Am I crazy for thinking the Argentines will go down? It's the only thing that I feel certain of in this Cup; that the Belgians would dominate that game.
Aside from Messi they've been very average. They had to rely on lucky bounces to beat Nigeria and barely got 3 points from Iran. They seem more well-organised at the back now but creatively Higuain has done nothing and aside from the last 15 today neither has di Maria.
As much crap as Portugal took for being a one-man team, Argentina have looked no better. I've already locked in Belgium in my Pick 'ems.
0
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
feel free to just replace it with international quality
this does not equate to a league which is going to attract the best players in the world, which is what we were talking about when saying "world class"
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
feel free to just replace it with international quality
this does not equate to a league which is going to attract the best players in the world, which is what we were talking about when saying "world class"
if the MLS was making a bunch of money (and could offer any salary they wanted), they would draw quality players, first by overpaying (like we're doing now with past their prime guys) and gradually working down to normal as the overall quality increased etc
but it isn't, and they aren't, so it doesn't matter
y2jake215 on
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
All America needs now is to be knocked out because of a blatant injustice, perhaps a handball or a devious dive and a penalty, and that should fire up enough anger to make football a part of your hearts forever. Grudges against entire countries will be cherished, and victories over your hated foes will taste sweeter than wine.
Who do Americans really dislike? I can't really tell, and I think they mostly just want to win. Where I want African teams to burn Europe down.
Based on the previous thread, they mostly hate Italy. They will even support Uruguay over Italy.
I started following the us team in 2006, so Fuck Italy forever.
Edit: I really should refresh the page once in a while.
Whatever, fuck Italy forever, even though Super Mario nearly won me over this year.
I think Kansas City is going to have a hard time holding on to Matt Besler after the tournament he had.
Same with Seattle and Yedlin, really. Not much of a track record yet, but he looked awfully good on a big stage today.
I had originally assumed Yedlin was playing outside the U.S. and wasn't later that someone pointed out he was at Seattle that we were all like "he looks like he plays in Europe".
All America needs now is to be knocked out because of a blatant injustice, perhaps a handball or a devious dive and a penalty, and that should fire up enough anger to make football a part of your hearts forever. Grudges against entire countries will be cherished, and victories over your hated foes will taste sweeter than wine.
Who do Americans really dislike? I can't really tell, and I think they mostly just want to win. Where I want African teams to burn Europe down.
Based on the previous thread, they mostly hate Italy. They will even support Uruguay over Italy.
I started following the us team in 2006, so Fuck Italy forever.
Edit: I really should refresh the page once in a while.
Whatever, fuck Italy forever, even though Super Mario nearly won me over this year.
Fucking Baloteli. He's moody, petulant, arrogant, everything you should hate in a player. But for some reason he's just so damn likeable.
But yeah, do you know what will happen if America gets interested in football? All your additional talent will start joining European clubs and the national team will perform roughly the same as players only see eachother on international breaks.
If america was nuts for soccer we could most likely support a world class league
I mean duh this is hypothetical because it will never happen that we as a nation are into soccer as the rest of the world
Players are still going to go to where (a) there's a history/certain level of prestige (b) less inter game travelling (c) no salary cap.
Yeah these are the obstacles to it now
Mostly the last one
Russia has proven world class players have no problem going to enormous countries with no prestige as long as they're paid by the boatload
You're forgetting about the fact that Russian teams have access to the Champions League.
The MLS doesn't have that and it's at a significant disadvantage for attracting top talent as a result.
But yeah, do you know what will happen if America gets interested in football? All your additional talent will start joining European clubs and the national team will perform roughly the same as players only see eachother on international breaks.
If america was nuts for soccer we could most likely support a world class league
I mean duh this is hypothetical because it will never happen that we as a nation are into soccer as the rest of the world
Players are still going to go to where (a) there's a history/certain level of prestige (b) less inter game travelling (c) no salary cap.
Yeah these are the obstacles to it now
Mostly the last one
Russia has proven world class players have no problem going to enormous countries with no prestige as long as they're paid by the boatload
You're forgetting about the fact that Russian teams have access to the Champions League.
The MLS doesn't have that and it's at a significant disadvantage for attracting top talent as a result.
