BS: World's Cup Soccer

Subject: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 02:12 PM

I"ve been reading dailies on Women's World Cup activities and rankings. I tried to find the equivalent in Men's World Cup soccer and don't find it, although I find lots of college soccer results.

Obviously I don't keep up with the sport every year but - don't the men have the game at the same season as the women? Or is it already past?

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Davie_
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 03:04 PM

Google up fifa world cup

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Blindlemonsteve
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 03:22 PM

Its not Soccer, its "football" as its played with the feet, everyone in the world calls it football, thats 93.5% of the worlds population.6.5 % call it soccer, and they must be right!!!! it is without doubt the most amazing sport on the planet, Hitler and Churchill could have had a civilised debate on football, in 1914, the war stopped so the boys could have a game. it unites nations encourages national pride. I honestly dont think that anyone would have a problem if nations decided they should sort out theyre differences over a game of football, the only people who might complain is the Yanks, as they are total crap at it. Even though they did well in Japan / Korea a few years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: fretless
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 04:30 PM

Ebbie, you're hearing about the women now because they're playing their world cup matches now. The men don't have their final competition until 2010 in South Africa (there are regional qualifying matches in advance of the tournament). Far from being "total crap at it," the U.S. women are among the best in the world. Whether they actually are the best is, of course, what the current games are designed to determine. Certainly, they've won more world cups and Olympic golds in the sport than any other country. The U.S. men are not nearly as highly regarded. It would be a real surprise if they won their cup, although there are some who expect them to grab the title sometime within the next few decades. Find a friend who has cable and watch the U.S. women play in their semifinals, or watch Brazil play in a qualifier. It's a beautiful game. And if you can get your hands on it, HBO did a pretty good special on the U.S. women't eam a few years ago (a bit overly emotional for some tastes, but historically pretty much on the mark).

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 05:10 PM

In any case, the final will see Europe against America, like most finals in the men's worldcup too, if they don't have a pure European final.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: alanabit
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:44 PM

Wolfgang modestly omitted to mention that the defending champions are Germany. Their women became champions four years ago, after the American women had won it twice, I believe. We Brits are entitled to feel a little bruised at the moment, because your ladies (US) swept ours aside 3-0 in the quarter final!

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:58 PM

Blindle, unless you are of the dominant gender that thinks of men as being the sex being spoken of whenever people are mentioned (Jab backatcha!) you might note that the American women's team is WAY ahead of most of the SOCCER World Cup matches this year.

(I said 'soccer' because ALL

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: gnu
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:02 PM

And, sorry, the US women's team did a tremendous job... not just by winning, but by bringing football to the youth of North America in a big way. Let's hope that Posh can do the same for the men.

Blindlemonsteve... "...the only people who might complain is the Yanks, as they are total crap at it." Yeah, right. Wait until they decide they want to be bothered to be good at it. Yankee football is a far better game, involving a much higher level of pysical prowess and strategy... a combination of pure athleticism and chess. Of course, that is all up for debate, as has been on many threads, with few contibitors who actually know about Yankee football, football, footy, rugby, cricket, baseball, tennis, squash, raquetball... fook! did I just say raquetball? Sorry. I lost my mind for a minute there. That is truly a crap game. Almost as bad as blue dot! Yellow dot is the only true test.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:07 PM

Blindlemonster, unless you are of the gender that thinks of men as being the sex being spoken of whenever someone mentions people (Jab backatcha!) you might note that the American women's team is WAY ahead of most of the SOCCER World Cup matches this year. To this point. They were undefeated at 51 matches.

(I said 'soccer' because that is what ALL of the links I read, including those from the UK, called it. I am well aware of soccer's beginnings and would agree that football would be a better term. It could have been called something on the order of 'Australian Rules Football'.)

