Title says it all. Spain hammered Howard with shots thoughout the game but I must say Howard with the assistance of fellow players in the box were a brick wall. Even though America did the unthinkable today beating Spain I must say that I am ashamed that we got yet another red car. Which is totally unacceptable. However if America plays with this much energy thoughout the actual FIFA world cup we might actually go rather far.

Whats a red card? Did we shoot one of their players again?

It must be that the Pittsburgh Steelers heard it was a Football game and showed up to play for the USA. You try telling James Harrison that he can't use his hands.

In 'as serious as I get' mode, I'm glad to see USA mens soccer have a strong showing. It suggests that it's taking off more in this country.

You're saying that we might actually score a goal this time?!
Our goal last time was an Italian own goal.

Yeah, the US has a lot to do to get back my faith in them. Until then, I'll be cheering on Sweden as usual.

Football. The game is called football damnit!

It's soccer, ya limey teabag-sucking Brit!

Now pass me the Freedom Fries!

For the scousers (me )

Seems like Howard (Everton) managed to stave off the "best striker in the world" Torres (Liverpool) again. Man, Liverpool suck.

COYB!

3 Red Cards in 3 Games.

Any League would suspend the Club

Keyasa wrote:For the scousers (me )

Seems like Howard (Everton) managed to stave off the "best striker in the world" Torres (Liverpool) again. Man, Liverpool suck.

COYB!

Now being a die hard red I disagree, liverpool vs everton there is just no contest what so ever.

Then again I didn't see the game how did Villa, Alonso, Ramos etc play? From what I heard Spain were hammering the Tim Howard all game but he was producing some amazing saves and the US managed to get the goal in, still fair play to the USA I look forward to them coming up against England in the World Cup.

Oh and to all you colonials, it is football dammit not soccer you philistines!

Don't be hatin just cause we beatin you at your own game!

lord_sutekh wrote: ya limey teabag-sucking Brit!

Last I checked, ethnic slurs weren't allowed here.

The Dreadnote wrote:Football. The game is called football damnit!

Let's see, we're talking on a site run in the US, about a US team, and you want to tell us what to call it? Need I point out that England didn't even get invited to play?

If the US had their best athletes playing soccer instead of football, they'd probably clean up consistently. As it is, they've dominated their continental grouping for years now, while essentially being the 5th-tier sport (After football, baseball, basketball, and hockey) here (compared to most of the heavy-weights, where it's the #1 sport)

The biggest problem with US soccer is that there is no good soccer played here on a regular basis. The MLS is trying, but compared to real leagues, it's a bit of a let-down. It's certainly not exciting enough to draw audiences from the other sports, but it's a catch-22 situation, where we won't have better soccer here until we have more money to get better players, but we won't have the money for better players until we get more fans, and we won't get more fans until we have better soccer...

Redbeard wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote: ya limey teabag-sucking Brit!

Last I checked, ethnic slurs weren't allowed here.

This is no more a "racial Slur" than calling you a Hotdog Guzzling Yankee. Unclench, and let the rod out.

The Dreadnote wrote:Football. The game is called football damnit!

Let's see, we're talking on a site run in the US, about a US team, and you want to tell us what to call it? Need I point out that England didn't even get invited to play?

They didn't get invited, because England play in a Regional Tournament that doesn't just consist of Canada, the US and Islands with less people than London on them.

Gwar! wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote: ya limey teabag-sucking Brit!

Last I checked, ethnic slurs weren't allowed here.

This is no more a "racial Slur" than calling you a Hotdog Guzzling Yankee. Unclench, and let the rod out.

Heh. Redbeard is British.

I agree that it wasn't really a racial slur so much as innocent trash talking.

Ozymandias wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

lord_sutekh wrote: ya limey teabag-sucking Brit!

Last I checked, ethnic slurs weren't allowed here.

This is no more a "racial Slur" than calling you a Hotdog Guzzling Yankee. Unclench, and let the rod out.

Heh. Redbeard is British.

I agree that it wasn't really a racial slur so much as innocent trash talking.

Fine, I'll call him a Colonial Defector

Gwar your finally wrong, don't forget we don't have a UK football team its all split up between each country.

99MDeery wrote:Gwar your finally wrong, don't forget we don't have a UK football team its all split up between each country.

Oh I am sorry, I thought we were talking about RUGBY Football. If the Americans can make up words so can we. Also, I didn't say UK, I said England.

Also the UK does play, just as 4 different teams. We get an advantage by having 3 "B" teams to train for the Main one

Gwar! wrote:This is no more a "racial Slur" than calling you a Hotdog Guzzling Yankee.

Gwar is wrong and reveals his ignorance.

Unclench, and let the rod out.

Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle

They didn't get invited, [because of some lame excuse]

At the end of the day, the US is playing in an international tournament and just beat Spain, and England is sitting at home. This is the point in your trash talking where I simply point at the scoreboard, right?

Redbeard wrote:At the end of the day, the US is playing in an international tournament and just beat Spain, and England is sitting at home. This is the point in your trash talking where I simply point at the scoreboard, right?

They in the tournament because They beat Canada and some Caribbean Teams with less people than a Small City. Oh yeah, I hope you are REAL proud of them. Last I checked, England has won more World Cups than the USA.

Gwar! wrote:

99MDeery wrote:Gwar your finally wrong, don't forget we don't have a UK football team its all split up between each country.

Oh I am sorry, I thought we were talking about RUGBY Football. If the Americans can make up words so can we. Also, I didn't say UK, I said England.

Also the UK does play, just as 4 different teams. We get an advantage by having 3 "B" teams to train for the Main one

I can only think of one player in those "B Teams" we would actually have in the England Squad that being Robbie Keane.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Redbeard wrote:At the end of the day, the US is playing in an international tournament and just beat Spain, and England is sitting at home. This is the point in your trash talking where I simply point at the scoreboard, right?

They in the tournament because They beat Canada and some Caribbean Teams with less people than a Small City. Oh yeah, I hope you are REAL proud of them. Last I checked, England has won more World Cups than the USA.

The fact that it is only 1 - 0, Gwar just let it go man, just let it go, footy trash talking is all well and good but this is taking on a whole new level, just leave it dude.

99MDeery wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

99MDeery wrote:Gwar your finally wrong, don't forget we don't have a UK football team its all split up between each country.

Oh I am sorry, I thought we were talking about RUGBY Football. If the Americans can make up words so can we. Also, I didn't say UK, I said England.

Also the UK does play, just as 4 different teams. We get an advantage by having 3 "B" teams to train for the Main one

I can only think of one player in those "B Teams" we would actually have in the England Squad that being Robbie Keane.

Wow, thats some 1914 thinking right there. The Irish Team is NOT a UK "B" team, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are. Robbie Keane is Irish, Born in Dublin and plays for the Republic of Ireland, or did the whole 1921 "kicking the Brits out" phase just pass you by?

Actually it did, but meh I made a harmless mistake, for my reply I will refer to your post earlier.

Unclench, and let the rod out.

Gwar! wrote:

Redbeard wrote:At the end of the day, the US is playing in an international tournament and just beat Spain, and England is sitting at home. This is the point in your trash talking where I simply point at the scoreboard, right?

They in the tournament because They beat Canada and some Caribbean Teams with less people than a Small City. Oh yeah, I hope you are REAL proud of them. Last I checked, England has won more World Cups than the USA.

Yeah, I mean it's not like England has choked in EVERY world cup since '66. I mean, it's not like they lost to Portugal on a penalty shootout last time.

