leeds in Premier League. Shows how we've grown since 1994.
New Jersey has been a reliable source of soccer talent. Kearny alone produced Tony Meola, John Harkes, and Tab Ramos on the 1994 team.
As for Aaronson and Adams, they followed Marsch and had been under his tutelage at various points in the Red Bull system.
The U.S. needs a quality striker who can finish. Unfortunately, quality strikers do not grow on trees.
I'll ride the Three Lions bus to the bitter end now that the Aussies are out too.
Anyone but England. Their fans are insufferable enough.
I'd prefer to have a first-time winner (Netherlands, Japan, Croatia, Portugal, etc.) or Argentina to properly close out Messi's international career.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on December 03, 2022, 09:48:53 PM
Throw shade at me all you want, but the U.S. men's team is not World Cup worthy regardless of the age of the team itself. One bad decision after another and that's all we show these soccer fans in this year's World Cup? Might as well keep them out of the 2026 World Cup, too.
A) That's dumb.
B) We made the final 16 teams out of 209 member countries.
C) That's dumb.
D) Who would you prefer instead?
E) That's dumb.
I see England, I see France ....
The round of 8 will be pretty tasty.
Is being in CONCACAF an impediment to the US elevating to the next level?
The US will not play a competitive match against another team that made the knockout round before the next World Cup.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 08:29:02 AM
Is being in CONCACAF an impediment to the US elevating to the next level?
The US will not play a competitive match against another team that made the knockout round before the next World Cup.
UEFA qualifying is a bloodbath (see: Italy), and CONMEBOL isn't easy either. At least in Concacaf we only have to beat Trinidad in order to make the tournament.
Quote from: thspfc on December 05, 2022, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 08:29:02 AM
Is being in CONCACAF an impediment to the US elevating to the next level?
The US will not play a competitive match against another team that made the knockout round before the next World Cup.
UEFA qualifying is a bloodbath (see: Italy), and CONMEBOL isn't easy either. At least in Concacaf we only have to beat Trinidad in order to make the tournament.
Sigh 2018.
Quote from: thspfc on December 05, 2022, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 08:29:02 AM
Is being in CONCACAF an impediment to the US elevating to the next level?
The US will not play a competitive match against another team that made the knockout round before the next World Cup.
UEFA qualifying is a bloodbath (see: Italy), and CONMEBOL isn't easy either. At least in Concacaf we only have to beat Trinidad in order to make the tournament.
Making it is easier in CONCACAF, but you also don't play against top level competition that prepares you to win once you're there.
I'd rather make 3 out of every 4 Wold Cups and advance past the round of 16 once or twice over making every World Cup but never advancing past the round of 16.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 08:29:02 AM
Is being in CONCACAF an impediment to the US elevating to the next level?
The US will not play a competitive match against another team that made the knockout round before the next World Cup.
Playing in CONCACAF conditions with full shithousery is good for developing mental strength, but bad for player longevity.
I'd rather see more cross-play with CONMEBOL, especially a whole-hemisphere Copa America every 4 years.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 05, 2022, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 08:29:02 AM
Is being in CONCACAF an impediment to the US elevating to the next level?
The US will not play a competitive match against another team that made the knockout round before the next World Cup.
UEFA qualifying is a bloodbath (see: Italy), and CONMEBOL isn't easy either. At least in Concacaf we only have to beat Trinidad in order to make the tournament.
Making it is easier in CONCACAF, but you also don't play against top level competition that prepares you to win once you're there.
I'd rather make 3 out of every 4 Wold Cups and advance past the round of 16 once or twice over making every World Cup but never advancing past the round of 16.
I mean, for the record we advanced past the round of 16 five world cups ago (for us).
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 06, 2022, 09:42:50 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 05, 2022, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 08:29:02 AM
Is being in CONCACAF an impediment to the US elevating to the next level?
The US will not play a competitive match against another team that made the knockout round before the next World Cup.
UEFA qualifying is a bloodbath (see: Italy), and CONMEBOL isn't easy either. At least in Concacaf we only have to beat Trinidad in order to make the tournament.
Making it is easier in CONCACAF, but you also don't play against top level competition that prepares you to win once you're there.
I'd rather make 3 out of every 4 Wold Cups and advance past the round of 16 once or twice over making every World Cup but never advancing past the round of 16.
