Toggle sidebar

OT: World Cup

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron*
  • Start date Start date
  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Never though U.S. would move on, but this is hilarious. THat draw the other day felt horrible, this loss felt good. Soccer, man.
 
Brad Doty said:
Never though U.S. would move on, but this is hilarious. THat draw the other day felt horrible, this loss felt good. Soccer, man.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous. Gets stupid trying to figure out tie-breaking scenarios because head-to-head matches are not considered, but goal differential is.

Anyway, the USA played to draw in all three games and came up with a win and an almost-win, go figure.

Guess what, USA? Can't play to draw in the knockout stage. Now what?
 
Ron said:
Ridiculous. Gets stupid trying to figure out tie-breaking scenarios because head-to-head matches are not considered, but goal differential is.

Anyway, the USA played to draw in all three games and came up with a win and an almost-win, go figure.

Guess what, USA? Can't play to draw in the knockout stage. Now what?
Click to expand...

They didn't play to draw in all 3 matches, that is not fair comment. They were a bit lucky to win against Ghana, but should have won game against Portugal. They played great but had some blackouts that cost them victory.


Going further they will face Belgium(probably) which was less than impressive so far. USA can match them and getting to quarter finals isn't that far fetched thought.
(but getting past Argentina presumably after that would be really tough job)
 
This US team has looked more capable going forward than any previous team, and Howard is a world-class keeper. With that combination, a bit of cautious optimism is warranted. We still need to keep our composure better, but we played well in all three games. Even today, under difficult conditions, it took an absolutely perfect strike to beat us.
 
If Chile beat Brazil, I would be so happy.

Also, did anyone read Suarez's defense in the biting hearing? He basically said "I didn't bite him, but I did taste him."
 
I for one find football to be nothing like hockey. A bunch of guys making a gazillion passes followed by a bad attempt on goal. And a good one resulting in a goal once in a while. Slow, lame. Penalty kicks almost always guarantee a goal, and that goal could be the GWG. Players know this so they embellish like complete pansy's. While in hockey penalty shots are very rare and even if a player scores on one to put them ahead there's a good chance the other team ties it. Which makes it nerve racking to the end. A two goal lead in football is an almost guaranteed win. Not so in hockey. And people think how smart and talented football players are, for getting past 10 guys and making a play that results in a goal. I find hockey IQ to be way above football IQ. Everything's faster the goal is smaller, all make it tougher to score. Not to mention that they act like everyone's a playboy with their styled haircuts. Give me a break.
 
agentfouser said:
there is no god :(
Click to expand...

Of course not. he would not allow such violence and injustice all around the world.

Chile almost won. but as the saying goes good teams find a way to win.:naughty:

If Arturo Vidal didn't run out of gas, The game would have gone in different direction.
 
I think Brazil will lost to Colombia. Their midfielders are constantly changing positions, which makes them harder to neutralize.
 
Slycer said:
I for one find football to be nothing like hockey. A bunch of guys making a gazillion passes followed by a bad attempt on goal. And a good one resulting in a goal once in a while. Slow, lame. Penalty kicks almost always guarantee a goal, and that goal could be the GWG. Players know this so they embellish like complete pansy's. While in hockey penalty shots are very rare and even if a player scores on one to put them ahead there's a good chance the other team ties it. Which makes it nerve racking to the end. A two goal lead in football is an almost guaranteed win. Not so in hockey. And people think how smart and talented football players are, for getting past 10 guys and making a play that results in a goal. I find hockey IQ to be way above football IQ. Everything's faster the goal is smaller, all make it tougher to score. Not to mention that they act like everyone's a playboy with their styled haircuts. Give me a break.
Click to expand...
There's no way it's easier to score in football than in hockey, since hockey games typically feature more goals than football matches.

I think the real difference is space and time. Football pitches are so large that the positional play and structure of the team matter much more than in hockey. Players have a great deal more space and time to operate in football, while in hockey the speed of the players and the relative smallness of the rink mean that the game simply moves a lot faster. And as for scoring, it's not the time and space that makes the difference at the level of the whole game, it's a combination of factors. A small puck that can be shot relatively quickly, and the fact that a missed shot doesn't automatically go out of bounds means that in hockey, it pays to take a lot of shots. A goalie will still save 90% or more of what he sees, but shots get through, they get deflected, they take crazy bounces, there are rebounds for second and third opportunities, scrambles in front of the net. Those are all things that you just don't see much in football. In football, if you miss a shot, you lose possession; shots are hard to get through because the size of the ball and the relatively limited ability of strikers to get off really hard, accurate shots, so you just don't see many deflections. Rebounds happen, but not to the extent of hockey. But, while shots are more difficult to get through in football, if you do get quality opportunities from in close, you're much more likely to score.

I can see why people don't like it, but football is a fascinating game, even if it's slower. Like any game, it takes some knowledge to get into, because you have to understand what's going on. But, once you do, it's wonderful because there are so many possible approaches to game. You can play and win in many more ways than you can in hockey.