This is true
Let mls into the champs league do it
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
They are responsible for some of the dirtiest games in the history of soccer.
Yes.
0
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
Also apropos of nothing I really hope we find some way to sort out getting Diego Fagundez citizenship because I don't want him to get capped for Uruguay
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
But yeah, do you know what will happen if America gets interested in football? All your additional talent will start joining European clubs and the national team will perform roughly the same as players only see eachother on international breaks.
If america was nuts for soccer we could most likely support a world class league
I mean duh this is hypothetical because it will never happen that we as a nation are into soccer as the rest of the world
Players are still going to go to where (a) there's a history/certain level of prestige (b) less inter game travelling (c) no salary cap.
Yeah these are the obstacles to it now
Mostly the last one
Russia has proven world class players have no problem going to enormous countries with no prestige as long as they're paid by the boatload
You're forgetting about the fact that Russian teams have access to the Champions League.
The MLS doesn't have that and it's at a significant disadvantage for attracting top talent as a result.
This is true
Let mls into the champs league do it
If I were the MLS, I'd try and get into the Copa Libertadores
But yeah, do you know what will happen if America gets interested in football? All your additional talent will start joining European clubs and the national team will perform roughly the same as players only see eachother on international breaks.
If america was nuts for soccer we could most likely support a world class league
I mean duh this is hypothetical because it will never happen that we as a nation are into soccer as the rest of the world
Players are still going to go to where (a) there's a history/certain level of prestige (b) less inter game travelling (c) no salary cap.
Yeah these are the obstacles to it now
Mostly the last one
Russia has proven world class players have no problem going to enormous countries with no prestige as long as they're paid by the boatload
You're forgetting about the fact that Russian teams have access to the Champions League.
The MLS doesn't have that and it's at a significant disadvantage for attracting top talent as a result.
This is true
Let mls into the champs league do it
If I were the MLS, I'd try and get into the Copa Libertadores
Let the mls all stars into europa league (they still would get totally stomped)
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
It'd be huge if we could get a permanent place in Copa America. Surprised it hasn't happened. We'd be a perfect villain - the arrogant, English speakers from the North who come to rain on South America's parade.
0
Options
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
I'm not even mad. The game was amazing. Just a glimmer of things to come out of this program. I think soccer is really coming into it's own in the USA and we're going to be a permanent fixture in the soccer world for many years to come.
Am I crazy for thinking the Argentines will go down? It's the only thing that I feel certain of in this Cup; that the Belgians would dominate that game.
Aside from Messi they've been very average. They had to rely on lucky bounces to beat Nigeria and barely got 3 points from Iran. They seem more well-organised at the back now but creatively Higuain has done nothing and aside from the last 15 today neither has di Maria.
As much crap as Portugal took for being a one-man team, Argentina have looked no better. I've already locked in Belgium in my Pick 'ems.
I think they can beat Belgium. I think they will lose to Netherlands in the next round. My guess for finals this World Cup has been Germany vs Netherlands and so far it's holding up.
For kicks, I went back with a stopwatch and rewatched the second half of overtime. I counted six minutes of stoppage time. Playing just the one minute was kinda nuts.
+10
Options
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
I remember when they introduced telling people how much stoppage there would be, at the '94 World Cup. Before then, you'd just run around watching the clock wondering when it would be all over. The whistles from the stands demanding the game ending trill from the ref would grow and grow as those supporting the current score would get increasingly restless. And then the game would stop, without warning.
Ironically, announcing the amount of stoppage time was sold as an advance designed to appease American audiences of the World Cup, used as they are to knowing exactly how much time remains thanks to their diet of explicit sports timekeeping clocks. It treated with some derision in established football nations, an unecessary quirk to appease a market of people who didn't care about the established traditions of the sport.
Went looking to see if I could find statistics - I know I'm being a homer here, but it's seemed like every time the US was losing we got short stoppage, and every time we were winning we got long ones.
All I could find was averages.
However, in the first half, it takes 10 minutes and 23 seconds of delays to add up to one minute of stoppage time, whereas in the second half, five minutes and 28 seconds typically add up to one minute of stoppage time. The reluctance of officials to add much time at the end of the first half was apparent in the U.S. match, when Opta logged two delays that totaled over three minutes,6 and reporters noticed an epic water break, yet the referee added just two minutes of stoppage time. (All told, the ball was out of play for 18 minutes and 47 seconds in the first half.)
The discrepancy between stoppage time awarded in each half may be because substitutions are more common in the second half. It also could reflect the much greater importance of stoppage time in the second half, when it can make the difference between a win and a draw, as it did for the U.S.
Notwithstanding the higher number of second-half subs, in this World Cup there hasn’t been a big difference between time the ball is out of play in the first half and in the second half: 19 minutes and 43 seconds in the first, 22 minutes and 27 seconds in the second.
No statistics for stoppage in extra time, but given 1 minute stoppage is effectively minimum, 6 minutes of stopped play in the second extra time seems like it should work to 2 minutes, but yeah....personal bias. That much would work to 1 minute stoppage in the second half (on average), but that's difficult to equate when 6 minutes is pushing up on "half of the period."
Ah well, nothing really that can be done about it.
I remember when they introduced telling people how much stoppage there would be, at the '94 World Cup. Before then, you'd just run around watching the clock wondering when it would be all over. The whistles from the stands demanding the game ending trill from the ref would grow and grow as those supporting the current score would get increasingly restless. And then the game would stop, without warning.
Ironically, announcing the amount of stoppage time was sold as an advance designed to appease American audiences of the World Cup, used as they are to knowing exactly how much time remains thanks to their diet of explicit sports timekeeping clocks. It treated with some derision in established football nations, an unecessary quirk to appease a market of people who didn't care about the established traditions of the sport.
A lot of the American "suggestions" are pretty awful, honestly, but I would totally be on-board with a clock that counted down instead of up, and which actually stopped counting down when a player was injured or during substitutions (but kept running for throws, free kicks, etc).
Went looking to see if I could find statistics - I know I'm being a homer here, but it's seemed like every time the US was losing we got short stoppage, and every time we were winning we got long ones.
All I could find was averages.
However, in the first half, it takes 10 minutes and 23 seconds of delays to add up to one minute of stoppage time, whereas in the second half, five minutes and 28 seconds typically add up to one minute of stoppage time. The reluctance of officials to add much time at the end of the first half was apparent in the U.S. match, when Opta logged two delays that totaled over three minutes,6 and reporters noticed an epic water break, yet the referee added just two minutes of stoppage time. (All told, the ball was out of play for 18 minutes and 47 seconds in the first half.)
The discrepancy between stoppage time awarded in each half may be because substitutions are more common in the second half. It also could reflect the much greater importance of stoppage time in the second half, when it can make the difference between a win and a draw, as it did for the U.S.
Notwithstanding the higher number of second-half subs, in this World Cup there hasn’t been a big difference between time the ball is out of play in the first half and in the second half: 19 minutes and 43 seconds in the first, 22 minutes and 27 seconds in the second.
No statistics for stoppage in extra time, but given 1 minute stoppage is effectively minimum, 6 minutes of stopped play in the second extra time seems like it should work to 2 minutes, but yeah....personal bias. That much would work to 1 minute stoppage in the second half (on average), but that's difficult to equate when 6 minutes is pushing up on "half of the period."
Ah well, nothing really that can be done about it.
Am I reading that graph right? Of 45 minutes of the first half 19.7 were "dead time" when play was not going on? That doesn't sound even remotely correct.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I like the way the clock works now.
Much faster paced than American football where you're taking a five minute break every three minutes of play.
For those of you with issues about the stoppage time, keep in mind that when the whistle blew to end the game, Belgium had a 4 on 1 from half. Yeah, Belgium blew a ton of chances and The US had Howard in net, but with a 4 on 1, Belgium was very likely to score to ice the game anyways. An extra minute or two of stoppage very likely wouldn't have mattered
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Stoppage didn't lose us this match, not taking chances and holding back for ninety minutes did. I gotta believe that our team knows that and they'll spend the next four years working on it, winning our first world cup in the homeland of that tiny bald weirdo who keeps trying to ruin the 21st century.
Miracle on Turf!