Let me try this again-

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: michaelr
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 08:48 PM

I've watched most of the games in this ongoing tournament, and there's been some very good and exciting football played. The favored teams are USA, Germany, China and Brazil. ESPN 2 is showing all games live. The semifinals are on Sept. 26 and 27, and the final on the 30th.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 02:28 AM

I honestly dont think that anyone would have a problem if nations decided they should sort out theyre differences over a game of football,.......

Tell that to El Salvador and Honduras.

Football and the way to world peace

DC

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 04:37 AM

In Ireland it has always been SOCCER, to distinguish it from Gaelic Football, for proof, Google Irish papers and look up the sports pages.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Blindlemonsteve
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 06:36 AM

Proof that football emotes us all, whether you have seen a game or not,,,, the greatest game on the planet... of course, you are all right, i believe that once the Americans realise what a great game it is, and it wont be too long, the first stirrings are happening, they will dominate the game.
I do apologise to the womens teams, i am British and when discussing football, its not instinctive of me to think of the womens sides. thats my problem i know, but i am just a product of where i grew up.
My earlier post was a sort of experiment to see how people get on the defensive when football is mentioned, i wonder if we would be so defensive if we were talking about any other sports....

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 10:40 AM

The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (International Federation of Association Football), commonly known by its acronym, FIFA, ...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 12:22 PM

Blindlemonsteve, some time ago I came to the conclusion that it is not remarkable when a person reflects and reacts according to his or her upbringing and background. When a person is ahead or behind, for that matter, of his or her upbringing, that is what makes him or her 'remarkable'.

Just tweakin' you. :)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Blindlemonsteve
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 03:07 PM

thanks Ebbie, i´m all tweaked an ready for the brave new world, come on you England women,,,, by that i mean, i hope they win, I am not a salesman for female sanitary products.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 03:12 PM

Sorry Steve but I think you'd be surprised at how many people either do not like football, or are apathetic about it.
I find it totally boring, and haven't seen a match all the way through for over 40 years.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 03:27 PM

yoicks! Is that the first thing you think of when you think of women?

(Hey, I gotta stop this- I have no issue with you, Steve, but it's fun.)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 03:31 PM

hope they win - bit late for that. They were knocked out by the Yanks.

I'd bet on Brazil to knock out the USA and then beat Germany in the finals.

Here's the FIFA site about it all.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 04:04 PM

Brazil didn't do that well against the US team the first go 'round, did they? My guess is that Germany is the one that will take out the Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 01:24 PM

Germany is the first finalist. It is the first team ever (men and women) that has reached a world cup final without admitting a single goal. But that is due, at least partly, to the hugh differences in playing power in women's football. There are too many really bad teams coming to the women's WC. And the FIFA even wants to admit 32 teams the next time. Then we'll see even more results of the Germany:Argentine 11:0 type. Now if that could happen in male football....


Wolfgang (daydreaming)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: gnu
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 04:28 PM

I don't think the Yanks will ever "dominate", BLSteve, but they will become contenders if it takes off. It does seem to be getting a bit of a foothold (pun intended). However, it's doubtful that it will ever draw the crowds that Yankee football, basketball, hockey (okay, okay, ICE hockey) or baseball draw.

Baseball... I'd rather watch Canuck football.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 04:47 PM

I suppose if the USA team wins that will help give the game a boost in the States. People like to be seen as winers, and I don't think it's unfair to see that as especially true of Americans.

Being seen as a game primarily for women which seem to be the position for Association Football in the USA and nowhere else does give it a unique position in your national sporting mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 10:27 AM

Brazil beats the USA 4:0.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 11:35 AM

"People like to be seen as win(n)ers, and I don't think it's unfair to see that as especially true of Americans." McGrath

We don't riot when we play other countries. :)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 01:57 PM

Not too much violence in the women's game, on or off the pitch.

Maybe the difference with the Americans is they tend not to get too interested in sports events where they aren't too likely to win. The English on the other hand get passionately interested and persuade themselves they are going to win, and then get all upset.

I hope getting beaten like that by Brazil doesn't set back Women's Association Football in America too much. I gather it wasn't as much of a walkover as that score suggests.

So the first half of my prediction was right...

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 03:01 PM

Nothing much is ever new on Mudcat Steve......Try the threads above and see how many times your "jab" came up..........LOL...T'is the way of the 'Cat!

Somewhere in those threads you'll read that it is a lot bigger than you may think here in the USA. There are just so many televised sports playing all year round that even the "good old American" traditional ones are having to share their fan base.

And we call it Soccer because this is America and we'll do as we damn well please and if you don't like it we got a schizoid fucker in the White House who will happily bomb your ass because he himself has a quarter inch dick with one ball the size of a pea..... and the other one is real tiny.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 03:19 PM

We used to play Rugby Football ("Rugger") at my school, and the kind with the round ball was called Soccer, if it was ever mentioned. It's not a name dreamed up by the Yanks.

(Mind, call it what you like, it's a much better game.)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: michaelr
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 03:23 PM

The US team's coach inexplicably sabotaged their chances by taking out the unbeaten goalkeeper, Hope Solo, and replacing her with Brianna Scurry, who promptly conceded four goals to Brazil. He, and womens' soccer in America, will be sorry for this decision for a long, long time. Idiot!

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 03:33 PM

Excellent article expalining that decision HERE.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 04:01 PM

Why is the Women's Team coached by a man? Dang. :)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Blindlemonsteve
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 04:15 PM

U.S.A bomb Britain?????????????, i can really see that happening, actually with that idiot in the whitehouse, i probably can, after all, Osama and Saddam were on the best mates list 20 years ago, and with the crude oil in the North sea, it can only be a matter of time. But on the positive side at least the American constitution wont allow G.W to have another run at president, so the only way that will hapeen is if someone even more stupid than him gets into power, and lets face it, there is no one more stupid than President Bush.
My wife is just watching an American film and someone has mentioned football, she said, thats not football thats rugby,,,, I think i might have slipped into the twilight zone.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: fretless
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 05:48 PM

"the only way that will hapeen is if someone even more stupid than him gets into power, and lets face it, there is no one more stupid than President Bush." Don't count on it Steve -- wait until President Guliani is setting the agenda for the US. And thank you, Spaw, for offering such a coherent explanation for US foreign policy. Certainly, none of the other resons we've heard lately explains what the White House has been promoting.

But if this thread is really about football/soccer...I hope there is more to Ryan's seemingly horrible decision to oust his current goal keeper than what we're hearing as rumors and so-called explanations. Hope Solo should have been in there for the game, but I doubt if even that would have been enough. The US hasn't been playing the beautiful game at any point during this tournament, while Brazil has been doing to its opposition what the US women and the Brazilian men have been doing for years -- controlling the game with elegance and skill that is a joy to watch.

The red card against Boxx was undeserved, but even with the 11th player the US team didn't look like it could take the Brazilians (or Germany, for that matter).

The US dominated the sport for years, now other countries are catching up, which is a good thing. And if catching up means that countries like Brazil will begin taking pride in their women's teams, that's a great thing.

Maybe even eventually, it will mean that the powers that control this sport will begin trusting women to coach the teams on which women play (granted this has been the case with some teams in this Cup and with the US team when April H. coached in the past).

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: michaelr
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 06:56 PM

Spaw, that page won't open for me. Would you please summarize the explanation?

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 08:53 PM

Here's the article:

Hangzhou, China (Sports Network) - Hope Solo's voice cracked, but her words were still potent following the United States' loss to Brazil in the Women's World Cup on Thursday.

"It was the wrong decision," said Solo, the United States' top goalie, about being benched by coach Greg Ryan in favor of veteran Brianna Scurry. "Anybody who knows anything about the game knows that."

With Solo sitting on the bench in her familiar green goalie jersey and shorts, Scurry was overmatched in a 4-0 loss to Brazil.

It was an unfortunate ending for the Americans, and likely to Scurry's career.

She was the top goalie for the United States in the last three World Cups, including the 1999 championship team. Most recently, Scurry led the United States to the Olympic gold in 2004.

Sure, Scurry was 12-0 in her career against Brazil, including the gold medal match of the '04 Olympics and a 2-0 win in a friendly just three months ago.

But Scurry's star status - she's arguably the greatest goalie in the history of women's soccer - dimmed long ago.

"The fact of the matter is it's not 2004. It doesn't matter what somebody did in the Olympics three years ago," Solo said. "It's 2007 and I think you have to live in the present."

Still, Ryan made the biggest gamble of his coaching career at the worst time.

He had long stood behind Solo as the team's top goalie, and she hadn't allowed a goal in three straight games in the World Cup.

No reason to make a change, right?

Apparently, Ryan got the idea of using Scurry after the recent match in June if the teams met in the World Cup.

Problem is he didn't tell anybody - most specifically Solo - until Tuesday.

There's no question the decision to start Scurry rattled the Americans.

Instead of the top-ranked team in the world riding a wave of confidence, not to mention a 51-game unbeaten streak, in the semifinal it was distracted and off its game from the start.

Just 20 minutes into Thursday's semifinal, poor communication between U.S. midfielder Leslie Osborne and Scurry led to an own goal that gave Brazil a quick 1-0 lead.

Not long after, Brazilian great Marta put a shot off Scurry's fingertips and into the right corner of the net.

After the United States went down to 10 players - it lost midfielder Shannon Boxx to a red card late in the first half - Scurry surrendered two more goals.

Not only was it the worst loss in the history of the World Cup for the United States, but it was also the worst loss in its history. The Americans had never lost a game by four goals before.

Although it's tough to put all the blame on Scurry - she hadn't started a game since June - it's too easy to wonder, would Solo have made those saves?

"There's no doubt in my mind," said Solo, who sat on the bench with an angry look on her face and her arms folded across her chest after Brazil scored its fourth goal.

Ryan defended his decision after the match, but when he gets a chance to look back he'll have to second-guess himself.

It was obvious the United States lost all Hope with Solo on the bench.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 06:07 AM

I couldn't see any explanation in there.

But I doubt if it would have changed the result of the match if there hadn't been the change.

In the final Brazil will be up against another team which hasn't had a goal against it...

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 06:36 AM

I didn't see the Brazil-USA game but I would have been very surprised (as I am now) that the USA selected another goalkeeper without a good reason like injury. Brazil, USA and Germany had the best goalkeepers in this tournament in my eyes.

Would it be the men's game I'd bet with high confidence on Brazil, but in this case I see slightly better chances for Germany.

In the final Brazil will be up against another team which hasn't had a goal against it...

Not another, the only one.
Quarterfinal Brazil-Australia 3:2
Brazil, so far: 17:2 goals
German, so far: 19:0 goals

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 06:39 AM

If the word "another" has meant the USA, it would have been wrong too by two goals.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 07:45 AM

I meant Brazil will once again be playing against a team which hadn't had any goals scored against them recently, like the USA, not that Brazil hadn't had any goals scored against them. English is sometimes a very ambiguous language...

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: fretless
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 11:43 AM

If Hope Solo is complaining out loud to the press, we may have a hint of why Ryan took her out of the game. In my experience it is very unusual for a US WWC player to complain in public about a coach's decision. Ah well, my guess is that she won't have Ryan to complain about much longer. The weak play of the US women throughout the tournament and the flawed decision to substitute Scurry for Solo look like career stoppers to me.

And maybe it's because some of the earlier messages in this thread have waxed political, I just can't get this gem of an anecdote off my mind: President Bush was getting his morning news briefing (remember, he claims not to read the papers himself -- they are summarized for him by his staff). His aide reports, "The last item, Mr. President, is a report from South America that a plance crashed and several Brazilians were killed." "Ohmigod," exclaimed the President, "That's awful. By the way, how many is a brazilian?"

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 11:49 AM

The weak play of the US women throughout the tournament    They played pretty well until they met the Brazilians. (Which I predict will be what they say about the Germans...)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: fretless
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 12:14 PM

"They played pretty well until they met the Brazilians."

I disagree. North Korea outplayed the US women, even though the score was tied, and in the games the US won, the skill level didn't reflect the same level of control the team demonstrated in years past.

I haven't seen the Germans play yet this cycle. Their game with Brazil should be worth watching.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 07:04 AM

"It could have been called something on the order of 'Australian Rules Football'.)"

Ummmm, completely different game. Nothing like soccer - played on an oval pitch for one thing, and the ball can be picked up, thrown and caught. More like rugby, but with violence.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 12:18 PM

What I really meant, Backwoodsman, is that a name or term could have been coined to identify American 'football' rather than calling it 'soccer'. Keep in mind that the US already has a game called football- they/we are not likely to change that.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 01:39 PM

Damn straight Ebbie! WE play REAL football here with REAL men and not a bunch of scrawny guys OR EVEN WOMEN runnin' around in short pants. This is America and we call it what we want to call it and play it our way! That soccer stuff is just played mainly by foreigners with funny accents and knobby knees. If they call it football then they're fucked up!

Know why? 'Cause we're America and the rest of the world can just kiss our ass!!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 02:52 PM

Glad to see you speak for yourself, Spaw. :)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 03:41 PM

I sure as hell do Ebbie and I speak for all real Americans as well just like our sainted and beknighted President, uh, er......you know, whatisname.......the junior shrub guy.....yea, Bush, that's it.

Here in the United States we are always right and often even far right, but whatever we do is not just the right way to do it, but its the only way too. I get tired of all these funny speakin' types trying to put the woes of their world on us. And frankly there are some unpatriotic types up your way too. Take the oil pipeline for instance. You got a bunch of tree hugger types either worrying themselves nuts over a little bit of spilled oil or out to save the permafrost and caribou. Well fuck a bunch of caribou.....We need the damn oil! I'd start worrying if I were you 'cause once we get done with Iraq and maybe Iran, we're likely to bomb the shit out of Alaska. Now you may be thinkin' that it won't happen because Alaska is a state, but do you think Bush knows that.......or cares?

Get your act together Ebbie and think which side are you on!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Bert
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 04:35 PM

with REAL men who are too scared to play without loads of padding and helmets. *GRIN*

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 04:48 PM

The long name in English is Association Football, with "Soccer" being the abbreviation used especially in any situation where different codes of football are concerned, to avoid confusion.

It's hardly a significant point to argue about. What might perhaps be more significant would be to argue the merits of the different varieties of football.

Myself, as spectacles, I'd rank them as Australian Rules at the top, followed by Gaelic Football, then Association Football, then Rugby Football, and then American Football. But I accept that that would be contentious.

In terms of world popularity it would have to be Association Football way ahead, with Rugby trailing a long way behind, and the rest nowhere.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 04:56 PM

Spaw, given enough chances, childrens do learn. So there is hope for you. :)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 04:19 AM

Absolutely, McG - right on the ball (pun intended BTW) :-)
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 11:22 AM

Good for Germany! Again.

(BTW, Spaw, I do hope you recognized my TIC 'childrens' allusion.)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: alanabit
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 02:50 PM

They did pretty well. The Brazilians outplayed them in the first half, but they stuck to it and got their own game going in the second. Nobody ever beats the Germans just by being good before half time. The level of skill was very high too. In many ways it was better to watch than the men's game. There were plenty of goals in the tournament and there seemed to be less cheating.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 03:05 PM

I think the Brazilians outplayed them in the second half, though not by as much. Apart from the German goalie, which made all the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: alanabit
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 07:21 AM

The goalie definitely made a difference. Germany's first goal was very fortunate - probably a goalkeeping error. The Brazilians also fluffed a penalty. I think at that point most of us realised it was not to be their day. Good footaball though, wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 08:39 PM

Some of the Brazilians were really very good indeed, especially Marta. I was pleased to see that now they are going to set up a women's league in Brazil, which should help keep up and even raise the standard.

The rest that I saw, compared with top flight men's players weren't quite up there yet - but that didn't stop it being pretty good to watch. The best players don't always make for the best matches, in any sport. (For example in Tennis where if people keep serving aces it can get pretty boring before very long.)

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: alanabit
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 11:32 AM

Good point. Possibly the most skilful World Cup Final I ever saw was Brazil vs Italy (men) in 1994. It was appalling as a spectacle though and goalless!

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 03:21 PM

McGrath, I'm curious and would like you to search your memory. Germany (men and women) has been in 9 world cup finals (runner up: Brazil with 8) since they are played. Do you personally recollect any of these finals (whether Germany won or not) in which you had the impression that Germany was the better team that should have won or won deservedly? (:-)

You look at the game with a completely different perspective than I do. Football is a team sport and like in other team sports the mere addition of outstanding single athletes does not make a good team. I can appreciate for instance that a rugby team has one outstanding player but that the other team has a much better organisation when they have the ball. I can appreciate that one basket ball player makes three wonderful slam dunks during the game and does better tricks than any other player but that his team's defence is cueless who tackles which player.

I have seen a very different game last Sunday (well, I have only seen the second half and later some replays of first half actions). What I have seen was the following: Beautiful individual play by several Brazilian players; lack of organisation in the Brazilian defense; very good Brazilian attacks up to 30 yards from the German goal; Brazilian inability to bring one of their players into a hopeful and unchallenged position in the German box; no Brazilian player (in particular Marta) who was in the situation to have free place to run after having outtricked (passed) a German player; a German defense that had always two players (often three in the case of Marta) against one from Brazil; Brazilian attacks based upon individual ability and rarely based on teamwork; a nearly complete lack of Brazilian double passes in comparison to German.

Look not only at the goals (goal or not as we all know has also a chance aspect) but at the best chances:

Germany had three times in which they had a player in the Brazilian box with only the goalie before her. One time they did score with the Brazilian defense allowing Germany's best player (several times awarded best player of the world status) to shoot from about ten yards distance. The second German goal was not bad defense by Brazil for the player who scored was tackled when scoring. The three best chances of Brazil were a penalty, a freekick from outside the box and a kick from outside the box. Brazil did never get a player inside the box in a good shooting position without challenge from a German defender. But they looked very nice in the midfield. And they really should exercise headers, they were bloody awful in that part of playing football.

By the way I had a deja vu recalling the last time (which was also the first time) we saw a Germany-Brasil final. The last time, the player who after the game was awarded the best-player-of-tournament award, German goalie Kahn, made an awful mistake to allow Brazil their first goal. He didn't look happy when fingering this award. This time, Marta was elected best player and she also didn't look happy. She must have remembered that it was her mistake that decided the game.

BTW (though Shambles is not here who thinks that penalties are just a matter of luck), Marta's (and only her) way of penalty shooting was well studied before the game. The corner in which the German goalie was to jump and the moment of jumping (late, too late for Marta to correct) was not decided by a coin throw.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: World's Cup Soccer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 08:11 PM

No, I'm not actually that excited about individual stars, I think football is more about a team playing together, and the stars have to fit into that, but so do the ones who aren't stars and never will be.

But when watching I'm more interested in the play being fluid and beautiful than in the actual score. Especially when I'm pretty neutral about whom I want to win, which most of the time I am in international games. Except I tend to want the team who is playing more attractively to win, and that means Brazil more often than any other. (Men or women.)

Penalties - no they aren't just a matter of luck, though there's a big element of luck in them. But a penalty goal isn't ever in the same class as a good goal in open play. You'd never get many penalties (if any) featuring in a collection of Great Goals.