So your world cup record is 1 vs 0. Not a big gap, to be honest. Even Italy (shudder) has won more than you. Although I must admit, the Italian team consists of terrible human beings who jump on the ground and roll about in agony if someone comes within a foot of them. Grrr.

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Redbeard wrote:At the end of the day, the US is playing in an international tournament and just beat Spain, and England is sitting at home. This is the point in your trash talking where I simply point at the scoreboard, right?

They in the tournament because They beat Canada and some Caribbean Teams with less people than a Small City. Oh yeah, I hope you are REAL proud of them. Last I checked, England has won more World Cups than the USA.

Yeah, I mean it's not like England has choked in EVERY world cup since '66. I mean, it's not like they lost to Portugal on a penalty shootout last time.

So your world cup record is 1 vs 0. Not a big gap, to be honest. Even Italy (shudder) has won more than you. Although I must admit, the Italian team consists of terrible human beings who jump on the ground and roll about in agony if someone comes within a foot of them. Grrr.

Funny thing is, I'm actually half Italian half English (OK I lie, I'm Part Russian Jew as well) and root for Italy in the World Cups.

And for the Record, Italy were the first team to win the World Cup Twice, first to win it on Foreign Soil, First to win it Consecutively, have held it the most amount of years and have appeared in all but the first World Cup (only Brazil Beats them in this Regard). Oh, and Still have won more times than the USA.

And The USA has... none of that.

Gwar! wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Redbeard wrote:At the end of the day, the US is playing in an international tournament and just beat Spain, and England is sitting at home. This is the point in your trash talking where I simply point at the scoreboard, right?

They in the tournament because They beat Canada and some Caribbean Teams with less people than a Small City. Oh yeah, I hope you are REAL proud of them. Last I checked, England has won more World Cups than the USA.

Yeah, I mean it's not like England has choked in EVERY world cup since '66. I mean, it's not like they lost to Portugal on a penalty shootout last time.

So your world cup record is 1 vs 0. Not a big gap, to be honest. Even Italy (shudder) has won more than you. Although I must admit, the Italian team consists of terrible human beings who jump on the ground and roll about in agony if someone comes within a foot of them. Grrr.

Funny thing is, I'm actually half Italian half English (OK I lie, I'm Part Russian Jew as well) and root for Italy in the World Cups.

And for the Record, Italy were the first team to win the World Cup Twice, first to win it on Foreign Soil, First to win it Consecutively, have held it the most amount of years and have appeared in all but the first World Cup (only Brazil Beats them in this Regard). Oh, and Still have won more times than the USA.

And The USA has... none of that.

And this helps your arguement how? There still divers, on par with Ronaldo I would say.

99MDeery wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Redbeard wrote:At the end of the day, the US is playing in an international tournament and just beat Spain, and England is sitting at home. This is the point in your trash talking where I simply point at the scoreboard, right?

They in the tournament because They beat Canada and some Caribbean Teams with less people than a Small City. Oh yeah, I hope you are REAL proud of them. Last I checked, England has won more World Cups than the USA.

Yeah, I mean it's not like England has choked in EVERY world cup since '66. I mean, it's not like they lost to Portugal on a penalty shootout last time.

So your world cup record is 1 vs 0. Not a big gap, to be honest. Even Italy (shudder) has won more than you. Although I must admit, the Italian team consists of terrible human beings who jump on the ground and roll about in agony if someone comes within a foot of them. Grrr.

Funny thing is, I'm actually half Italian half English (OK I lie, I'm Part Russian Jew as well) and root for Italy in the World Cups.

And for the Record, Italy were the first team to win the World Cup Twice, first to win it on Foreign Soil, First to win it Consecutively, have held it the most amount of years and have appeared in all but the first World Cup (only Brazil Beats them in this Regard). Oh, and Still have won more times than the USA.

And The USA has... none of that.

And this helps your arguement how? There still divers, on par with Ronaldo I would say.

Exactly. The way they choose to play the game disgusts me.

The USA has the fact that they don't play dirty or dive like an Olympic swim team in an attempt to win. They also don't say things about their opponents' female relations and then complain when they get completely owned in the most hilarious way possible.
There's a player in the MLS who plays like that. Unfortunately for my own fair city's team (the Fire). You'll notice whenever he does something like that in a game, the commentators take him to task for it. As much as I hate American football, it does give us the ethic that you should take your hits and keep playing. So it's not quite the SPL but it's good enough in that respect for me.

Viva Zidane!

Gwar! wrote:They in the tournament because They beat Canada and some Caribbean Teams with less people than a Small City. Oh yeah, I hope you are REAL proud of them.

Actually, Mexico is in CONCACAF as well, and they've got a fairly substantial soccer-mad population. As are all of the Central American countries, most of which have a larger population than Wales or Scotland.

Last I checked, England has won more World Cups than the USA.

That they have. They've also had more bubonic plague epidemics, more castle sieges and more beheaded queens. They've had lots more things in the distant past. When did England win it last? Aren't all the players from that team OAPs by now? It's not like England's recent soccer victories are all that numerous. At least the US Women's team has won something in the last 10 years.

Redbeard wrote:

Gwar! wrote:They in the tournament because They beat Canada and some Caribbean Teams with less people than a Small City. Oh yeah, I hope you are REAL proud of them.

Actually, Mexico is in CONCACAF as well, and they've got a fairly substantial soccer-mad population. As are all of the Central American countries, most of which have a larger population than Wales or Scotland.

Although Mexico is under the jurisdiction of CONCACAF, the national football team has been regularly invited to compete in the CONMEBOL Copa América since Ecuador 1993 finishing as runner-up twice and obtaining the third place medal on three occasions.

Gwar! wrote:
Although Mexico is under the jurisdiction of CONCACAF, the national football team has been regularly invited to compete in the CONMEBOL Copa América

This is an interesting non-sequitor. The US has also been regularly invited to participate in the Copa América, since 1993. The US has also regularly and repeatly beat Mexico over the last 10 years. I don't see what either of these have to do with England's absence.

Redbeard wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
Although Mexico is under the jurisdiction of CONCACAF, the national football team has been regularly invited to compete in the CONMEBOL Copa América

This is an interesting non-sequitor. The US has also been regularly invited to participate in the Copa América, since 1993. The US has also regularly and repeatly beat Mexico over the last 10 years. I don't see what either of these have to do with England's absence.

Eh dispite having some of the "best players in the world" we suck plain and simple, I accept this fact every other red blooded Englishman should aswell.

Gwar! wrote:3 Red Cards in 3 Games.

Any League would suspend the Club

3 in 4 matches, and maybe a sunday league would but not at the top levels.

Gwar! wrote:

Redbeard wrote:At the end of the day, the US is playing in an international tournament and just beat Spain, and England is sitting at home. This is the point in your trash talking where I simply point at the scoreboard, right?

They in the tournament because They beat Canada and some Caribbean Teams with less people than a Small City. Oh yeah, I hope you are REAL proud of them. Last I checked, England has won more World Cups than the USA.

England failed again to win a competition. The US consistently win ours, and we don't have the luxury of beating up on Andorra, Kazakhstan, Croatia, and the Ukraine. We get to play Mexico and Honduras which are both tougher competition.

US has been in every World Cup since 1990, how about thet Three Lions?