For example, you can play for possession, holding onto the ball and slowly building up an attack like Spain does. If you have highly skilled players, you can pull that off. Of course, a buildup can leave you vulnerable to counterattacks, and a well-executed counter can open up a team that appears to be dominating. There have been matches in the Champions League where Spanish teams controlled the ball 75% of the time but got opened up by German teams' counterattacks and ended up getting shredded.

You can also play an aerial game, like a lot of English teams do. You get the ball down the flanks and send crosses into the box all day. Each cross is a very low probability play, but you only need to get one or two really good opportunities to break through. It can lead to some very physical battles in the box.

You can rely on set-pieces and go for long throws into the box like Stoke (but seriously, **** Stoke), you can play with multiple very fast strikers who fly down the pitch (Liverpool, Arsenal sort of--also, **** Arsenal), you can play with more powerful midfielders and try to dominate the center of the pitch (Manchester City), you can play a very athletic style and press all over the pitch--but then of course you risk fatigue after 60 or 70 minutes, and the game can shift dramatically once your midfielders run out of gas.

Really good teams can combine different approaches to beat opponents in different ways. The Germans, for example, I though were the most impressive team I've seen at this World Cup in their game against us. They attacked from every angle and in every way, with this kind of probing pressure. They'd try to come down the middle and get a ball over the top of our defenders, and we'd stop them; no problem, they send it down the flank next time, and get a cross into the box. We shift to stop them, and they'd move it to the other side of the pitch to hit us on the other flank in just a couple quick moves. I thought we did extremely well to only give up one goal, and that on essentially a perfect shot.

Football's a great game, but like any other sport it takes some training to get an understanding of it.
 
agentfouser said:
There's no way it's easier to score in football than in hockey, since hockey games typically feature more goals than football matches.

I think the real difference is space and time. Football pitches are so large that the positional play and structure of the team matter much more than in hockey. Players have a great deal more space and time to operate in football, while in hockey the speed of the players and the relative smallness of the rink mean that the game simply moves a lot faster. And as for scoring, it's not the time and space that makes the difference at the level of the whole game, it's a combination of factors. A small puck that can be shot relatively quickly, and the fact that a missed shot doesn't automatically go out of bounds means that in hockey, it pays to take a lot of shots. A goalie will still save 90% or more of what he sees, but shots get through, they get deflected, they take crazy bounces, there are rebounds for second and third opportunities, scrambles in front of the net. Those are all things that you just don't see much in football. In football, if you miss a shot, you lose possession; shots are hard to get through because the size of the ball and the relatively limited ability of strikers to get off really hard, accurate shots, so you just don't see many deflections. Rebounds happen, but not to the extent of hockey. But, while shots are more difficult to get through in football, if you do get quality opportunities from in close, you're much more likely to score.

I can see why people don't like it, but football is a fascinating game, even if it's slower. Like any game, it takes some knowledge to get into, because you have to understand what's going on. But, once you do, it's wonderful because there are so many possible approaches to game. You can play and win in many more ways than you can in hockey.

For example, you can play for possession, holding onto the ball and slowly building up an attack like Spain does. If you have highly skilled players, you can pull that off. Of course, a buildup can leave you vulnerable to counterattacks, and a well-executed counter can open up a team that appears to be dominating. There have been matches in the Champions League where Spanish teams controlled the ball 75% of the time but got opened up by German teams' counterattacks and ended up getting shredded.

You can also play an aerial game, like a lot of English teams do. You get the ball down the flanks and send crosses into the box all day. Each cross is a very low probability play, but you only need to get one or two really good opportunities to break through. It can lead to some very physical battles in the box.

You can rely on set-pieces and go for long throws into the box like Stoke (but seriously, **** Stoke), you can play with multiple very fast strikers who fly down the pitch (Liverpool, Arsenal sort of--also, **** Arsenal), you can play with more powerful midfielders and try to dominate the center of the pitch (Manchester City), you can play a very athletic style and press all over the pitch--but then of course you risk fatigue after 60 or 70 minutes, and the game can shift dramatically once your midfielders run out of gas.

Really good teams can combine different approaches to beat opponents in different ways. The Germans, for example, I though were the most impressive team I've seen at this World Cup in their game against us. They attacked from every angle and in every way, with this kind of probing pressure. They'd try to come down the middle and get a ball over the top of our defenders, and we'd stop them; no problem, they send it down the flank next time, and get a cross into the box. We shift to stop them, and they'd move it to the other side of the pitch to hit us on the other flank in just a couple quick moves. I thought we did extremely well to only give up one goal, and that on essentially a perfect shot.

Football's a great game, but like any other sport it takes some training to get an understanding of it.
Click to expand...

Thank You. I couldn't have said it any better myself. I also laugh at the irony of people discrediting soccer on a hockey forum.

Anyways, it's not looking too good for the Dutch here. Ugh...just lose already Mexico for the sake of the city.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom