Who ya got?
Well, I have no doubt who Chris *WANTS* to see win, but my guess is that he's also now picking someone else to actually win it.
:-P
Me?
Right now, Germany looks to be unstoppable.
Mike
I'm annoyed Portugal didn't lose to Denmark last night. Then again, 60-goals-this-season Ronaldo looks annoyed with himself and not on the score sheet, which is really all I wanted as he's a massive cock (with a little penis).
It's still too early to say that much yet, what with Spain, Italy, France and England having nervy first games against each other. Russia looked amazing in their opening game against the Czech Republic, but were made to look fairly ordinary by Poland. Germany are clearly the front runners, dispatching Portugal and the Netherlands, but typically these things are won by teams that start slow.
Spain-Ireland will be telling to see if Spain are here to win it, or are simply trying show off, trying too much to be like Barca: "look we've got 2 banks of 3 in midfield and no one up front!" - without Messi and some of the others at the Catalonian club, that might not work. Then again, Ireland thrive at being underdogs in this sort of game, and will let Spain have lots of possession, but stop them having chances and try and get a couple on the break: 'one chance, one goal' will be Ireland's ideal tonight.
Italy-Croatia will also be telling - Croatia are a pretty decent side, but if Italy can beat them convincingly, they lay a gauntlet down for the other teams.
England-Sweden, the game that really matters to me will also be very telling - Sweden are a bogey team for England and England need to win really. Then again, England the in group stages is nearly always last minute qualification through, if we get it. England are the biggest underperformers at the Euros. A draw against Sweden and a win against Ukraine ought to be enough to see us through as runners-up, though a game against the group C winners will be very tough (though likewise a game against the group C runners up).
France need to roll over Ukraine - watch for refereeing decisions go the co-host's way (loud crowds, a bit of corruption that always happens to help weak co-hosts have a better chance at staying in) - and demoralise them (not least as that helps England, but more the high goal difference helping the French win the group).
I have low expectations for England, and as everyone in the country does, there's high expectations that they might shine with the pressure off coming from the media. It must be weird in the England camp "they don't expect anything as they don't think we are good enough, but now the pressure is off they expect us to surprise them". If we do well, given that it's a new manager, a mostly new team, and building for the future, it promises lots.
I think these will be the route to the final:
(semi 1)
(Winner A) Russia - Denmark (Runner-up B)
(Winner C) Spain - England (Runner-up D) on penalties like Euro 96. England under Hodgson is suited for this kind of game.
(semi2)
(Winner B) Germany - Czech Republic (Runner-up A)
(Winner D) France - Italy (Runner-up C) - too close to call and too boring to watch
I'm looking at Germany. In fact, we'll be on vacation in Germany for the quarters through the Final. Trying to find a good public viewing opportunity, which in Munich should not be a problem.
My mom was born in Germany so I basically have to root for them despite my friend trying to get me to go for Poland.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on June 14, 2012, 08:19:21 AMMy mom was born in Germany so I basically have to root for them despite my friend trying to get me to go for Poland.
You seem to have a better claim than quite a few of the German players (Grandparents, IIRC).
Poland are the Polish B team - the A team beat the Netherlands last night ;)
As much as I would like to see England win I would put a 50% chance on them getting beyond the group stage. As for Nederland, their loss against Germany was predicted as would any team facing the Jerries. If England do progress to the point where they play Germany then that will almost certainly be as far as they go. My money is on Germany winning the tournament.
^^ I'd go 70% on England getting to the knock out stages. Thankfully, as we're likely to be runners up, that means we don't meet the Germans until the final.
the team whose fans impersonate the Nazis most perfectly. right now it appears to be a toss-up between ... Russia and Poland.
The Netherlands will likely be out of the tournament. Not that I care a great deal, because I don't watch much soccer.
I hope for a surprise of one of the lesser known countries. I hope Poland (co-host) will be able to get far into the tournament.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 14, 2012, 11:04:28 AM
the team whose fans impersonate the Nazis most perfectly. right now it appears to be a toss-up between ... Russia and Poland.