OK I'm not a Soccer expert, but I do like to watch the USA play. I don't get these yellow cards. Help me out here, do these cards seem to come a lot faster when the USA is on the field? I missed this last game but out of the few games I have been able to watch, most of the cards I have seen have been over nothing at all.(I.m specifically refering to the world cup qualifying games as I havent been able to watch a single one of these games in South Africa)

GG

generalgrog wrote:OK I'm not a Soccer expert, but I do like to watch the USA play. I don't get these yellow cards. Help me out here, do these cards seem to come a lot faster when the USA is on the field? I missed this last game but out of the few games I have been able to watch, most of the cards I have seen have been over nothing at all.(I.m specifically refering to the world cup qualifying games as I havent been able to watch a single one of these games in South Africa)

GG

it might seem like "nothing", but Football has rather strict laws on what is permissible. Generally, if the referee rules that a Foul (striking a Player while tackling before the ball) was Accidental, it is a Foul. If it was not a reasonable attempt at "playing the Ball" it is a Yellow Card (Caution). If it was a Deliberate attempt at the Player, that's a Straight Red. There are other rules, but that's the general jist.

taken from The Laws of the Game (PDF):

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences:
• unsporting behaviour
• dissent by word or action
• persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game
• delaying the restart of play
• failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in
• entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee’s permission
• deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission

A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offences:
• unsporting behaviour
• dissent by word or action
• delaying the restart of play

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

As you can see, unlike GW, FIFA know how to write rules (My Favourite is the Specific Exception allowing a Goalkeeper to deny "the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball". If GW Wrote the book, they'd probably forget that and not Errata it for 3 years )

Redbeard wrote:If the US had their best athletes playing soccer instead of football, they'd probably clean up consistently. As it is, they've dominated their continental grouping for years now, while essentially being the 5th-tier sport (After football, baseball, basketball, and hockey) here (compared to most of the heavy-weights, where it's the #1 sport)

Bollocks. For one thing the game the op posted about was a friendly. Players don't give a crap about friendlies, especially when there bang in the middle of there post season holiday.

...the continental grouping you're dominating is probably the worst continental grouping in the world. And comes no where near to Europe, South America and Africa. If you had had to fight for your World Cup qualification in one of theose continents I doubt you would have featured in a world cup yet.

...and if india can't dominate cricket when it's there no.1 sport and they have a population of over 1 billion I can't see any reason why the USA would "clean up" in football, unless you're suggesting that your athletes are somehow inherintly better than they are everywhere else. In which case I laugh, hard.

And for the Record, Italy were the first team to win the World Cup Twice, first to win it on Foreign Soil, First to win it Consecutively, have held it the most amount of years and have appeared in all but the first World Cup (only Brazil Beats them in this Regard).

Be fair though,Italians are naturally suited to playing football..

..you swap sides halfway through remember.

I think the USA thoroughly deserve their success in this tournament. They were unlucky against Italy in the extreme and did very well seeing as they were down to 10 men for most of the game. The Italians should have had a man sent off too but somehow....

With regards to the number of cards thing.... I suspect that this is partially as the USA team play in a very English style that relies upon a lot of hard tackles and running as opposed to the finer or more elegant passing game of some teams. Considering their best players either learnt or earn their trade in the English League-- which has dominated the Euro competitions for the last few years ( Ha! Take that Platini ! you witch !) -- this is no surprise. Related to this the USA players don't tend to dive as much as.... certain.. other teams too, and I think this combination, much like England/the UK teams, often works against them at the international level, where it seems, sometimes, that certain nations or refs would like to make the game entirely non contact.

reds8n wrote:Be fair though,Italians are naturally suited to playing football..

..you swap sides halfway through remember.

That is by far the best Joke I have heard about Italy in years. Saving that one.

As for the League thing, have you seen a English League team? There are no English Players, because the English cannot play football.

Hmm... I agree that there are no 100% all English teams, but I think it true that the "heart" or backbone of the most successful English teams have a core of English players.

Man U, LIverpool and Chelsea have been the dominant teams in England for the last few years, and I really think that Ferdinand, Rooney, Carragher, Gerrard, Terry and Lampard are all key components to those teams success.

And you look at construction of Man U's first great all conquering side under Fergie : Neville's 1 and 2, Scholes, Beckham... etc etc.

reds8n wrote:And you look at construction of Man U's first great all conquering side under Fergie : Neville...2

Neville 2? Neville 2 was one of the worst players to have played at man you in the premier league.

+ that was well into fergies success. You need to go back further and look at irwin, bruce, hughes etc. to see the "first great all conquering side under Fergie."

whatwhat wrote:

reds8n wrote:And you look at construction of Man U's first great all conquering side under Fergie : Neville...2

Neville 2? Neville 2 was one of the worst players to have played at man you in the premier league.

The neville brothers were good? Could have fooled me.

Neville 1 was alright, but the sequel was gak.

Both were regulars in the 1st team, not just the squad, both won lots of medals, both played for the country at full international level multiple times.

Yeah, they must both be fething terrible players.

Robson, Cole, Sheringham, eevry successful modern team in the English league -- maybe Arsenal as an exception and they've been looking dodgy last couple of years-- has had an English core. You're not actually goingt o try and tell me Bryan Robson wasn't the heart of Man U are you ?

Holy crap, the US has a Soccer team?

whatwhat wrote:
Bollocks. For one thing the game the op posted about was a friendly. Players don't give a crap about friendlies, especially when there bang in the middle of there post season holiday.

Ok, so you're clueless. The game that the OP posted about is part of the Confederations Cup, and while it's not quite the World Cup, the teams are fielding their A rosters.

Besides which, saying a player doesn't give a crap about friendlies is just ignorant of the nature of these athletes. If you're playing a sport at the top level, that means you're a competitor, and while before and after the game they may know it doesn't matter, once they're on the pitch, they want to win. If they didn't have that in them, they wouldn't be playing at the top level of their sport. The coaches may not field their best team possible - they have other motives, like getting playing experience for younger players, or letting certain people get rest. But the players - once you're on the field, you want to win, friendly or not.

...and if india can't dominate cricket when it's there no.1 sport and they have a population of over 1 billion I can't see any reason why the USA would "clean up" in football, unless you're suggesting that your athletes are somehow inherintly better than they are everywhere else. In which case I laugh, hard.

Then you don't really get it. There are two parts to how well a country can do in international sport competition. One of them is the talent pool available to them, and the other is whether they have a system in place that can identify and nurture talent starting at a young age. India has the population, but they don't have the system. China is developing the system, and they cleaned up at the Beijing Olympics. In many ways, athletes competing at the top level in their sport, whatever their sport is, are a bit like freaks of nature. They're just different. And, while there is no controlling in which country these people will be born in, it simply stands to reason that you get more of them in a bigger country. The larger your population, the larger your population of freaks. But, it's not enough to have them, raw talent only gets you so far. You have to identify them early, and train them for what they're going to do.

The US (and, remember, I'm not American) has probably the best talent development system in the world. There is organized sport in every American town, starting as young as 4 years old. There are leagues that work to take the best of small local teams and put them on more competitive "travelling teams" as young as seven. There are scouts from professional sports teams that evaluate 14-16 year-old players across the nation - and it's a big place. If you look at the athletes who play in the NFL, they're ridiculous. You have 300 pound men who can run 40 yards in under six seconds, and can jump out of a swimming pool full of water. (You try this... most people can't even making a standing high-jump of three feet, and then to do it from submerged in water...) US culture has developed in such a way that sports are central to people's lives from an early early age, and then the best are methodically advanced as they age.

So, no, I'm not saying that US Athletes are inherently better than anywhere else in the world. What I'm saying is that the US has a significantly better evaluation and development system in place that allows them to consistently locate amazing athletes and promote them in professional clubs, while operation with one of the world's larger populations to select from. Thing is, very little of this goes towards soccer, it's largely focused on the big revenue generating sports here, Football, Baseball, and Basketball.