I mean, for the record we advanced past the round of 16 five world cups ago (for us).
By beating another CONCACAF team.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 06, 2022, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 06, 2022, 09:42:50 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 05, 2022, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 08:29:02 AM
Is being in CONCACAF an impediment to the US elevating to the next level?
The US will not play a competitive match against another team that made the knockout round before the next World Cup.
UEFA qualifying is a bloodbath (see: Italy), and CONMEBOL isn't easy either. At least in Concacaf we only have to beat Trinidad in order to make the tournament.
Making it is easier in CONCACAF, but you also don't play against top level competition that prepares you to win once you're there.
I'd rather make 3 out of every 4 Wold Cups and advance past the round of 16 once or twice over making every World Cup but never advancing past the round of 16.
I mean, for the record we advanced past the round of 16 five world cups ago (for us).
By beating another CONCACAF team.
My favorite kind of cannibalism.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 06, 2022, 09:44:43 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 06, 2022, 09:44:13 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 06, 2022, 09:42:50 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: thspfc on December 05, 2022, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 05, 2022, 08:29:02 AM
Is being in CONCACAF an impediment to the US elevating to the next level?
The US will not play a competitive match against another team that made the knockout round before the next World Cup.
UEFA qualifying is a bloodbath (see: Italy), and CONMEBOL isn't easy either. At least in Concacaf we only have to beat Trinidad in order to make the tournament.
Making it is easier in CONCACAF, but you also don't play against top level competition that prepares you to win once you're there.
I'd rather make 3 out of every 4 Wold Cups and advance past the round of 16 once or twice over making every World Cup but never advancing past the round of 16.
I mean, for the record we advanced past the round of 16 five world cups ago (for us).
By beating another CONCACAF team.
My favorite kind of cannibalism.
Would only rank 3rd for me, behind the Pac-12 in football and praying mantises.
The quarterfinals are set:
Netherlands
Argentina
Croatia
Brazil
England
France
Morocco
Portugal
The only team remaining that is not from Europe or South America is Morocco.
Morocco is working their way up the Atlantic coast. First they took out Spain. Next they have Portugal and if they win they get France or England.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 06:58:41 AM
Morocco is working their way up the Atlantic coast. First they took out Spain. Next they have Portugal and if they win they get France or England.
I'll be the pedantic one and say that Portugal touches the Atlantic farther south than Spain, unless you're counting the Canaries. :)
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 07, 2022, 08:56:09 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 06:58:41 AM
Morocco is working their way up the Atlantic coast. First they took out Spain. Next they have Portugal and if they win they get France or England.
I'll be the pedantic one and say that Portugal touches the Atlantic farther south than Spain, unless you're counting the Canaries. :)
Is Cadiz not on the Atlantic?
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 09:00:24 AM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 07, 2022, 08:56:09 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 06:58:41 AM
Morocco is working their way up the Atlantic coast. First they took out Spain. Next they have Portugal and if they win they get France or England.
I'll be the pedantic one and say that Portugal touches the Atlantic farther south than Spain, unless you're counting the Canaries. :)
Is Cadiz not on the Atlantic?
I suppose you're right. I was thinking that was a named bay. Consider my pedantic ass incorrect. :)
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 07, 2022, 08:56:09 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 06:58:41 AM
Morocco is working their way up the Atlantic coast. First they took out Spain. Next they have Portugal and if they win they get France or England.
I'll be the pedantic one and say that Portugal touches the Atlantic farther south than Spain, unless you're counting the Canaries. :)
Spain shares a common land border with Morocco, too.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on December 08, 2022, 12:19:37 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 07, 2022, 08:56:09 AM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 07, 2022, 06:58:41 AM
Morocco is working their way up the Atlantic coast. First they took out Spain. Next they have Portugal and if they win they get France or England.
I'll be the pedantic one and say that Portugal touches the Atlantic farther south than Spain, unless you're counting the Canaries. :)
Spain shares a common land border with Morocco, too.
Mike
Sure, but neither Ceuta nor Melilla certainly are on the Atlantic.
CROATIA BEAT BRAZIL IN PENALTIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH MY GOODNESS WHAT A GAME
Quote from: therocket on December 09, 2022, 12:50:44 PM
CROATIA BEAT BRAZIL IN PENALTIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH MY GOODNESS WHAT A GAME
I wonder how many brackets were busted.
Holy shit Netherlands last minute goal. Let's see who pulls this one out.
What a game. Holy shit.
Mildly surprised there were no ejections when the benches cleared.
Isn't Messi and Ronaldo retiring after this World Cup?
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 09, 2022, 04:05:00 PM
Holy shit Netherlands last minute goal. Let's see who pulls this one out.
Hope the US was taking lessons on how to run a set piece.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 09, 2022, 04:33:13 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 09, 2022, 04:05:00 PM
Holy shit Netherlands last minute goal. Let's see who pulls this one out.
Hope the US was taking lessons on how to run a set piece.
Emiliano Martinez with two ridiculous saves. Argentina moves on.
Great games today, exciting until the very end.
Grant Wahl, possibly the most prominent American soccer journalist, died at one of the quarterfinal matches. Foul play is not certain yet.
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/09/1142054844/grant-wahl-soccer-writer-dies-qatar-world-cup
He has been reporting heavily on the migrant deaths in Qatar and was also detained because he wore a rainbow shirt while entering one match, despite FIFA allowing that to happen.
Quote from: Ted$8roadFan on December 09, 2022, 05:25:00 PM
Great games today, exciting until the very end.
Netherlands/Argentina was one of the best games I've ever seen. With obvious recency bias, my top 3 is Juventus/Porto 2021 UCL second leg, France/Switzerland euros round of 16, and Netherlands/Argentina today.
Quote from: Bruce on December 09, 2022, 11:35:50 PM
Grant Wahl, possibly the most prominent American soccer journalist, died at one of the quarterfinal matches. Foul play is not certain yet.
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/09/1142054844/grant-wahl-soccer-writer-dies-qatar-world-cup
He has been reporting heavily on the migrant deaths in Qatar and was also detained because he wore a rainbow shirt while entering one match, despite FIFA allowing that to happen.
Oh shit, he was a journalist? I didn't realize that. Certainly brings my opinion of Qatar down many notches...
Quote from: US 89 on December 10, 2022, 02:44:17 AM
Oh shit, he was a journalist? I didn't realize that. Certainly brings my opinion of Qatar down many notches...
Probably the most well-respected American soccer journalist of the past 20 years. Wrote a lot of cover stories for SI about soccer when American media was loathe to provide real coverage.
Quote from: Bruce on December 10, 2022, 03:52:16 AM
Quote from: US 89 on December 10, 2022, 02:44:17 AM
Oh shit, he was a journalist? I didn't realize that. Certainly brings my opinion of Qatar down many notches...
Probably the most well-respected American soccer journalist of the past 20 years. Wrote a lot of cover stories for SI about soccer when American media was loathe to provide real coverage.
Granted I follow a lot of soccer people on social, but I don't think I've seen this kind of outpouring among journalists, even from other sports. He had maybe brought more attention to both men's and women's soccer in this country than anyone else. I reaaalllly hope it was natural causes, but I'm a bit dubious.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 10, 2022, 09:29:32 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 10, 2022, 03:52:16 AM
Quote from: US 89 on December 10, 2022, 02:44:17 AM
Oh shit, he was a journalist? I didn't realize that. Certainly brings my opinion of Qatar down many notches...
Probably the most well-respected American soccer journalist of the past 20 years. Wrote a lot of cover stories for SI about soccer when American media was loathe to provide real coverage.
Granted I follow a lot of soccer people on social, but I don't think I've seen this kind of outpouring among journalists, even from other sports. He had maybe brought more attention to both men's and women's soccer in this country than anyone else. I reaaalllly hope it was natural causes, but I'm a bit dubious.
It sounds like it was natural causes, even according to Wahl himself: https://apnews.com/article/journalist-grant-wahl-dies-in-qatar-covering-world-cup-82829df66ec0635bdbba3e8edccea96d
Goodbye Ronaldo?
Morocco 1 - Portugal 0
Wow what a set of quarterfinal games!
I can't imagine a more entertaining set of four games than what we got over the past two days.
The final game decided by the Tottenham striker sailing a PK well over the head of the Tottenham goalkeeper.
Argentina vs Croatia Tuesday
Morocco vs France Wednesday
The British had two teams in the Cup and both are now eliminated. Wonder why they get to have two teams and all other countries can only send one each.
Quote from: jgb191 on December 11, 2022, 12:24:44 AM
The British had two teams in the Cup and both are now eliminated. Wonder why they get to have two teams and all other countries can only send one each.
Grandfathered in because they have separate FAs for England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar. Wales was able to qualify after decades of falling short in UEFA competition, while Scotland has a mixed record.
Other dependent territories have their own teams as well, including American Samoa, Hong Kong, Macau, Montserrat, New Caledonia, the Faroe Islands, and Curacao.
Argentina saw how game that goes to PK against Croatia ends and took care of things within the 90 minutes.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on November 18, 2022, 08:53:01 AM
Final:
France over Argentina
Final outcome still to be determined, but I got the right teams.
Quote from: thspfc on June 16, 2022, 06:46:03 PM
Final
Argentina over France
Same as above except I took Argentina.
France vs Argentina should have been the 3rd place match instead of Morocco vs Croatia.
I really don't get why the Europeans always want to stage a third-place game in events of this sort. I suppose with the Olympics the idea is that they award a bronze medal in everything, so they have to have some way to decide that. Apparently at the 1994 World Cup, both teams in the third-place game received third-place awards, which in that case made playing the game arguably that much more pointless (I gather that has not been done again).
Quote from: thspfc on December 14, 2022, 03:58:20 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 16, 2022, 06:46:03 PM
Final
Argentina over France
Same as above except I took Argentina.
Well, one of you is bound to be right...
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 16, 2022, 08:24:18 AM
I really don't get why the Europeans always want to stage a third-place game in events of this sort. I suppose with the Olympics the idea is that they award a bronze medal in everything, so they have to have some way to decide that. Apparently at the 1994 World Cup, both teams in the third-place game received third-place awards, which in that case made playing the game arguably that much more pointless (I gather that has not been done again).
NCAA basketball tournament used to have a 3rd place game.
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on December 16, 2022, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 16, 2022, 08:24:18 AM
I really don't get why the Europeans always want to stage a third-place game in events of this sort. I suppose with the Olympics the idea is that they award a bronze medal in everything, so they have to have some way to decide that. Apparently at the 1994 World Cup, both teams in the third-place game received third-place awards, which in that case made playing the game arguably that much more pointless (I gather that has not been done again).
NCAA basketball tournament used to have a 3rd place game.
I know–my school won the final such game prior to it being discontinued over 40 years ago. The NCAA understood that third place still just means you lost!
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 16, 2022, 08:24:18 AM
I really don't get why the Europeans always want to stage a third-place game in events of this sort. I suppose with the Olympics the idea is that they award a bronze medal in everything, so they have to have some way to decide that. Apparently at the 1994 World Cup, both teams in the third-place game received third-place awards, which in that case made playing the game arguably that much more pointless (I gather that has not been done again).
It's important for the FIFA World Rankings, which are used for seeding in future tournaments. Also helps pad out the travel/ticket packages that fans of the losing semifinalists have paid for.
Quote from: Bruce on December 16, 2022, 10:21:02 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 16, 2022, 08:24:18 AM
I really don't get why the Europeans always want to stage a third-place game in events of this sort. I suppose with the Olympics the idea is that they award a bronze medal in everything, so they have to have some way to decide that. Apparently at the 1994 World Cup, both teams in the third-place game received third-place awards, which in that case made playing the game arguably that much more pointless (I gather that has not been done again).
It's important for the FIFA World Rankings, which are used for seeding in future tournaments. Also helps pad out the travel/ticket packages that fans of the losing semifinalists have paid for.
The teams themselves certainly take the third-place game quite seriously.
Oh my goodness the World Cup final is going to penalties
ARGENTINA WINS the WORLD CUP in PENALTIES!!
An exciting end, despite France looking utterly lost for the first 70 minutes.
Third best game I've watched this year, behind the MLS Cup and CCL Final. Was worth the 7 am wakeup.
Quote from: Bruce on December 18, 2022, 01:33:04 PM
An exciting end, despite France looking utterly lost for the first 70 minutes.
Third best game I've watched this year, behind the MLS Cup and CCL Final. Was worth the 7 am wakeup.
I'll take even the worst WC final over the best MLS Cup final.