Did you see the creepy knight banner the Russian fans had? It's picture #2 in this gallery:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2012/06/euro_2012_soccer_championship.html
It's apparently supposed to be this guy and a big FU to the Poles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Pozharsky
I'm going for England, since I visit there regularly, and Ireland, because they got so royally screwed out of the last World Cup.
two thoughts:
1) that is a very large banner. the logistics of getting it into the stadium and unfurled are impressive.
2) man, I thought the "south will rise again" crowd was having trouble letting go of the past, but these Russians are caught up over something that happened in the 1610s.
Quote from: Chris on June 14, 2012, 11:12:11 AM
The Netherlands will likely be out of the tournament. Not that I care a great deal, because I don't watch much soccer.
I hope for a surprise of one of the lesser known countries. I hope Poland (co-host) will be able to get far into the tournament.
How bout Hrvatska? (puts on best Slavic impersonation for Croatia)
The Netherlands have been disappointing.
I have, however, been impressed with Greece.
Quote from: brownpelican on June 16, 2012, 05:07:07 PM
The Netherlands have been disappointing.
I have, however, been impressed with Greece.
As it was pointed out on the ESPN broadcast, Greece needs all the joy it can get right now.
I was going to say how good this competition is - I'd forgotten how good the Euros are compared to the World Cup.
Then I watched Spain-Croatia.
Can someone tell me how Navas wasn't offside when the ball was played through the Croatian defence? And how shirt pulls in the box aren't penalties if you are a player from a dark horse team being fouled by a player from one of the favourites for the tournament (c.f. Bentner)?
Still, I'd rather England play Spain or Italy than Croatia, so I'm relieved that they are out.
The head-to-head is ridiculous - at half time Saturday, Greece were below Russia, then Czechia scored and Greece jumped Russia without having to do a thing. Similar, but different between Italy's first and Spain's goal today - 3 teams on the same points, with Italy on top, despite being the weakest of the three sides against Ireland. If Ireland weren't out of their depth and were a Sweden level side that weren't a walkover to attack but were out, Italy would have sat back after scoring and played negative boring football, because there's no incentive for them to do anything other than win.
The picture on this (http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2012/6/18/3095419/spain-vs-croatia-jesus-navas-goal-offside-euro-2012) page definitely shows offside. The shot after that shows no Croatian players at all between the two Spaniards and the goal. Even the goalkeeper thinks it was offside.
I was watching the other match hoping Ireland would score at least one goal in this tournament.
Quote from: Truvelo on June 19, 2012, 05:03:25 AM
The picture on this (http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2012/6/18/3095419/spain-vs-croatia-jesus-navas-goal-offside-euro-2012) page definitely shows offside. The shot after that shows no Croatian players at all between the two Spaniards and the goal. Even the goalkeeper thinks it was offside.
I can explain it. I'm a soccer referee myself. It's spelled out very cleanly in FIFA Law 11.
For a player to be ruled offsides, he must be in an offside position (which he clearly was in that picture) AND must either 1) be involved with active play (i.e. receive a pass while in an offside position), 2) interfere with the defense, or 3) gain an advantage by being in an offside position (narrowly interpreted as receiving a rebounded ball while in an offside position).
In this case, Neva was in an offside position but Iniesta received the pass. By the time Iniesta passed to Neva, Neva was no longer in an offside position. The AR (linesman) made a good call IMO, even if it is controversial.
That in mind, watch the video again and watch Neva's position when he receives the cross from Iniesta.
For more info:
FIFA presentation explaining Law 11 to referees: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf
Official text of Law 11: http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame/law/newsid=1290867.html
Instructions to officials on interpreting Law 11: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/clubfootball/01/37/04/27/interpretation_law11_en.pdf
Quote from: realjd on June 19, 2012, 08:15:26 AMFor a player to be ruled offsides, he must be in an offside position (which he clearly was in that picture) AND must either 1) be involved with active play (i.e. receive a pass while in an offside position), 2) interfere with the defense, or 3) gain an advantage by being in an offside position (narrowly interpreted as receiving a rebounded ball while in an offside position).
