World Cup 2010 Thread!!!

[KYli]

Sampan, that's nonsense. These days more Americans play football than American football - it's a popular sport there. Just because America isn't a footballing superpower doesn't mean they're a pushover. They play well in many competitions and deserve to be in the qualifiers.

Really, I didn't notice. Contrary, I have heard a few people(males) said that soccer is a girly sport.

 

[Mr T]

Really, I didn't notice. Contrary, I have heard a few people(males) said that soccer is a girly sport.

What percentage of the American population would "a few males" be? Come on, find me a sport in any country that is not derided by even a few people.

The thing with America is that it's just not obsessed by football like so many other countries (for no good reason) around the world are. By European or South American standards football isn't "popular" in the US, but by more objective means it is.

 

[bd popeye]

These days more Americans play football than American football - it's a popular sport there.

True..especially in the suburbs where more affluent Americans live. But this popularity does not translate into better TV ratings and merchandise sold or greater interest in the game.

I do not intend to insult anyone by my comments below.

Many fine athletes play soccer in the US but unlike most other "footballing/soccer nations" the most outstanding athletes do not play soccer. They play basketball and American football. Their names are Lebron, Howard, O'Neal, Bob Sanders,Manning,Brady,McNabb, Bush.etc..etc..There is no interest in soccer in the the US Black communities. None. Most Blacks look upon soccer as a white sport for those persons without the skills to play football or basketball. Hispanics from Mexico, Central and South America on the other hand love "futbol". But their rooting interest is in teams from their country of origin.

 

[KYli]

What percentage of the American population would "a few males" be? Come on, find me a sport in any country that is not derided by even a few people.

The thing with America is that it's just not obsessed by football like so many other countries (for no good reason) around the world are. By European or South American standards football isn't "popular" in the US, but by more objective means it is.

The percentage of the American population that holds negative views on soccer is more than just a few percent.

It is not about obsession but more about perception. Soccer has been demonized for historical and some other bizarre reasons. However, I do agree that the popularity of soccer has been on the rise.

 

[bladerunner]

I was very unimpressed by England. Here we have some of the highest pid players in the game all of whom play in one of worlds biggest leagues (UK Premier), playing a team that (all due respects) are still a minor footballing nations.

England should have won and by a healthy margin, instead that faffed about, should a much ball control as my gran after several sherries and usually managed to pass the ball to the other side. None of them seem to know how to run with the ball or tackle thus demonstrating the superior skills that justify they huge pay packets.

It does not bode well and makes an English World Cup victory look a very long bet tonight.

WEll it looks like the "Jinx" I put upon them worked refer Post 19.

The standard of writing is not up to your usual standard. Have you been drowning your sorrows?

Well never mind . The team could always try their luck at "Morris Dancing"


@Ravenshield

Ok great.

 

[ravenshield936]

Sampan, that's nonsense. These days more Americans play football than American football - it's a popular sport there. Just because America isn't a footballing superpower doesn't mean they're a pushover. They play well in many competitions and deserve to be in the qualifiers.

But they didn't play that well and they were lucky to walk away with a draw. Not just because they were gifted a goal but because they were hammered so often by the England attack. There was not just some but repeated excellent play by the England team. Forget your gran, no one here could have played as well as they did.

The American defence was repeatedly moved out of position and/or otherwise given the run around. They got better but they were again lucky to get away with their Italian style of "defence", otherwise known as fouling Wayne Rooney whenever he went on an attack with the ball.

The scoreline did not reflect the game in any respect. If this was boxing it would have been a clear England win on points. For the very first game it's not ideal but hardly a disaster.

in this game, it was 30 goal-directed shots, with 18 for england and 12 for USA, so indeed, scores isnt everything

 

[ravenshield936]

Tactically, England still dominated the game, but individual players have not demonstrated their superior skills. Oh well, better luck next time. I don't see how England would encounter much difficulty to advance to quaterfinal.

As long as there is no Henry or Maradona, England would probably prevail to semifinal.

u're right. couch didnt have much playtime(though he shouldnt be playing this game anyways), and rooney and lampard's attempts arent that much neither

 

[pla101prc]

Well, I think hardly has the World Cup ever been won by a team that played nice and enjoyable throughout the tournament. Actually a lot of later Champions have started a tournament not promising.
A lot of teams who (attempt to) play great soccer will eventually become somewhat tired towards the end, whereas other teams who didn't show that much can still put on something in the end. I guess that's a reason why a World Cup oftentimes starts out with actually not really enjoyable matches.
So a bad start is not by default a sign that a weak tournament will follow.
For the English, somewhere around the quaterfinals there has always been some issue were somebody would do something stupid or the team would not work together well costing them victory, somehow they are not a tournament team.

yup, italy and france got off to a slow but steady start as well last time. argentina peaked too early on the other hand. but to do well you need a good defence. no defence, no cup...and since the english goalkeeper isnt really doing well, england has a looon way to go

 

[ravenshield936]

yup, italy and france got off to a slow but steady start as well last time. argentina peaked too early on the other hand. but to do well you need a good defence. no defence, no cup...and since the english goalkeeper isnt really doing well, england has a looon way to go

france>england only in defense, otherwise they both are equally as inconsistent in performance.
2002 world cup was sad for la bleu

 

[Quickie]

I think football would be made a lot better if they did a few things:
-Did away with ties.
-Changed the offsides rules significantly to make it easier to score
-Allowed substitutions at any time, and going in and out at will
-Stopped the clock when the ball was not in play
-Shortened the field by like 10-15%

I think those rules would make it a LOT more exciting and fun and cut down on some of the "owwww I'm hurrrttt" business.

Unfortunately most of the 'hurt business' in soccer is real. It's just the way the game is played and how the players tackled each other. Players can get red carded for faking a foul, especially in the penalty area.