Well the first big test for the US attempt to qualify for the WC in 2006 in Germany is this week.

And yes, It is against our neighbor, Mexico.

I remember going to Nogales the day after Mexico lost to the U.S. in the 2nd round of the World Cup. All the maseros in the strip-clubs were quite miserable, telling me it was bad for business when Mexico loses.

It was even worse, he said, when they lose to the Norte Americanos, who really don't enjoy or appreciate the game, like they do in Mexico.

The chicas were ambivelent , one saying she got more business, as the customers wanted to get laid and forget about futbol, another saying all her regualrs were staying home that week, still being depressed.

I think the US soccer team will still continue to depress the Mexican futbol fans by beating them for the first time at Azteca stadium.

I may go for a celebratory fuck in Nogie if the occasion arises.


OG

For once I believe the US team is far stronger than the Mexico side. Our disadvantage is all our Euro players will not be acclimated to the altitude and of course the insane atmosphere of Azteca sadium.
I hope you get your chance for the celebratory fuck !!

Yeah but not all Mexican cities are at the altitude of Mexico City. The Mexican players, who were still with the club teams this last weekend, especially those who do not play on teams in Mexico city or other cities at altitude, will be just as disadvantaged as the US Euro-Players. Not all the mexican players will be acclimized to the altitude of Mexico city.

Teams in the MLS face the same problem when they play in Colorado. The secret is to not expose the players to altitude within 4 days of the match. The effect of altitude will not be particularly bad, even with the decreases in O2 pressure, within 1 day of the match. The 3-4 day window before the match is what causes problems. You either bring your players early and acclimized, which can take 5-7 days, or bring them immediatly to the game without any acclimization.

I think Bruce Arena is more worried about "match fitness" of the MLS players, than by altitude. They are only in pre-season, while the mexican season is still underway.

The US is due to win at Azteca, and with so many americans having "big match" experience in Europe, it should take some of the Azteca mystique/crowd out of the game.

I think the US will have the depth in this run-up to possibly not lose any games in the qualifiers. This game, will be the only game I expect the US not to win. But I think they will. In fact most of the US team believes it will be a setback if they tie.


OG

Brasil plays on sun and a week from Wed, good opportunity to check the local talent.
If Mexico beats the USA, I will boycott TJ and will not go on Sun night.

Anybody enter the WC 2006 ticket lottery?

I have already purchased my tickets, but they were not by lottery. Of course the purchase agreement is not the ticket (they have not been printed yet), but the tickets went on sale about a month ago. I purchased mine through a group deal with soccerusa. I imagine every body and thier little brother will be offereing contests or lotteries to win free tickets, but they are not hard to get. That is if you live in the USA. Could be tougher in Germany, France or Britain.

The key is to buy BEFORE the teams have qualified. I think the US is a lock and so it was a no brainer. If I was, let's say T&T or Guatamala, I would wait. Remember 3 from the 6 Cocacaf teams qualify and a fourth place team plays a 5th place team from asia for a final spot.


OG

It sounds like you are going to follow the USA around Germany. I entered the lottery for the semis and the final. If I get shutout, I'll go for the all the group games in a region and hope for the best. If I were to follow a team, I'd follow Brazil around Germany. I admit that I'm not nationalistic when it comes to soccer. I just want to see good, if not great, soccer.

One of the classic qoutes from a mexican fan after
mexico's 2-0 2002 world cup loss to the US was "I think the United States always has seen us as inferior and treated us like rats and idiots. And now they've really gone and done it."
That one cracked me up.

Well the US sure did not look good, and with Berhalter at central defense they had no chance. I did like our young no 9 but rest of the team just plays not to lose.
Our keeper looks like a nobody, on the first goal he ended alnost hitting his post and was inside his net, he looks scared when he comes out to meet mex forward. I'd rather they play Tim Howard.
At least Brasil won vs Peru in Goaina in sultry heat.
Both games played at the same time, I chose to watch US, my mistake.
Why not play bocanegra in the middle and use another body on the left? Berhalter is a schmuck, I could beat him one on one with my left foot.
Landon Donovan not good enough to crack Bayer Leverkusen line up, no wonder.

Can't help but agree with much of what you said. The single striker line up was certainly not the way to end the "Curse of Azteca". By the looks of it I'd have to say that USA played like they were trying to avoid an ass kicking rather than trying for a win. The final 2 to 1 score does not reflect the mood of the game.

I must say that I was disgusted to read:

"The crowd booed the U.S. national anthem and a spattering of fans chanted "Osama! Osama!" before play started, and shortly after Lewis' goal." (Fox Sports) Today

There are a number of countries in the world that I don't care for. There are even peoples that I don't care for, but I have never even considered being this rude to a country, especially at a sporting event. This is really low class. Up there with burning another country's flags and such.

Hi Val, I absolutely agree that this is disgusting behaviour and has no place in sport. These thugs should really be banned for life from sports events. The UK has a bad rep for soccer hooligans but our police forces and FBI (equivalent) have stamped a lot of it out. Behaviour like this should not be allowed in my opinion, but there are morons the world over!

Hi Denny & Wicked Willy, I thought England looked excellent against NI and took them totally apart. England really played as a unit and if the manager can control his urge to change the whole team, we are looking quite good. How do you guys think the England Team are looking these days?

I believe it was bad tactics implemented by Arena, that did the US in. Someting he admitted to in post game press conferences. A lone, rookie striker (Eddie Johnson) was not a credible offensive schema for the likes of Mexico. That, and the fact that Arena chose to use "Gooch" Okenywe at centre back, a position he was not real familiar with AND had not more than 3-4 caps with the US MNT. His inexperience in marking Borgetti led to the first Mexican goal.

It is only the physical layout of Azteca that keeps a lot of projectiles from hitting the field and players. Although not as bad as a few years ago (and not as bad as the Milano CL fiasco) it is only a matter of time that Mexico will incur the wrath of FIFA for the fans behavior at Azteca. Had not the Mexican team taken the first lead, and kept it, which took a little anger out of the fans or had the US taken a more than one goal lead, I truly believed we would have seen something like the Milano debacle. (although flares are now forbidden in Azteca)

It will be interesting to see how the US fares with the fans in the other Central American countries during qualifying.

England has a very deep squad, thanks mainly to Ericksson, who has brought in a lot of new people for thier first caps, much to the chagrin of the press and public, who disdain his use of 7 or more subsitutions in friendlies and the miserly use of some of the "stars" in playing time.
Unlike Bruce Arena, who has carte blanc on his pick for the team, the British public and press really want to see Owen, Beckham,. et al in every game.

The US-England match will be quite interesting to see who the US and England bring to the table. It will give a good ideal on how far the US has advanced, or how well the England can play overseas, which the British press has always been critical of.

England may well be without Beckham/Owens who may still have commitments in Spain. Both Liverpool and Chelski will keep it's key English players for the Champions League final, whichever teams advance. And yes, DaMarcus Beasley would miss the UK/USA match on his old home, Soldier Field, should PSV Eindhoven beat Inter and also advance to the Finals


OG

Hi OG, you are obviously a keen soccer fan and it shows in your knowledge of the sport. This is good to see because soccer is by far the biggest spectator sport in the world. I think America have come a long way in a short period of time. With the availability of funds and facilities in the USA it would be foolish to underestimate the USA Team. Tim Howard plays for the team I've always supported namely Manchester United and that is a tremendous achievement for an American.

Regarding England IMO changing the team around too much does unsettle the side. How can they gel and form into a tight unit when several key players are removed at crucial times? I firmly believe that Ericksson has cost us vital games in the past through poor team tactics. I hope that he is smart enough to learn from the errors of his ways. For another example just look at Chelsea, their former manager experimented with rash substitutions and it cost them vital matches.

Hey Dave!

There are quite a few football affecionados on this board!. Just wait until the 2006 WC heats up. This thread will get really large!

I think any National Team manager has only one big responsibility, qualify for the important events and do the best with what you have!. In the case of England and Erikkson, he has only one obligation: Qualify the team for the World Cup (Or European Cup) and play the best with what players he has available. All of the vital games even in qualifying are inconsequential if they don't prepare you to play with your best team in the World Cup.

England has a deep pool of players, and almost all of them play in the Premiership, this makes his job easier but still difficult, as the players need to be evaluated based on Erikkson style and methods of play, Not Jose Mourihnos, Fergesons, or even Souness's style of play. They must play thier roles as defined by Erikkson, not by club managers. You can only find out who is a good fit for the team, by giving them game experience.

When Erikkson or Arena calls up a new player for a cap, he has already established the player is good. But can he complemet the team? The US improved dramatically when the MLS began play, arena could evaluate players at home, a big advantage.

During his tenure he introduced over a 100 players to the national men's team. Errikkson, although during a shorter tenure has played less than half that, and England has a pool of talented players almost 10 times greater than the US.
Erikkson has been somewhat hadicapped by the press, public and the Priemership teams themselves. The clubs do not help by constantly complaining, when letting players go for friendlies, which, if not on the international calendar for set-aside dates, they are not obligated to do. Then there is the public and press and the constant criticism on playing friendlies with 5-10 allowed sunstitutions. Also remember that the Premiership is saturated with foreigners, with the good young english players on the bench or in the reserves, making selections from the u-21 teams almost a requirement to search for young players.

If you haven't noticed, Arena has a policy of using players that are actually playing for thier team, either home or abroad.

There are some top american players that are not called up regularly as they are riding the pine in thier respective European Clubs. Small wonder then when Landon Donovan hi-tailed it back to the US, when Bayer Leverkusen decided not to go with a formation that included a withdrawn stiker (Donovan's forte) and instead going to a strict midfielder/playmaker position, a position Donovan can play, but not as well as others, and especially not at a huge club like Leverkusen. You cannot have one of America best players riding the pine a year prior to the WC while the Leverkusen management decides how they want to play. Everybody knew this, his return to the US looked to some a failure, but it was, in reality, an absolute neccesity

England need to "unsettle" the side especially prior to the WC. Evaluating the talent pool in England is formidable enough, having them tested under game conditions is Erikkson's job, one he needs to do regardless of whom he plays or when.

I personally hope he bring a young, hungry and untested team to the US next month. Although you may want to see the Owens and Beckams, giving the kids like Wayne Rooney, an opportunity to shine like Arena has given Eddie Johnson is better preparation for the World Cup than parading out the oft-injured "stars"

But I really believe that whoever England brings, the US can beat.


OG

Some good observations there OG. My main concern for England is Eriksson's tactics in the big matches, like playing certain people out of their natural positions. He goes to many Premiership games so he knows where every player plays and what their forte is. I still believe that Eriksson deserves some criticism but I agree the British press are impossible to please at times. Great to see so much passion for the biggest sport in the world.

Meaningless game in Buenos Aires, you would not know it as local restaurant was packed up to the street.
2 girls from Argentina were very pretty. I was surprised to see so many brasileiras, I'd say 1/3 were very attractive it's amazing to get such a high rate.
Argentina spanked Selecao dream team 3-1, Ronaldinho, Robinho, Kaka in front midfield with Adriano on top. Obviously they forgot to play defense as marking was inexistent so down 3-0 at half. Good game to watch, fast pace and physical. Maybe 2 best teams in the world with England.
Restaurant was full 1 hour before kickoff.
When Brasil finally scored, brasileiros started to chant Argentina and culo or something.
Anyway Argentina is officially in.

Quite disappointed in the draw for USA. But they play better as dogs. USA was basically only good team from its pot. While euro pot had Holland and Czech Republic. Just bad luck while mex can rejoice, say what Iran, Angola? I dont think these 2 countries have enough players to field 23 spots.
Looks like Brasil-England in 1 semi final. Germany vs another euorpean team unless Argentina can make it through.
TV Schedule is very friendly for my time zone, SoCal. Games at 6:00 am, 9:00 am and noon so I will be able to watch 2 games a day. July 4th has 1 semi final. I dont intend to miss any second round game, it's called playing hookie.
I see 2 very competitive groups and the rest patsy especially Mexico and Spain groups. But then very tough games even for Brasil having to play USA group runner up.
I think Brasil wins sexta, second time ever on european soil.

The pools given to France and Spain are a fucking joke. There is no way this is done randomly.....this draw is about as legitimate as the NBA lottery. Who has the easiet draw...you guessed...Germany.

Every world cup there is an African team and an Eastern Euro team that exceeds expectations and does well so one of the draws that might seem easy are not. Dont be suprised to see Iran do ok in that bracket and possibly upset Mexico whom I think is way overrated. USA has been better than Mexico for about a decade.

I don't care too much about soccer, but I do get interested in World Cup just because you can listen to every European media outlet bitch about how "the Americans don't even know what football is, blah blah blah, they shouldn't win, they don't appreciate it blah blah blah..."

I don't know if this year was rigged or not, but with 8 draws, and three teams ranked in the top 12 in the world in one draw......you would naturally expect a top 12 team in each draw and a second one in four of the draws, but in no way shape or form should there be three in one.

I think the FIFA selection committee should just rank the 32 teams by the current ranking system, then assign teams that way, similar to way they do it in tennis. While occasionally someone is seeded higher than you would think, in general the brackets are set up pretty well. FIFA kind of does that for the knockout/champoinship rounds, why not the first round?

I think the US needs to gun for a tie against either the Czechs or Italy and then a goalfest over Ghana. It will be tough but can be done.

bottom line it's bad luck
no more than 2 euro per group
concacaf and asia in 1 pot
africa and south america in 1 pot
8 seeds, flaw is mexico was a seed
euro pot had 2 good teams (Holland, Czech)
concacaf had 1 good team (USA)
african and south america pot (well shit ghana is best team)
so 1 group got czech, usa and ghana, it's bad luck not rigged as they had a different guy picking from each pot

Anyway after first round, the real wc starts, no crying, Brasil gets to play italy or czech.
if England finished 2nd they get Germany.
I agree France group is a cakewalk but 3rd cakewalk. Basically too many bad teams in first round.

The USA was fucked when they got 0 pts and finished dead last at the WC in 98. Based on the formula used, the US finished one point behind Argentina for the eigth seed. The US is actually ranked ahead of Italy, the top seed in thier group and the Czech republic is ranked number 2 in FIFA's world ranking. The formula was almost identical to the one used in 2002.

Remember the US advanced to the round of 16 in 1994 and 2002 by going 1-1-1 in group play. So if the US were to beat Ghana (do-able) and tie the Czechs or Italians, they COULD advance. This is not impossible, in fact, I believe the US can tie and perhaps beat at least the Italians! And the Czechs did not look that impressive in group play at the Euro qualifiers.

The key for the US is to score more than a goal in at least two games and get up on the goal differential.

It's ironic that the US was grouped with then Czechoslavakia and Italy in the 1990 WC. The US did better then than in 1998, The US is a far superior team than then and I think the US will surprise.

Look for maybe Joey (Guessepi) Rossi, an 18 y.o wonderkid who plays for Manchester United (but the reserves mostly), He was born in the USA but wanted to play for the Azzuri in the WC. Of course they didn't need him. This guy is a lot better than chang, chung, twellman or any other of the 3rd string strikers that Bruce Arena has been trying out in the last few months to fill in the subs behind McBride, Johnson and Donovan on the depth chart.

Making the US team will not be easy, the depth is greater than ever before. But it is thin compared to most Euro Teams. But a healthy full-strength mens team will get to the round of 16.

OG

Sex, Beer Football and another reason to go to F1 races:
http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/12042006/3/blatter-urged-join-fight-against-world-cup-prostitution.html

60,000 women descending upon poor old germany to ply the sex trade. My heart goes out to them.


OG

USA 0 - 3 CZE

Ouch.

(Message edited by book_guy on June 12, 2006)

And the reaction in America is "oh yeah.....soccer, has that tournament started yet?"

I actually watched the game and the US team really stunk up the place. Looks like they'll be home sometime next week. As we here in DC say about the Washington Capitals and Wizards "the playoffs would be nice, but it does cut into prime golfing time". Here's hoping Team USA has a fine time at their barbecues and pool parties two weekends from now

Mexico, on the other hand, looked great!

Regarding this link (from a few posts above) --

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/12042006/3/blatter-urged-join-fight-against-world-cup-prostitution.html

--

I read into the "hospitality tents" that there is prostitution going on DIRECTLY ON the sidelines of Grand Prix races? Yowza! No wonder people go to those things! Does anyone have any experience about this?

BG

How do you think Mexico would have looked playing the Czech Republic instead of the Republic of Ayatollah ??

Mexico was given an inexplicable higher seed than the USA and got a much easier draw . I think the US can still win or draw with Italy and beat Ghana . I have not given up hope but they definitely have to put out much more effort .

I think there is NO chance the US can beat the Italians! The only chance is if they can muster a win vs. Ghana and Ghana lose their remaining 2 (quite possible). Regardless, the real question is how come we can't muster up a quality team? Granted, it's not 1/2 the sport as basketball and real football, but still ...