But surely Navas was active, running forward to provide Iniesta with a pass to enable them to beat the keeper? and surely Navas gained an advantage by being goal-side of the defence when the ball was put forward?*
Also, surely any sensible person would consider the pass to Iniesta, the pass to Navas and the shot would be one phase of play.
Clearly 2 doesn't count, other than arguably confusing the keeper before the ball had passed to him by making it difficult to predict whether Iniesta would pass or shoot - you can't really interfere if you were goal side of them when the phase started.
*Of course, if like Rugby Football and American Football, Association Football miked up their referees so that they can explain their decisions, then people would understand why they did/didn't give controversial decisions and we'd see much more respect for them.
Quote from: english si on June 19, 2012, 09:45:56 AM
Quote from: realjd on June 19, 2012, 08:15:26 AMFor a player to be ruled offsides, he must be in an offside position (which he clearly was in that picture) AND must either 1) be involved with active play (i.e. receive a pass while in an offside position), 2) interfere with the defense, or 3) gain an advantage by being in an offside position (narrowly interpreted as receiving a rebounded ball while in an offside position).
But surely Navas was active, running forward to provide Iniesta with a pass to enable them to beat the keeper? and surely Navas gained an advantage by being goal-side of the defence when the ball was put forward?*
Also, surely any sensible person would consider the pass to Iniesta, the pass to Navas and the shot would be one phase of play.
Clearly 2 doesn't count, other than arguably confusing the keeper before the ball had passed to him by making it difficult to predict whether Iniesta would pass or shoot - you can't really interfere if you were goal side of them when the phase started.
*Of course, if like Rugby Football and American Football, Association Football miked up their referees so that they can explain their decisions, then people would understand why they did/didn't give controversial decisions and we'd see much more respect for them.
Remember that officials have to use FIFA's official interpretation of the laws. FIFA uses the following definitions:
1) "'interfering with play' means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate"
2) "'interfering with an opponent' means preventing an opponent from
playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's
line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in
the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent"
3) "'gaining an advantage by being in that position' means playing a ball that
rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside
position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having
been in an offside position"
When Navas was in an offside position and Iniesta received the forward pass, he didn't qualify under any of those definitions from FIFA. He wasn't an active player because he didn't play or touch a ball passed by a team-mate while in an offside position. He didn't interfere with an opponent by deceiving or distracting a defender (they're ignoring him). He didn't gain an advantage because he didn't receive a rebounded ball.
Now personally, I feel that FIFA's interpretation of case three is much too narrow. I could see how a broader, more common sense interpretation of "gaining an advantage" could be applied in this case. The official is required to call the game as instructed by FIFA however, even in odd cases such as this.
I had never heard the "phase of play" concept until this happened. That's not how the offside rule is instructed here. Here's how I interpret this case:
- Navas is in an offside position. Fabergas passes forward to Iniesta
- Iniesta runs past Navas and receives the pass. Navas is now onside since the ball is between him and the goal line.
- Navas, now onside, receives the ball and scores
At no point is he in an offside position and meeting any of the three criteria above, as defined by FIFA.
Checking a replay, Iniesta was farther down the field than Navas when Iniesta passed the ball to Navas (Navas was thus *NOT* offside) and Navas then ran forward to receive the ball and score the goal. The call was indeed correct.
That was just one of the worst defensive FUBARs on the part of Croatia that I have seen in a loooooong time!
Mike
So it looks like that missed Ukrainian goal yesterday - which the new extra official on the goal line somehow missed - has again lead to calls for goal line technology. I say go for it. Or skip the fancy tech and just go with video replays in cases like this.
Not that it would have mattered if the referees had their eyes open. The Ukranian player was blatantly offsides when he received the pass just passed half field that lead to the missed goal.
^^ Indeed. It's saying something that until they remembered that there was an offside that would rule it out, the British TV commentators were all saying that it was clearly a goal and while not fuming, were disappointed that it wasn't given. Then again, I think part of it was to take part in the traditional English hobby of slamming Blatter for not allowing goal line technology - something we English have felt was silly even before Lampard against Germany two years ago. We've recently had some FA sponsored tests of a Hawk Eye based system and snuck it in our friendly with Belgium just before the tournament, though it wasn't needed.
Video replays 'take too long', so you need some sort of tech (surely just have what Ice Hockey has, rather than Hawk Eye or some other complex multi-camera system that is designed to see where the ball would have gone if not stopped?) to simply say "the ball crossed the line".
The 5th officials have been totally useless - has any of them said or done anything at any point (inc Champions League)?
It's funny that France lost to Sweden, but I'd have preferred a Spain-Portugal route to the final than an Italy-Germany one. Italy will probably be harder for this England set up than Spain (there's totally different tactics needed), and Germany are looking very strong.
I think soccer culture in general holds sportsmanship in higher regard than other sporting cultures. Tim Howard's response to his amazing goal is another good example. He was clearly embarrassed and unhappy for the other keeper. Soccer players want a fair game called, even if it doesn't go their way. Even at the youth levels where I referee, the players are generally very professional, and on many occasaions where I've blown a call (which unfortunately happens to the best of us), players from both teams will correct me. At least in American youth soccer though, the coaches tend to model themselves on American football coaches and definitely are out to win at all costs and can be very argumentative. I've had to eject far more coaches than I've had to red card players over my officiating career.
Of course there are cases like Messi's "hand of god" goal where sportsmanship goes out the window...
Us Americans who follow soccer also have a fairly poor opinion of Blatter. We're mainly bitter that he awarded the World Cup to Qatar over us, even though we had a far better proposal, simply because in his mind he's using sport to bring peace to the middle east. Or something like that. I fail to see how playing a World Cup in 100+ degree heat in a nation which bans entry to anyone with an Israeli passport (or even Israeli entry stamps), which criminalizes homosexuality, and bans alcohol would lead to a more profitable games than a country like the USA. Or even Australia, who also bid.
I can see how video replays would be slow. In cases where a goal were accidentally awarded, the speed is moot since play is stopped. For cases like this one where the goal was missed, a designated video official would have seen the missed goal as quickly as the announcers did. They can treat it like an injury. Let play continue until the next stoppage while the booth official does the review, then pause for the verdict. If he rules a goal while play is continuing, stop play and award the goal. If it's taking too long, the referee can blow the play dead when the ball is in half field and restart with a dropped ball.
I'm predicting an upset with the Greece-Germany match, meaning England's path would be through Italy and Greece.
Quote from: realjd on June 20, 2012, 09:02:11 AM
I think soccer culture in general holds sportsmanship in higher regard than other sporting cultures.
the fans make up for it with their utter idiocy.
Quote from: realjd on June 20, 2012, 09:02:11 AMI think soccer culture in general holds sportsmanship in higher regard than other sporting cultures. Tim Howard's response to his amazing goal is another good example. He was clearly embarrassed and unhappy for the other keeper. Soccer players want a fair game called, even if it doesn't go their way.
I'm not sure, but then I'm used to different sports: "football is a gentlemen's game played by thugs, rugby a thug's game played by gentlemen" and "it's simply not cricket*" still do hold, even though both sports are getting (apparently) worse.
Certainly in the amateur game and from players like Howard there's good sportsmanship, but there's tons of deliberately seeking the foul, going over easily, making a meal of it - more so in recent years (but out are the break-leg tackles by defenders and English football hooliganism - well, mostly gone at least). Gone are the days when a team kicks it out for an injured player, the other team gives the ball back roughly where the ball was kicked out - instead it goes back to the keeper.
*"If someone's behaviour or actions are not cricket, they are not honest or moral" Cambridge Dictionary of British English
The goal in the Spain-Croatia match is the reason why I hate playing an offside trap. In my opinion, it makes it too easy for the other team to score.
England are out having lost to Italy on penalties. We always lose when it goes to penalties but at least it wasn't against the Jerries which is probably what would have happened had we beat Italy.
My money is now on Germany-Spain in the final with the Jerries winning by just one goal. Let's see if I'm right next week.
Spain-Italy in the final. I didn't catch the Germany-Italy match, but Portugal-Spain was very good.
Quote from: Takumi on June 28, 2012, 07:53:52 PMPortugal-Spain was very good.
Err, what?
Dull as ditchwater - lots of midfield cancelling each other out, nothing much very dangerous. 4 shots on target in the whole game, the off-target ones being mostly long range pot shots - not likely to go in in this tournament. That it went to penalties rescued some excitement out of the game.
---
Italy, against expectations of the English media and fans (who said "at least it's them who will get hammered by Germany"), outclassed Germany - not to the extent that they dominated against England, but with far more dangerous play - they could have scored 5 if their strikers were better with their aim, Germany had about as much danger as England did against Italy, if not less.
Admittedly, I didn't turn it on until well past halftime due to work, so the penalties are what stuck out most to me.
Spain was the real deal. That first goal in the final was spectacular.
^^^
No kidding. They made the Italians look like an amateur league team.
Italy spent so much effort making England and Germany look ordinary that Spain who looked ordinary against Portugal and stayed in third gear against a lacklustre France not only limited expectations but kept themselves well-enough rested to make even more out of the fact that Italy had a day's less rest.
Spain only scored when they stopped trying to tica-taca it into the box - it was through balls and crosses - something they lacked against Portugal.
The game was totally before the hour mark when Italy had that injured player that they could not sub as they had used their limit - I find that rule rather annoying as pretty much every other team sport allows substitutions of genuinely injured players, even if they limit tactical changes.
Quote from: english si on July 03, 2012, 10:13:33 AM
Italy spent so much effort making England and Germany look ordinary that Spain who looked ordinary against Portugal and stayed in third gear against a lacklustre France not only limited expectations but kept themselves well-enough rested to make even more out of the fact that Italy had a day's less rest.
Spain only scored when they stopped trying to tica-taca it into the box - it was through balls and crosses - something they lacked against Portugal.
The game was totally before the hour mark when Italy had that injured player that they could not sub as they had used their limit - I find that rule rather annoying as pretty much every other team sport allows substitutions of genuinely injured players, even if they limit tactical changes.
Injury subs would be too open to abuse, and if any team were to abuse such a privilege, it would be Italy IMO.
If they were to allow injury subs, they'd have to grant an extra tactical sub to the opposing team for each injury sub to make it fair.
What I would like to see for soccer is the elimination of the offsides call. Let's see some fast breaks a la basketball and more scoring!
Rick
Quote from: realjd on July 04, 2012, 10:28:47 PMInjury subs would be too open to abuse, and if any team were to abuse such a privilege, it would be Italy IMO.
It seems to work in other sports, perhaps make it that the player is considered unfit to play for the next week. That would help in almost everything but major finals - they actually have to be pretty severely injured to do it, as they can't then be picked for the next match.
Certainly, at the very least, extra time brings in another substitution(s) per team.
Quote from: nexus73 on July 05, 2012, 12:54:45 AMWhat I would like to see for soccer is the elimination of the offsides call. Let's see some fast breaks a la basketball and more scoring!
So it ends up being a team game where a long ball is kicked by the goalkeeper over 81% of the team's heads to a goal hanging striker, who's one-on-one with the keeper. Yawn-fest. If shots are relatively hard to come by, and goals more so, then there's far more passion when one happens.
Basketball is an incredibly boring sport to watch 90% of the time - ball up one end, score, ball up the other, score. There's the occasional interception, block, miss and free-throw, but other than that there's only the 2- and 3-pointer difference to add some mystery, some tactical nuance, some differentiation between the two sides. Basketball is too easy to score in - perhaps remove the backboards and ban dribbling (oh wait, then it becomes netball).
Basketball shooting percentages are around 50% or less in the NBA for most games. Ever since Detroit smashed the Lakers for the title a bit over 20 years ago, defense has come of age in pro basketball.
I say let soccer evolve! Basketball has and the same can be said of American football. When a matchup of two good teams winds up 0-0 and goes to penalty kicks, it's a sign there's too much D and not enough O in the game. The NFL's Competition Committee addresses these kinds of situations. Soccer needs to do the same IMO.
Rick
Offside also lets defenders push up and teams be more offensive.
When a game between to good sides ends 0-0, it doesn't mean that it's been a boring one - there could have been lots of attack, but lots of defence as well. It could mean a midfield cancel-out fest, as Spain-Portugal was, with Italy-England being one side attacking with all they'd got and the other defending it like a siege with brief counter-attacks (see also both Chelski-Barca games this season). 2 games in the whole tournament that were 0-0, despite the fact that only two goals were from outside the box.
The problem is Italia 90 was a very defensive tournament, so pass back rules and three-points-for-a-win were pushed for. The offside rule became massively confusing to heavily favour it to the attacking side, while still letting teams push up without fear of some goal hanger scoring.
At the schoolboy level, you get the schoolboy mistakes by defenders that lead to 8-5 or other such scorelines. This is because it's not actually hard to get the ball in the back of the net if the team you are playing is undisciplined and the goalkeeper poor. It's not a test of skill to do so and is more boring for the neutral to see than two well organised teams fight for one to win 2-1 where you have to do something special to score.
Spain in the final - Italy's defence wasn't poor, though there were errors. It took both excellent midfield play and excellent striking to score those goals (less so the last two, but still rather a lot). In fact, Spain's brilliance and dominance doesn't come from scoring lots of goals - it comes from stopping the other team scoring by defensive players pushing up and the saturated middle of the park becoming more so - something that wouldn't happen if there was no offside rule.
Now I know you over that side of the pond, you like to see scorecards rattle up - it's why I don't understand why you like Baseball, but not Cricket (which is a funny one, as the defending team is the one that scores runs by hitting the ball with a bat and running - the attack, like a siege, is trying to get the batters out). Perhaps if you got more than one way of scoring, like Rugby or American Football (both of which can see nervy games where there's few tries/TDs if any, and the points are from kicking), that wasn't worth as much.
Regarding Cricket, it was the major sport in North America until the 1860s or 1870s, when, for some unknown reason, the guys who ran it here decided to not allow (or at least strongly discourage) professionalism in it while the rest of the UK's World dove headlong into that - leaving an opening that was quickly exploited by Baseball interests.
Essentially, in Cricket, one side tries to score as many runs as they can before ten of their eleven players are made out and then the other side takes its turn (kind of like in baseball where it is three out of nine are made out before the other side's turn). OTOH, I've heard it described that in Baseball, outs are common while runs are rare while in Cricket, runs are common while outs are rare. In Cricket, it is not unusual for one side to peel off over 200 runs before their tenth player is out.
Recall that during the American Revolution, Washington's soldiers played Cricket during their free time.
Also recall that the first ever international Cricket match was played in . . . NYC. It was between a team from the USA v. a team from Canada in 1844.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cricket
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v_Canada_%281844%29
Mike
We kept amateurism in Cricket for a long time, though they played with the professionals (I believe that Landed Gentry weren't allowed to be paid). They got around the rule on not being paid for the match by getting given copious amounts of beer (like a barrel a day, and some players drunk that much) - they weren't receiving money.
As for Washington's soldiers, well of course - they were good Brits, of course they played Cricket.
Runs are common/outs are rare and vice-versa is very true. 200 is often nothing in Cricket if you are playing long enough (it does depend on conditions). One player can score 200+, a team 600+ (normally they then declare their innings over, so that they can bowl the other team out before the time ends and win, rather than draw).
Baseball is low scoring like soccer, doesn't mean it's not boring (all sorts of other reasons why that is) - though if we go by nexus' view that low scores are boring, perhaps they ought to bring the bases in, or change the rule on foul balls?
I've seen plenty of exciting 0-0 soccer games and plenty of boring 3-1 blowouts. The problem is that most Americans don't know what to look for. If you watch only the ball, it will look boring. You have to watch the offensive and defensive formations much like American football. I don't really get baseball for similar reasons; I see a guy hitting a ball, while my baseball-savy friends are able to see tactical subtleties like the infield players playing close in for certain players.
I've never understood the low score complaint from other Americans. As pointed out, baseball also has low scoring games, as does American football if you count actual point-scoring events. A 14-3 football game can often be considered highly entertaining even though the actual scoring event tally is 2-1.
Basketball is a defensive game. The exciting events (for the most part) aren't when your team scores, it's when your team prevents an opposing score.
I've seen cricket before on TV and had an Indian friend in college who tried to teach it to me. It's incomprehensible as far as I'm concerned.
@english si: Back in the 1968 MLB All Star Game, the score was a 1-0 affair. What happened to break the pitchers' dominance? The mound was lowered! See, even tradition-bound baseball can change! So when will futbol/soccer do the same and thus open up the game?
I liked Paraguay's D in the 2010 World Cup and Uruguay's strikers on O too. If those two tiny countries had combined as one team, they would have had something special. However it seems mighty hard to come up with the kind of talent on one team that explodes into action in soccer for all the game's facets like we see in pro or even collegiate US sports.
We have about 320 million people here, MLS and plenty of ways to feed pro soccer but I'll be dipped if we can come up with one or two top notch strikers like Uruguay's. We should have dozens of them given our population and emphasis on sports! On D, the US team sucks rutabagas. No positional discipline at all compared to Latin American or Euro teams. One would think we would hire better coaches from the nations who do well at soccer to at least make sure we don't go down 1-0 in the first minutes of a match more often than not!
That being said, soccer does need to improve the scoring and get the game fully opened up IMO. No offsides rule would certainly help that cause! Allow unlimited subs too. That will increase the pace of the game and allow for specialized substitutes. Get behind? Bring in an extra striker. Want to stay ahead? Bring in a defensive specialist. Change the OT rules so the game goes to penalty shootout right away and end the ties. I promise, a more exciting game will get more eyeballs in this planet's #1 sports nation and it would not surprise me to see the rest of the world's soccer audience appreciate the increase in action. After all, what does Hollywood do best these days? Slam bang action movies with no letup in pace! There's a reason over $100 million gets put into making them. People eat that stuff up and buy the tickets, DVD's and BluRays like crazy!
It's the 21st century. Let's bring soccer into it.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on July 05, 2012, 11:01:06 PMSo when will futbol/soccer do the same and thus open up the game?
1990, when pass back was banned? Before that when professional fouls got instant red cards? More recently with the offside rule changes? All of which are more recent than 1968.
QuoteI liked Paraguay's D in the 2010 World Cup and Uruguay's strikers on O too. If those two tiny countries had combined as one team, they would have had something special.
Uruguay is World Number 3 on FIFA rankings (though they aren't perhaps the best measure of a team's greatness - England are 4th as we get points for going out on penalties), semi-finalists at the last World Cup and holders of their Federation Cup. Sure they had some fallow years between 1950 (beating Brazil in the world cup final in Brazil) and recent years (Forlan, Suarez, etc), meaning that they aren't big names like Brazil or Argentina, but at the moment, they are better than any other South American team.
QuoteOn D, the US team sucks rutabagas. No positional discipline at all compared to Latin American or Euro teams.
And why might that be? Could it be because the paying public in America want to see goals goals goals but haven't acquired a more subtle palate (a bit like beer - mostly mass produced swill that's designed for volume, not taste).
However, the truth is somewhat different - the US aren't a bad side actually, though not a top side. Certainly they are close to being able to compete at fairly high levels of the game. Like beer again, there's a growing appreciation for decent stuff.
QuoteThat being said, soccer does need to improve the scoring and get the game fully opened up IMO. No offsides rule would certainly help that cause!
Not really - the defense won't push up as they can't then defend, so will remain deep as the strikers will be goal hanging in the penalty area for the whole match. Long balls over midfield, simple matters of height and heading ability. Bore fest with little technical ability needed.
QuoteAllow unlimited subs too. That will increase the pace of the game and allow for specialized substitutes.
Substitions take time (they are often used as a time wasting ploy by a winning team seeking to run down the clock), or do you mean rolling subs? Fresh legs would enliven a flagging game between two tired teams, but then no one but goalies would play 90 minutes and we'd see moneyed teams like City, United, Liverpool and Chelsea win lots - not because they have the best players (certainly not in Liverpool's case), but because they have the most and so have the least tired players.
QuoteGet behind? Bring in an extra striker. Want to stay ahead? Bring in a defensive specialist.
That's what typically happens now.
QuoteChange the OT rules so the game goes to penalty shootout right away and end the ties.
No, that sucks. Better (if you are to change it) is that penalties are at full time and the winner gets half a goal, then you play half an hour (the losers of the shoot out have to come and attack). They tried all sorts of fiddling with extra time - golden goal at several major tournaments, then silver goal coming out for one or two tournaments. They scrapped them as there was a bad reaction to them from genuine fans, rather than fair weather ones.
QuoteI promise, a more exciting game will get more eyeballs in this planet's #1 sports nation and it would not surprise me to see the rest of the world's soccer audience appreciate the increase in action.
The question is - is that the aim, to win Australia from Rugby, Cricket, Aussie Rules, etc?
Certainly FIFA think not - hence Qatar (over Australia) - and these are very very smart at trying to milk the most money possible for the game, especially themselves.
Oh, you meant the US - replace references to Australia with US, and Rugby, Cricket, Aussie Rules = Basketball, Baseball, American Football.
QuoteIt's the 21st century. Let's bring soccer into it.
Indeed, and thankfully FIFA are allowing goal line tech.
The 21st century, however, doesn't mean pandering to American (poor) tastes and ruining the game for everyone else. It also doesn't mean pandering to the money interests and spoiling what was good - World Cup in Qatar (and to some extent Russia, though at least they are a footballing nation, despite having a poor bid compared to the bids further west in Europe), 24 teams in Euro2016 killing the group stage as it becomes a formality - a Croatian goal against Spain (which was likely) would have knocked out Italy or Spain (the latter if Spain didn't score) - the two finalists: with 24 teams, all three would have got through, ditto Denmark and the Netherlands (the latter as they wouldn't have been in such a group of death), at least one of the co-hosts, and Russia.
Actually, thinking about it, my dislike of watching Baseball and Basketball come from a similar symptom - I've not learnt the nuances of the game. I might want things no backboard, no dribbling, etc in Basketball, but that's just my ignorance showing. Ditto wanting shorter distances between plates, a wider range of places to play your shot without it becoming a foul ball.
Personally I'd want basketball to be much more like netball, baseball to be rounders. You can see that I shouldn't be involved in the game. Same with football and trying to make more American.
@english si: Thank you for a fine discussion! It has been most entertaining to read your side of the story. I think we have both made our points here and now I'll leave it to the rest of the 7 billion-plus on the planet to make up their own minds on sports...LOL!
Rick
Absolutely, I always enjoy discussions between different culture's viewpoints, where both sides are coming from radical different starts.
This quote from the Metric thread says it all
Quote from: realjd on June 27, 2012, 02:12:51 PMI'm always fascinated by the small cultural differences like this, especially in cultures as similar as ours are.
Now to get realjd to understand cricket (the second biggest sport in the world by participation) - I gather from that metric thread post he usually stays in Marylebone - perhaps a
piss up at trip to Lords next time he's in London is called for - it's certainly not that hard for me to get to, and is right round the corner from him... ;)
Quote from: english si on July 06, 2012, 11:17:06 AM
Now to get realjd to understand cricket (the second biggest sport in the world by participation) - I gather from that metric thread post he usually stays in Marylebone - perhaps a piss up at trip to Lords next time he's in London is called for - it's certainly not that hard for me to get to, and is right round the corner from him... ;)
I'm not sure I can convince my wife to spend an entire day watching one third of a cricket match while we're on vacation... or three days watching the entire thing!
But yes, Marylebone is where we normally stay. We like the fact that it's quieter than much of London but also only blocks from Oxford Street, has easy tube access (Bond. St. is our usual one), and is full of pubs and restaurants. My only complaint is that it's not easy to get to from Heathrow - the tube sucks with luggage and the HEX is overpriced and requires a £10 cab ride to/from Paddington Station. We're very much looking forward to Crossrail taking us straight from LHR to Bond St. in a few years.