Some compared Messi's victory with Ash's victory in Pokemon from what I saw on this image taken from this Spanish site.
https://www.3djuegos.lat/anime/argentina-campeon-mundo-qatar-2022-ash-ketchum-leo-messi-mejores-mundo
(https://zupimages.net/up/22/51/k2zs.jpeg) (https://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=22/51/k2zs.jpeg)
That might have been the best soccer match I've ever watched.
Quote from: US 89 on December 18, 2022, 07:59:14 PM
That might have been the best soccer match I've ever watched.
I agree, though I think I've watched a total of twenty professional matches from start to finish.
Quote from: thspfc on December 18, 2022, 03:46:18 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 18, 2022, 01:33:04 PM
An exciting end, despite France looking utterly lost for the first 70 minutes.
Third best game I've watched this year, behind the MLS Cup and CCL Final. Was worth the 7 am wakeup.
I'll take even the worst WC final over the best MLS Cup final.
The MLS Cup final was even more insane. Bale getting a 128th minute header to send it to PKs, where a backup goalkeeper who had only played once in the regular season got a shutout. The only mark against it was that the Cinderella team were on the losing end.
FOX Sports ending with "Argentina wins! Now on to the NFL" kind of sold the coverage short. FOX cheaped out from the get-go.
Quote from: Road Hog on December 19, 2022, 02:28:46 AM
FOX Sports ending with "Argentina wins! Now on to the NFL" kind of sold the coverage short. FOX cheaped out from the get-go.
They probably only budgeted enough time to deal with two extra times and PKs, and suddenly it's noon. Would have been nice to have 5-10 minutes of post-game, but...but...[looks around at 95% of America]
Quote from: Road Hog on December 19, 2022, 02:28:46 AM
FOX Sports ending with "Argentina wins! Now on to the NFL" kind of sold the coverage short. FOX cheaped out from the get-go.
Don't forget the whitewashing of human rights atrocities in Qatar.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on December 19, 2022, 01:36:04 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on December 19, 2022, 02:28:46 AM
FOX Sports ending with "Argentina wins! Now on to the NFL" kind of sold the coverage short. FOX cheaped out from the get-go.
Don't forget the whitewashing of human rights atrocities in Qatar.
FOX was in a tough spot on two counts. First of all, they didn't sign up to televise a November-December World Cup. They had obligations with both the NFL and FIFA that had to be met. They knew the time difference would mean low viewership during the week, but then it got moved to a time when the weekend games, which they were counting on to make their money, were up against college and pro football.
As for the whitewashing, they told the whole story, just not right before/during/after game broadcasts.
9 AM to 11 PM in UTC+3 (Qatar), the times that are reasonable for playing assuming a 2-hour game, are 1 AM to 3 PM in my time zone and 10 PM the previous day to 12 PM on the West Coast. Most of these times shouldn't conflict with American football except for early afternoon games. (I don't know if Qatar had 9 AM games, but I know Olympics events often start that early). In fact, they can fill what would normally be dead times. Given that you say that FOX only did it because they were required to, they probably got higher viewership during the morning hours than they would if nothing was going on and didn't lose out on PM American football coverage.
Am I missing something? Not following the NFL or college football at all or even watching TV, I probably am.
Quote from: 1 on December 19, 2022, 04:57:49 PM
9 AM to 11 PM in UTC+3 (Qatar), the times that are reasonable for playing assuming a 2-hour game, are 1 AM to 3 PM in my time zone and 10 PM the previous day to 12 PM on the West Coast. Most of these times shouldn't conflict with American football except for early afternoon games. (I don't know if Qatar had 9 AM games, but I know Olympics events often start that early). In fact, they can fill what would normally be dead times. Given that you say that FOX only did it because they were required to, they probably got higher viewership during the morning hours than they would if nothing was going on and didn't lose out on PM American football coverage.
Am I missing something? Not following the NFL or college football at all or even watching TV, I probably am.
There were 11am and 2pm (ET) games on the weekends that partially or fully clashed with college/NFL. Had to depress ratings compared to what those time slots would have done in the summer.
You're not missing anything. You said it:
Quote from: 1 on December 19, 2022, 04:57:49 PM
except for early afternoon games
Even though these typically attract fewer viewers than later games, they're still big on TV and no doubt took a lot of eyes off the WC games.
The blame should also be shared with FIFA. The trophy lift was an hour after the end of the match due to some understandable logistical issues (such as having two heads of state on the field), but it just took so damn long to get there. Historically, it was done within minutes of the last kick.