+1
Options
y2jake215certified Flat Birther theoristthe Last Good Boy onlineRegistered Userregular
For those of you with issues about the stoppage time, keep in mind that when the whistle blew to end the game, Belgium had a 4 on 1 from half. Yeah, Belgium blew a ton of chances and The US had Howard in net, but with a 4 on 1, Belgium was very likely to score to ice the game anyways. An extra minute or two of stoppage very likely wouldn't have mattered
well i mean if there aren't 30 seconds left you probably don't bomb the entire team across midfield but i'm not really complaining about the stoppage time either
we had chances we didn't convert em
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
0
Options
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
I find it hard to be upset about stoppage in extra time. If you can't put the game away in the regulation 90, then I'm not sure you have a convincing case to advance if you're behind in ET. Exceptions do exist, such as unfair penalties or other unfortunate officiating, but that certainly wasn't the case today.
Posts
Aside from Messi they've been very average. They had to rely on lucky bounces to beat Nigeria and barely got 3 points from Iran. They seem more well-organised at the back now but creatively Higuain has done nothing and aside from the last 15 today neither has di Maria.
As much crap as Portugal took for being a one-man team, Argentina have looked no better. I've already locked in Belgium in my Pick 'ems.
this does not equate to a league which is going to attract the best players in the world, which is what we were talking about when saying "world class"
if the MLS was making a bunch of money (and could offer any salary they wanted), they would draw quality players, first by overpaying (like we're doing now with past their prime guys) and gradually working down to normal as the overall quality increased etc
but it isn't, and they aren't, so it doesn't matter
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
I started following the us team in 2006, so Fuck Italy forever.
Edit: I really should refresh the page once in a while.
Whatever, fuck Italy forever, even though Super Mario nearly won me over this year.
Same with Seattle and Yedlin, really. Not much of a track record yet, but he looked awfully good on a big stage today.
I had originally assumed Yedlin was playing outside the U.S. and wasn't later that someone pointed out he was at Seattle that we were all like "he looks like he plays in Europe".
Fucking Baloteli. He's moody, petulant, arrogant, everything you should hate in a player. But for some reason he's just so damn likeable.
You're forgetting about the fact that Russian teams have access to the Champions League.
The MLS doesn't have that and it's at a significant disadvantage for attracting top talent as a result.
Thought that was a bit out of line personally. Not even the 4th official's decision how much time to add on.
This is true
Let mls into the champs league do it
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
They are responsible for some of the dirtiest games in the history of soccer.
Yes.
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
Also some of the best.
If I were the MLS, I'd try and get into the Copa Libertadores
Debatable.
Let the mls all stars into europa league (they still would get totally stomped)
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
I think they can beat Belgium. I think they will lose to Netherlands in the next round. My guess for finals this World Cup has been Germany vs Netherlands and so far it's holding up.
So yeah, stopping and starting your watch and coming up with a number 5+ times greater than the actual amount of time that's needed? About par.
Ironically, announcing the amount of stoppage time was sold as an advance designed to appease American audiences of the World Cup, used as they are to knowing exactly how much time remains thanks to their diet of explicit sports timekeeping clocks. It treated with some derision in established football nations, an unecessary quirk to appease a market of people who didn't care about the established traditions of the sport.
All I could find was averages.
No statistics for stoppage in extra time, but given 1 minute stoppage is effectively minimum, 6 minutes of stopped play in the second extra time seems like it should work to 2 minutes, but yeah....personal bias. That much would work to 1 minute stoppage in the second half (on average), but that's difficult to equate when 6 minutes is pushing up on "half of the period."
Ah well, nothing really that can be done about it.
A lot of the American "suggestions" are pretty awful, honestly, but I would totally be on-board with a clock that counted down instead of up, and which actually stopped counting down when a player was injured or during substitutions (but kept running for throws, free kicks, etc).
So many teams in League Two were wasting time at every set piece in the first half of away games last year, was very frustrating to watch.
Am I reading that graph right? Of 45 minutes of the first half 19.7 were "dead time" when play was not going on? That doesn't sound even remotely correct.
Much faster paced than American football where you're taking a five minute break every three minutes of play.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Miracle on Turf!
well i mean if there aren't 30 seconds left you probably don't bomb the entire team across midfield but i'm not really complaining about the stoppage time either
we had chances we didn't convert em
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here