For the same reason, I think more and more, China will be the dominant force at the Olympics, and they're turning their attention towards soccer now too. As a country, they've shown that they're willing to set up these early identification and training programs, and they have an even larger potential pool of citizens to draw from.

India?? Nothing against the place, but their culture doesn't emphasize sports anywhere like the way that most western countries do.

Gwar! wrote:

Redbeard wrote:At the end of the day, the US is playing in an international tournament and just beat Spain, and England is sitting at home. This is the point in your trash talking where I simply point at the scoreboard, right?

They in the tournament because They beat Canada and some Caribbean Teams with less people than a Small City. Oh yeah, I hope you are REAL proud of them. Last I checked, England has won more World Cups than the USA.

This is all irrelevant and does reflect why the US is uber cdominant (and also why we SOCCER is just now growing). Hold on I'll explain.

We only view sports that have Hawt Chicks (Killkrazy TM) on the sideleines as real sport.
Football, basketball have these



Soccer doesn't. We win You lose. HHAHAHAHAHAHA, er what we talking about again.

I think part of the thing about football ( not "soccer" ) that American's don't "get" is that at times a draw is a good result and it's quite possible to have a tense and enjoyable 0-0 draw ( yoiu get some $%^&*%£ dull ones too of course ) and the way it's set up doesn't really lend itself to American TV coverage as there's not the convieniant breaks every 10 seconds for a painkiller/Budweiser/car commercial that , from a UK perspective, ruins what American sports I have seen. I can dig how a 1-1 draw would or could seem dull if you're used to scores of 37-30 ( or whatever), but in a similar manner I can't watch American football because it's 5 seconds of action followed by 5 minutes of standing around doing sod all.

Duh thats what the cheerleaders are for!

You have to remember our weather though--football is played mainly in the autumn/winter/spring, so any such cheerleaders would essentially be leaping round in long trousers, gloves, hats and even wellington boots which would largely ruin the affect.

There are actually a few clubs with cheerleaders...but... it just doesn't really work over here to be honest. Pretty much every UNi sports team has a cheerleading squad... and on one memorable occasion...err... actually that is perhaps a story best saved for another time.

Our red card was complete crap. Bradley hadn't had a foul all game and went in FROM THE FRONT with cleats a little high (not at a very dangerous height though), hits ball and man and its a straight red card. Awful. I thought the officiating was rock solid until then. A yellow card, maybe, but a red? After no previous fouls? That's extremely rash and harsh judgement by the official.

On to my game analysis. Howard played fantastic, making some 8 or 9 saves against one of the best offenses in the game right now. Our back line was solid for once thanks to Gooch holding it down with his size and speed. It was nice to have Bocanegra back and his experience. Still need to figure out a way that we can distribute better out of the back as opposed to just kicking it away. Still not impressed with Spector. I think that he undeserving of his position. Donovan played nicely with some good chances taken and created. I still wish that he would get more selfish around the goal and put the ball in the net instead of passing it off every time. Michael Bradley had a great game until his sending off. But its already been established how I feel about his sending off. Ricardo Clark was completely invisible the whole game. No mistakes to speak of but he didn't really do anything either. Dempsey played fantastic, lots of energy and skill on the ball. His tenacity got him our clencher at the end of the game. He had some moments of space creating brilliance. Davies was fun to watch, wasn't necessarily a huge impact on the game but his bicycle kick (that sailed just wide) let the spanish know that they were in for a fight. Altidore played great. He used his size greatly to his advantage and it worked well for him. Fantastic showing, finish could've had a bit more finesse, but it did get in the net. Quite a feat on the spanish. Overall, it was a nice effort by the U.S. A bit more ball possession would have been nice, certainly. We got shaky around the end of the first half and the start of the second, got our legs again around the 65th and then lost them again around the 89th. Fantastic game to watch either way. I was glad to have watched it.

It's "strikers" and "defenders" but .. we'll let you off.

I pretty much agree with your analysis there, did ride your luck in parts and on another day I reckon both Villa and Torres would have buried 2 or 3 each.

But they didn't and you took your chances and ultimately that's all that counts. I'd have to say that I still fancy Brazil to win the tournie.... but Egypt showed that their defense is pretty shaky and if you can play with the same grit and spirit then you're in with a chance still.

Be nice if you could finish a game with 11 men though.

reds8n wrote:Be nice if you could finish a game with 11 men though.

That's as Likely as Ronaldo Learning to play football instead of Professional Grass Diving.

It would be really nice if we could finish a game with 11 men and play at a consistant quality rather than it varying between horendious and respectable. As for all the Brit's out there did you guys fail to make it into the Euro Cup last summer? On a side note I just heard that ESPN is going to broadcast like 46 Premire League games in the USA in this next year. I am totally excited about this.

Emrab wrote:It would be really nice if we could finish a game with 11 men and play at a consistant quality rather than it varying between horendious and respectable. As for all the Brit's out there did you guys fail to make it into the Euro Cup last summer? On a side note I just heard that ESPN is going to broadcast like 46 Premire League games in the USA in this next year. I am totally excited about this.

ESPN gained the rights from Setanta UK to broadcast the EPL matches in Great Britain. Setanta US and Fox Soccer still hold the US rights to the EPL matches.

Frazzled wrote:
We only view sports that have Hawt Chicks (Killkrazy TM) on the sideleines as real sport.
Football, basketball have these



Soccer doesn't. We win You lose. HHAHAHAHAHAHA, er what we talking about again.

(Quoted to replay hot chicks...)

My team (Bears) doesn't have cheerleaders :(

reds8n wrote:I think part of the thing about football ( not "soccer" ) that American's don't "get" is that at times a draw is a good result and it's quite possible to have a tense and enjoyable 0-0 draw

No, that is something they get. I think you can have draws in hockey too - at least until the playoffs.

and the way it's set up doesn't really lend itself to American TV coverage as there's not the convieniant breaks every 10 seconds for a painkiller/Budweiser/car commercial that , from a UK perspective, ruins what American sports I have seen.

And yet the Mexican TV stations over here manage to broadcast soccer just fine... As does ESPN2. So I don't think that's it either.

No, the real problem is that American league soccer is just not good soccer. There isn't a lot to cheer about when they're just lobbing long balls back and forth and hoping for corners as a chance to score. American soccer doesn't seem to favour individual player's footwork or fast-breaks, and that's the sort of thing that makes for exciting games. Comparatively, watching Mexican/South American/European matches, there is a lot more of that play and a lot less just booting it back and forth.

but in a similar manner I can't watch American football because it's 5 seconds of action followed by 5 minutes of standing around doing sod all.

American football is very different, I agree (although you're exaggerating the downtime, there are 45 seconds between snaps). It's also the most strategic of any sport I've ever watched. Watching a good American Football game is like watching a real-time chess match (but with violence and collisions) - and it's precisely because they do stop and line back up between every play.

As a side note, I was in London a few years ago, and not yet adjusted to GMT, so I was up around 2AM flipping channels in the hotel room, and I found Monday Night Football. I had this sense that something was wrong, but it wasn't until halftime that I realized that for the British re-broadcast, they'd cut out all the commercial breaks. I think they finished the entire show in an hour and a half.

The unfortunate thing is that this win doesn't actually mean a whole ton. As stated by Emrab, their play is so inconsistent this ends up being looked at as "Spain played bad and that American's played decent". If the US could consistently play this well, they would easily be one of the top ten teams in the world. (Granted, they are currently ranked 14th, so the push past Paraguay and Turkey shouldn't be too horrendously hard)

I must say I was rather shocked that we showed up against a team like Spain. To be honest, our victory won't give me any faith in US soccer/football. Frankly we got lucky to be playing Spain in the first place and if we don't show up and loose 3-0 or 2-0 to Brazil or South Africa in the final, I think our win against Spain won't do much to help US soccer.

If we loose (and frankly my money is on us loosing if we play Brazil again). All it will show is that the US team still only shows up randomly (playing like we did against Italy and Brazil the first time is unacceptable). Our "stars" mostly play for MLS, which is terrible to watch. Until we get more of our "star" players playing in Europe (and getting minutes), we won't have any real "stars" and US soccer will still be a 2nd tier sport. As a final note, when the World Cup finally rolls around, I'm still betting our "stars players" disapear like they did last time.

The US has a soccer team?

The US has a soccer team?

Casper wrote: Our "stars" mostly play for MLS, which is terrible to watch. Until we get more of our "star" players playing in Europe (and getting minutes), we won't have any real "stars" and US soccer will still be a 2nd tier sport.

Clearly you aren't familiar with our national team. Out of the starting 11 yesterday, only 2 (clark and donovan) play in the MLS. Also, keep in mind that the Brazil that plays today is not the Brazil of the 2002 or 2006 World cups. This Brazil team is a bit older and not as fast as they are used to being. Overall, I've not been that impressed with them compared to previous years. I think the final will be much closer than one might expect. The US is playing some great defense with both keepers (Howard and Guzan) in top form.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:The US has a soccer team?

Triple Post?

Triple Post?

Triple Post?

youngblood wrote:
Clearly you aren't familiar with our national team. Out of the starting 11 yesterday, only 2 (clark and donovan) play in the MLS. Also, keep in mind that the Brazil that plays today is not the Brazil of the 2002 or 2006 World cups. This Brazil team is a bit older and not as fast as they are used to being. Overall, I've not been that impressed with them compared to previous years. I think the final will be much closer than one might expect. The US is playing some great defense with both keepers (Howard and Guzan) in top form.

Your, right I'm not as familiar with our team as I use to be, as I have lost most of my enthusiasm for the national team.

Although Brazil is older they still beat us 3-0 in the group stage. Yes they may be slower, but their still good. Our 2 goals were opportunistic and involved a bit of luck, which is valid and, well, we needed everthing we could get. I would like to see our team score on something a bit more organized and actually try to get a decent counter attack off then just kicking the ball away and giving it right back to our opponent. I will be watching the game closely. Every game we get against top teir teams, like Spain, Brazil and Italy gives us more experience for the Cup, which is where we need to perform.

If we play like we played againts Spain yesterday I can see the Brazil game beng very good. A problem I see with the US National team is most people (fans) are pessimistic going into the game.

The biggest problems that I see with the Nats right now are lack of unit cohesion, questionable substitutions, and some strange Nat call ups. I assign blame for the first two problems on the coach, Bob Bradley. I think that he calls players up who shouldn't be (Connor Casey) and starts players who shouldn't start or really be subbed in at all (Connor Casey). As far unit cohesion goes, the US just needs to figure out a way to get familiar with each other's playing styles and adapt together. There is far too much miscommunication the occurs for them. While they have no "superstars" to speak of, there is some very solid young talent on our team. Altidore showed that he can effectively use his size and speed against the best.

I hope that South Africa beats Brazil today. Only 3 1/2 hours to game time!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Casper, didn't mean to sound like such an ass. I just get a little pissed when people assume that the Nats are composed of house bred players.

Totally agree with you on Connor Casey. He never does anything. I would also love to see South Africa beat Brazil today. That would be epic. The two underdogs both win.

youngblood wrote:The biggest problems that I see with the Nats right now are lack of unit cohesion, questionable substitutions, and some strange Nat call ups. I assign blame for the first two problems on the coach, Bob Bradley. I think that he calls players up who shouldn't be (Connor Casey) and starts players who shouldn't start or really be subbed in at all (Connor Casey). As far unit cohesion goes, the US just needs to figure out a way to get familiar with each other's playing styles and adapt together. There is far too much miscommunication the occurs for them. While they have no "superstars" to speak of, there is some very solid young talent on our team. Altidore showed that he can effectively use his size and speed against the best.

I hope that South Africa beats Brazil today. Only 3 1/2 hours to game time!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Casper, didn't mean to sound like such an ass. I just get a little pissed when people assume that the Nats are composed of house bred players.

Fair play on those comments.

Tim Howard (as much as I am a liverpool fan and it pains me to say this) is a good goalkeeper on his day he is awesome.

Same with Clint Dempsy, I watch match of the day every week and I am impressed with him, he's no where near the likes of Lampard, Gerrard, Xavi, Iniesta and co but he is still a pretty a decent midfielder and has really helped Fulham get into the Europa League.

Just out of curiousty who does your 1st Team play for, I know Howard, Dempsy and Guzan but the rest I am unfamiliar with.

They are all over the place. The first team is also fairly inconsistent. Here's a good link to the full list of call ups and where they play. http://www.ussoccer.com/common/stContent.jsp_16-2009MNT.html

All over the place is one way to put it, with travelling time jet lag etc no wonder your team is fairly inconsistent a clearer picture is being painted for me now though.

Tbf I can only comment on the few that I see in the EPL week in week out. done Dempsy, Howard and Guzan.

Hahnmann's still a good keeper but tbh I would play Fridel over Howard anyday I know hes getting on abit now but he's still a fine keeper and has done really really well this season, has he retired from Internationals? Or do you just not play him?

Never thought much of Spector, but tbf there are plenty of other better players at West Ham.

And going to agree with everyone here Casey is just crap, or from what I have seen of him in this tournament anyhow.

I'm not a fan of Spector at all. I think that he's an awful ball handler and makes stupid decisions because HE thinks that he is a good baller. Don't know about Freidel tbh. Your correct in saying that he plays great still, but I don't know if I'd play him over Howard or Guzan. Howard has been pretty great for the Nats as of late. The one thing that I appreciate about Bradley as a coach is that he plays young players alot. Example: Feillhaber subs in often and has a positive impact on the game although it is a small impact. The experience is necessary for him. Michael Bradley starts and plays rather well for us. I wish that Adu would get some more time. I think that if we are going to be relying on him later, he needs to start getting some caps. Not sure if you are familiar with Mastroeni, he typically plays midfield for us and is not very fast, but his vision and distribution are so key. Bradley barely plays him because of his age (imo). He should be used more, especially in games with slower midfields.

I am unfamiliar with Mastroeni, but I know what kind of player he is, if I had to compare him to anybody it would Xabi Alonso who plays for Liverpool, hes not exactly fast but his passing is what allows us to go and score goals, he picks out that key pass the unlocks a defence.

As to the other players I have no clue who they are, but with Feilhaber again I know what kind of player he is, he's young he's quick and if you throw him on as a sub ay 60mins when your 1 - 0 down those fast fresh legs will give you the edge against some teams as they just won;t keep up with him.

As to Freidel vs Howard + Guzan, Guzan is essentially Freidel's understudy at Villa so there probably like for like but Guzan needs more first team experience.

Howard vs Freidel would be an interesting debate.

Agreed. Freidel's experience and confidence are much better than Howards. Howard tends to get himself in trouble with lofted balls and long range shots, but his instincts are stellar.

youngblood wrote:Agreed. Freidel's experience and confidence are much better than Howards. Howard tends to get himself in trouble with lofted balls and long range shots, but his instincts are stellar.

True Howard is alot like David James, safe as houses David James is

Redbeard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Bollocks. For one thing the game the op posted about was a friendly. Players don't give a crap about friendlies, especially when there bang in the middle of there post season holiday.

Ok, so you're clueless. The game that the OP posted about is part of the Confederations Cup, and while it's not quite the World Cup, the teams are fielding their A rosters.

Besides which, saying a player doesn't give a crap about friendlies is just ignorant of the nature of these athletes. If you're playing a sport at the top level, that means you're a competitor, and while before and after the game they may know it doesn't matter, once they're on the pitch, they want to win. If they didn't have that in them, they wouldn't be playing at the top level of their sport. The coaches may not field their best team possible - they have other motives, like getting playing experience for younger players, or letting certain people get rest. But the players - once you're on the field, you want to win, friendly or not.

Yeh they bung the word cup after all sorts of friendly competitions nowadays. And if you honestly think spain gave a crap about that game, anything above testing out a few tactics and players ...you're the clueless one here.

So, no, I'm not saying that US Athletes are inherently better than anywhere else in the world. What I'm saying is that the US has a significantly better evaluation and development system in place that allows them to consistently locate amazing athletes and promote them in professional clubs, while operation with one of the world's larger populations to select from. Thing is, very little of this goes towards soccer, it's largely focused on the big revenue generating sports here, Football, Baseball, and Basketball.

For the same reason, I think more and more, China will be the dominant force at the Olympics, and they're turning their attention towards soccer now too. As a country, they've shown that they're willing to set up these early identification and training programs, and they have an even larger potential pool of citizens to draw from.

Hmm yeh but pouring money itno everything doesn't work either. Take for example basketball that you mentioned. Now that there not the only nation interested in it theres plenty of teams which challenge the US at international level. Tennis, the US hands down have the best training grounds in the world. Where do the worlds number one and two come from, spain and Switzerland.

The US (and, remember, I'm not American) has probably the best talent development system in the world. There is organized sport in every American town, starting as young as 4 years old. There are leagues that work to take the best of small local teams and put them on more competitive "travelling teams" as young as seven. There are scouts from professional sports teams that evaluate 14-16 year-old players across the nation - and it's a big place. If you look at the athletes who play in the NFL, they're ridiculous. You have 300 pound men who can run 40 yards in under six seconds, and can jump out of a swimming pool full of water. (You try this... most people can't even making a standing high-jump of three feet, and then to do it from submerged in water...) US culture has developed in such a way that sports are central to people's lives from an early early age, and then the best are methodically advanced as they age.

Bad example. NFL athletes are like that because they are set up for american football, a game where short bursts of action meaning lots of muscle is necessary. If it was a more strung out game having all that weight would be stupid as they'd be out of breath in a few minutes. Just because your average football (soccer) player can't do those things doesn't mean he's half the athlete. He just knows eating six meals a day and spendng the rest of time at the gym aint going to get him far in his game.

Redbeard wrote:India?? Nothing against the place, but their culture doesn't emphasize sports anywhere like the way that most western countries do.

wow. How ignorant. You saying that reasures me you indeed have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you know how seriously india take cricket? Ever heard of the IPL, klnow how much money s put into that? Did you know that there's practicly riots all over inda everytime the national side lose?

Damn brits need to stop threadjackin. Just when the US has something great to be proud of, you come with your threadjackin ways. MAVERICK!

youngblood wrote:Damn brits need to stop threadjackin. Just when the US has something great to be proud of, you come with your threadjackin ways. MAVERICK!

Agreed. As to the earlier comment that Americans play a little bit rough, yeah, I'd say overall that's a fair statement. I guess I just notice it less because I usually watch the SPL (CELTIC!) and they play rougher than anyone.

Hey now thats unfair, i'm English and am perfectly able and willing to:

a) Recognise the USA achievement at beating the current World No 1's

and

b) have a resonable discussion about football even the American team, with the appropriate amount of trash talk that comes with footy.

99MDeery wrote:Hey now thats unfair, i'm English and am perfectly able and willing to:

a) Recognise the USA achievement at beating the current World No 1's

and

b) have a resonable discussion about football even the American team, with the appropriate amount of trash talk that comes with footy.

Thats true, apologies. I was really hinting at Red and whatwhat


Automatically Appended Next Post:
US vs. South Africa is looking possible

whatwhat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Bollocks. For one thing the game the op posted about was a friendly. Players don't give a crap about friendlies, especially when there bang in the middle of there post season holiday.

Ok, so you're clueless. The game that the OP posted about is part of the Confederations Cup, and while it's not quite the World Cup, the teams are fielding their A rosters.

Besides which, saying a player doesn't give a crap about friendlies is just ignorant of the nature of these athletes. If you're playing a sport at the top level, that means you're a competitor, and while before and after the game they may know it doesn't matter, once they're on the pitch, they want to win. If they didn't have that in them, they wouldn't be playing at the top level of their sport. The coaches may not field their best team possible - they have other motives, like getting playing experience for younger players, or letting certain people get rest. But the players - once you're on the field, you want to win, friendly or not.

Yeh they bung the word cup after all sorts of friendly competitions nowadays. And if you honestly think spain gave a crap about that game, anything above testing out a few tactics and players ...you're the clueless one here.

I see how you changed your tone there. First you said players don't care. Players do care. No player wants to get beat. No player wants to dog it on the field and get called out.

Coaches, managers, national team managers, etc - they may not care. But that's what I said originally. Which it appears that you agree with.

Hmm yeh but pouring money itno everything doesn't work either. Take for example basketball that you mentioned. Now that there not the only nation interested in it theres plenty of teams which challenge the US at international level.

Basketball is a very interesting example. When the US brings their best, no one matches them. But, they have little incentive to bring their best most of the time. In Beijing, where we got our best together, the closest game the US had, they won by 11, and that was the finals. Won by 11.

But, it's a cultural thing. Many of the US players come from impoverished backgrounds. International competition doesn't get them anything, so why should they do it. The US teams that lost, they weren't stacked with the US's best talent, not even close.

Tennis, the US hands down have the best training grounds in the world. Where do the worlds number one and two come from, spain and Switzerland.

I don't think you can really compare individual sports and team sports the same way. Tiger Woods is Tiger Woods, regardless of where he was born. The best individual player in any sport can come from anywhere, but to put together a team requires more than just one superstar.

Bad example. NFL athletes are like that because they are set up for american football, a game where short bursts of action meaning lots of muscle is necessary. If it was a more strung out game having all that weight would be stupid as they'd be out of breath in a few minutes. Just because your average football (soccer) player can't do those things doesn't mean he's half the athlete. He just knows eating six meals a day and spendng the rest of time at the gym aint going to get him far in his game.

I'm not saying that you take NFL players and give them cleats and have them play soccer. I'm saying the raw talent in America turns into football and baseball, and basketball players, not soccer players. Let's say there's an athletic kid, and he's 7 years old. In England, he'd be playing soccer. If he's one of those extremely rare, physically gifted types, he keeps playing soccer, through school and clubs, until he gets scouted by a professional organization.

In the US, this same kid, who at seven years old will develop physically based on what he's asked to do, is going to be playing little league baseball, or pop-warner football. He's going to be lifting weights, to put on that muscle that he'll need in the NFL, and eating more, because his idols growing up are NFL players, not soccer players. And because the NFL is his ticket to a good life. Whereas, in England, making it onto a premiership team is the goal.

It's an issue of how raw talent develops. Let's say that there is one person per 100,000 (Sample number only) who has the requisite hand-eye coordination, balance, agility, and so on that are required to play any sport at the top level. In England, that means there are 600 such individuals, and the majority of them will learn to play soccer. In the US, you have 3000 such individuals, but only a very small portion of those will play soccer, as most will have grown up idolizing either football, baseball or basketball. The end result is that, while there are more potential athletes in the US, there are fewer potential soccer players.

For those of you not watching the South Africa vs. Brazil game (and who care), Brazil is playing awful. Embarrassing.

Redbeard wrote:I see how you changed your tone there. First you said players don't care. Players do care. No player wants to get beat. No player wants to dog it on the field and get called out.

Coaches, managers, national team managers, etc - they may not care. But that's what I said originally. Which it appears that you agree with.

Erm, what?

Redbeard wrote:It's an issue of how raw talent develops. Let's say that there is one person per 100,000 (Sample number only) who has the requisite hand-eye coordination, balance, agility, and so on that are required to play any sport at the top level. In England, that means there are 600 such individuals, and the majority of them will learn to play soccer. In the US, you have 3000 such individuals, but only a very small portion of those will play soccer, as most will have grown up idolizing either football, baseball or basketball. The end result is that, while there are more potential athletes in the US, there are fewer potential soccer players.

I notice you keep banging on about that having already ignored my example of india. Population of 1 billion, mad about cricket yet they don't "clean up" in the sport.

Oh that's right, you came up with this rubbish...which you just also happened to ignore my response to.

whatwhat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:India?? Nothing against the place, but their culture doesn't emphasize sports anywhere like the way that most western countries do.

wow. How ignorant. You saying that reasures me you indeed have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you know how seriously india take cricket? Ever heard of the IPL, klnow how much money s put into that? Did you know that there's practicly riots all over inda everytime the national side lose?

Blast you whatwhat! You take this conversation to another thread, hell I'll start it for ya!


edit: here's yer damn thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/245668.page

omg who cares about pre-season friendlies so much nowadays. Everyone knows no football between the end of may and august is worth watching.

Pre-season friendly? Pre-season freindly? You sir... you... you... :(

As in a friendly before the proper football season starts.

whatwhat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I see how you changed your tone there. First you said players don't care. Players do care. No player wants to get beat. No player wants to dog it on the field and get called out.

Coaches, managers, national team managers, etc - they may not care. But that's what I said originally. Which it appears that you agree with.

Erm, what?

You said that players don't care about friendlies. I said that players do care, because if you're a person with the talent and drive to play at the top of your sport, once you're on any field, you play to win. I've been to my share of "friendlies" and the players on the pitch play to win.

I also said that while players do care, coaches and managers don't because they're more detached, and have other concerns, like the health of their starters, the experience of their backups, and the like.

And then you came and said how "spain didn't care" about their game, other than getting experience for their backups. Well, that's a coaches choice, not a player's choice isn't it.

I notice you keep banging on about that having already ignored my example of india. Population of 1 billion, mad about cricket yet they don't "clean up" in the sport.

Oh that's right, you came up with this rubbish...which you just also happened to ignore my response to.

That's because your assertion is just plain wrong. While I don't disagree that there are many Indians who are cricket fans, as a nation, they do not have the same sort of infrastructure for youth. There is no equivalent of "little league" for cricket in India. There aren't youth coaches in every community. They don't really start playing until they're 16 or 17. In the US, at 16 or 17, kids have been playing for 10 years and professional scouts are already keeping an eye on promising youngsters. Furthermore, what little youth organization they have is plagued by corruption and nepotism. It isn't the most talented kids who get a shot on the organized teams, it's the ones whose parents have connections.

This is what I've been told by my two Indian co-workers, both of who are also cricket-mad. You want to say "not that's not right" - provide a source.

Redbeard wrote:That's because your assertion is just plain wrong. While I don't disagree that there are many Indians who are cricket fans, as a nation, they do not have the same sort of infrastructure for youth.

balls

There is no equivalent of "little league" for cricket in India.

balls

There aren't youth coaches in every community.

balls

They don't really start playing until they're 16 or 17.

complete utter balls

If you're are just going to assume and not look into anything your writing then I can't see the point of debating with you.

This is what I've been told by my two Indian co-workers, both of who are also cricket-mad. You want to say "not that's not right" - provide a source.

right like you do. with you indians dont play cricket till their 17 bollocks.

forget it.

whatwhat wrote:As in a friendly before the proper football season starts.

I would hardly say the confed cup is a friendly. Granted it's no World Cup, but certainly more entertaining than England vs. Azerbaijan friendlies.

It's 3 continents who's players would rather still be on holiday vs the other three continents.

With the World Cup getting so close, I think that they are glad to use this opportunity for the practise

whatwhat wrote:

They don't really start playing until they're 16 or 17.

complete utter balls

If you're are just going to assume and not look into anything your writing then I can't see the point of debating with you.

I have looked into what I have written, I can only base my answers on what I can find. I've done a good amount of googling - there are no websites that come up when you search for Indian youth cricket. Do a search for youth baseball - you'll see no end of community little league sites.

I've talked to people who have first-hand knowledge of what it's like there. My co-workers, both in their 20s, both immigrated here in the last four years, and each told me the same thing. That there is not organized youth cricket until they get to about 16 or 17. Sure, they just play pickup games, but there isn't an organized infrastructure.

You disagree, but you didn't provide any source. I cannot prove a negative. If such organizations do exist, post a link to a website. I cannot post a link to something that doesn't exist. If you can prove that there is an organized youth cricket infrastructure in India that actively manages to promote their most talented youngsters into their national system, I'll happily say that you're right. But you can't just type "balls" and have any credibility.

Redbeard just forget it. Your the one making the claims and not providing the sources for them Im just telling you there a load of balls.

youngblood wrote:With the World Cup getting so close, I think that they are glad to use this opportunity for the practise

Yup, that's what I call a friendly.

I would concede that except that this is a FIFA sanctioned tournament.

Ok? Fifa sanction under 12 tournaments and video games tournaments aswell. Why does that make a difference?

This is on a high level world stage. Why do you think it doesn't matter?

MY point was the fact fifa sanction it doesn't mean anything.

Put it this way. England is football mad. It is the number one national sport. Where can we watch the confederate cup? on a second rate channel nobody watches. Want to know why? Because they don't put it on the good channels because people would rather watch soap operas and bad reality tv than see the quality of football being played in the confederate cup.

That's rubbish. Pure rubbish. The English are far too pretentious about their football. Blast you whatwhat! Just give the confed cup some credit so I can feel good about my Nats, ok?

heres a fairly good article which in most I agree with...

After an exhausting 59 games, Xavi, the man of the match during last month’s European Champions League final, would be forgiven for needing a couple of months break from football.

It has been a fantastic 2008-09 for the tireless Spanish central midfielder. It all started in June 2008, when he helped Spain to an historic Euro 2008 title. Only 10 months later he had a La Liga, a Copa del Rey and a Champions League medal to add to his collection.

Yet instead of relaxing for a couple of months, preparing to defend his club titles and the dawning of World Cup 2010 on the horizon, Xavi is being exposed to the heat of Southern Africa.

The Confederation’s Cup is a truly pointless competition. It involves the champion’s of each continent, as well as the World Cup holders and the next World Cup hosts. In theory the tournament should provide fans with some great games.

In reality this is simply not the case. The South American champions, European champions and World Cup holders regularly plough through the weaker opposition from Oceania and Asia.

A prime example: Spain versus New Zealand. Less than 17 minutes into the game, Liverpool ace, Fernando Torres had grabbed himself a hat trick and Villa promptly added another before half time. A tame second half followed, with the match ending 5-0 to Spain as they demolished the Kiwi’s.

It highlighted the problem of the tournament. The Confederations Cup is effectively a glorified friendly tournament. It has as much appeal as watching the Emirates Cup every August. Sure, it’s great to see some of football’s global stars but at the end of a tired season, they are far from firing on all cylinders.

In some cases, weakened squads participate, as countries prefer to focus on the World Cup finals a year later. It is also a chance for the host country to do a dress rehearsal, insuring all the necessary requirements are ready, on and off the pitch.

It is also an opportunity for the minnows of the competition to come up against the World’s best teams like Brazil, Spain and Italy. There are the occasional upsets, but the big teams normally overcome the smaller nations with unerring ease.

So as Xavi, Iniesta et al will be running up and down a hard South African pitch sweating in the searing heat, John Terry and his team mates will be resting up. It can surely only be a benefit for the English and Irish squads as many of the World’s top players run themselves into the ground at the Confederations Cup.

Come June 2010, let’s hope the Brazilians, Italians and Spanish will be suffering from a bout of fatigue after a shortened summer break in 2009 and a gruelling fixture list in 2009/10.

I agree, although I am going to be an American ass and point out that NBA players have 82 regular season games plus another 16 to 28 Playoff games and then they still manage to have the energy to stomp other country's nat teams. I know, apples and oranges.

At the end of the day, the Confed Cup is sadly inconsequential for established teams such as Brazil, Italy, etc but for teams looking for validation (such as the US) the wins and games are important.

whatwhat wrote:Redbeard just forget it. I cannot back up my claims, so I will continue to ask you to prove a negative.

Fixed that for you.

Ok whatwhat. The US beat Spain. The context really doesn't matter. How about you let us have this one? We finally won a big game, regardless of your high and mighty opinion. That's all that really matters.

Redbeard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Redbeard just forget it. I cannot back up my claims, so I will continue to ask you to prove a negative.

Fixed that for you.

hahahahhahaNO

I can't really see where I made any claims. You were the one coming up with all the "indians dont play cricket until their 17" which to anyone who knows even the slightest about cricket, would find insanely laughable. And trust me, I've had a fair share of laughs about it myself. And how did you "back them up" by telling me you worked with some indians who for all I know, probably don't exist.

And the thread jacking continues...

Sure wish you guys would go threadjackOFF.

I've bitched more about this than anything in my life. Wow.

Football always brings out the worst in people.

As it should.

Bloody hell people do like to bitch about football. At the end of the day it's a game! The best football is probraly lower leagues in England, where most clubs don't have stupid amounts of money and the same club dosen't always win *cough*premier leauge*cough*

Nah, the best soccer is in America's A league! I think the best team was my Ft. Wayne Fever! Best boots in the world!

I must call bull hockey on this... This a young Brazilian team and they are playing European style tactics.

G

youngblood wrote:

Casper wrote: Our "stars" mostly play for MLS, which is terrible to watch. Until we get more of our "star" players playing in Europe (and getting minutes), we won't have any real "stars" and US soccer will still be a 2nd tier sport.

Clearly you aren't familiar with our national team. Out of the starting 11 yesterday, only 2 (clark and donovan) play in the MLS. Also, keep in mind that the Brazil that plays today is not the Brazil of the 2002 or 2006 World cups. This Brazil team is a bit older and not as fast as they are used to being. Overall, I've not been that impressed with them compared to previous years. I think the final will be much closer than one might expect. The US is playing some great defense with both keepers (Howard and Guzan) in top form.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:The US has a soccer team?

Triple Post?

Triple Post?

Triple Post?

The median age for brazils starting 11 is 27. That's not very young, especially for Brazil who has been known for having younger teams (25 and below). Brazil's played pretty awful the whole Confed Cup. Not playing near their potential. I think that Brazil will probably beat us 3-1, but have well over 55% possession.

Whatever.

youngblood wrote:The median age for brazils starting 11 is 27. That's not very young, especially for Brazil who has been known for having younger teams.

which isn't a bad thing. Football players usually are in their prime between 26 and 29.

whatwhat wrote:

youngblood wrote:The median age for brazils starting 11 is 27. That's not very young, especially for Brazil who has been known for having younger teams.

which isn't a bad thing. Football players usually are in their prime between 26 and 29.

Lies. Between 19 and 25 is where it is at. Anything else for a non-Goalkeeper is too old

Thiery henry, ronaldhinio, steven gerard, frank lampard, david beckham...the list goes on...they all disagree with you.

whatwhat wrote:Thiery henry, rnaldhinio, steven gerard, rank lampard, david beckahm...the list goes on...they all disagree with you.

They are all rubbish

ur rubbish!

I want to go back on topic and congratulate the U.S for taking spain. I dont know why but I am rooting for them in the final vs brazil.

Snap! I think whatwhat wins this round.

Anyway, I'd like to add Zidane to that list. I hope I can headbutt like him when I'm that old.

I wish to congratulate the US for the victory. As an englishman I wish WE could stuff the top teams every now and again without choking and forgetting how to play.

(Re: Brit- I detest the word "Brit". I am not a "Brit". Sounds more like a nickname for an effeminate fanboy who jiggles around to the "music" of a certain shaven-headed pop-princess. Man, I hate pop.)

Spain are one of the best, if not the best football team in the world at the moment. Nicely done yanks *cheer*

This just shoz US is an up and coming world soccer power now.

G

whatwhat wrote:Thiery henry, ronaldhinio, steven gerard, frank lampard, david beckham...the list goes on...they all disagree with you.

Every single one of those players are past their prime. Try the top players like Lionel Messi, Christiano Ronaldo, and Fernando Torres. Henry was definitely in peak performance 5 or 6 years ago. (Still a great player, just not prime anymore). Ronaldo sucks now. Lazy fat bastard. Beckham came and played in America for god sakes. Gerard is solid but nothing spectacular.

youngblood wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Thiery henry, ronaldhinio, steven gerard, frank lampard, david beckham...the list goes on...they all disagree with you.

Every single one of those players are past their prime. Try the top players like Lionel Messi, Christiano Ronaldo, and Fernando Torres. Henry was definitely in peak performance 5 or 6 years ago. (Still a great player, just not prime anymore). Ronaldo sucks now. Lazy fat bastard. Beckham came and played in America for god sakes. Gerard is solid but nothing spectacular.

Well for one I wasn't saying they were all in their prime I was backing up my point that players go through their prime between 26 and 29. And indeed all those players reached their prime in that age range. Whatsmore if you think gerard and lampard are out of their prime your off your rocker.

my advice... always read back b4 a panic attack...

whatwhat wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

youngblood wrote:The median age for brazils starting 11 is 27. That's not very young, especially for Brazil who has been known for having younger teams.

which isn't a bad thing. Football players usually are in their prime between 26 and 29.

Lies. Between 19 and 25 is where it is at. Anything else for a non-Goalkeeper is too old

Thiery henry, ronaldhinio, steven gerard, frank lampard, david beckham...the list goes on...they all disagree with you.

I read what you said. I just disagree with what you said. Except for Lampard. He's been playing absolutely stellar.

So your'e disagreeing that henry, ronaldinhio and beckham went through their prime between 26 and 29?

In retrospect (adding years up), I guess I don't. Dismiss my previous remarks. I will throw this out there, it seems that more and more young (25 and below) players are being regarded as the best players in the world. Example: Christiano Ronaldo was named FIFA World Player of the Year last year and Messi came in second both years. Alexandre Pato is another example of fantastic young player.

Who's to say they have even reached their prime yet?

+ nothing has changed. The best players in the world at the moment still comprise of more players in their late twenties. And top class youngsters are nothing new anyway, biggest example being pele himself.

Only history will tell. I doubt either of them have, which is frighteningly exciting.