At this point, the US needs to beat both Ghana and Italy. Four points with the big -3 goal differental today means 2nd-place tie with either Italy or the Czech Republic won't get the job done.

It's not so much losing today, it's losing 3-0. That's a big goal differental to make up.

I'm a little ignorant on the particulars, but 1 team gets the boot rom the bracket right? And ghana lost 2-0, so they are only 1 goal up on us right?

DM
Only the top two teams advance from each group. Tie breaker is goal differential so the US is screwed unless they beat Italy . They are 5 goals up right now so it would be almost impossible for US to advance if we both have 4 points at the end of first round unless Czechs beat them by 4 or so. Not likely with the defensive game the Italians play.

Its basically win 2 or go home for the US.

Gulp.

DM
We need a miracle to beat Italy, italians look so big and so quick. Ghana looks better than USA too. Only first 2 of each group move on. Runner up will probably play Brasil, that will be a tough match for auriverdes.
What bothers me is not the loss as i expected them to lose to both czech and italians but the way they lost, no fight in yanks.
Mexico did not look good at all and they will lose in round of 16 vs Holland or Argentina. Basically CONCACAF sucks and nothing has changed, it's a joke we get to send 4 teams.
Overall I am pleased with level of play, round of 16 will be exciting.
I do like the USA uniforms.

It's all about matchups. USA will always do poorly against big, strong teams like Czech Rep. and Italy. USA does well against Latin teams and African teams because they have speed and are patient. USA needs to start recruiting bigger defensive mids and fullback's to contest with the bigger forwards in Europe or we wont take it to the next level. Having more African American players will be to our advantage.

We are still better than Mexico but that wont get it done in the World Cup. Remember, Mexico has one tough game out of 3(Portugal) and even Portugal is known for underachieving as they have no chemistry and play a bit too cocky. A team like Ghana or USA could outright win the bracket that Mexico is in.

"it's a joke we get to send 4 teams."

With 32 teams in the World Cup? Not a joke at all to have geographic representation in the "European Invitational". Every friggin' Euro flag is already flying this time around, what more do you want?

Top US athletes will continue to play football, basketball, baseball and in some places, hockey, and that's not going to change anytime soon. If you're 6'7" and a good athlete, you're playing forward on a basketball team or pitching in baseball. Bottom line, soccer is still primarily for kids and immigrants. It will take quite a few more years before guys start gravitating towards soccer.

One note, this is insane the restaurant I go to watch the noon games is packed each day. The USA game at 9:00 am, there were a lot of people playing hookie. There seems quite a bit of interest from regular Americans.

I will be watching the USA-Italy game with interest today. It remains to be seen if our boys belong in the world arena or a local sand box. Good luck USA-- you certainly need it!

I will happy if the USA scores a goal against Italy.

Ghana dusting the Czechs 2-0 certainly changes things around. Too bad Ghana couldn't get that third goal in, the US still has to win one game by a ton and tie one or win both games left, but they have a bigger window to crawl through now.

Photos of some of the better looking soccer fans.

http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/pgStory?contentId=5676192&pageNumber=1

RG.

Hell of an effort thus far from the US-- depsite the ref trying to give it to the Italians.

Perfect example of why a lot of Americans don't like soccer. The Italians were flopping all over the field, writhing in pain, they get carried off, and hop right up and run back on the field. The red cards against the two American players was complete bullshit, although you could argue that since Pope had a yellow earlier in the game. But, on his call, I think he even touched the ball.

Even though the result is good - not great, but ok - I think a lot of casual US fans, who only watch soccer when the US is playing in the World Cup, will come away with the standard assumptions: that soccer is sport for pussies and pretentious referees. Not accurate, but that's what the game sort of looked like.

It's pretty simple at this point - the US needs to beat Ghana and Italy needs to beat the Czechs. As expected, this group has turned out to be the most interesting by far of the 8 first round groups.

I thought it was a great game and the USA played their hearts out. I was very worried that USA players were too physical as I could see ref was calling anything and everything. At 11 and 10 I thought USA could win then at 9 vs 10, I was glad to get a tie. This turns into the best group as all 4 teams still alive and with a win in last game, each team cam move through.
I thought the italians could only score on free kicks while americans did create some opportunities in the first half. Losing Mastroeni was tough as i thought he was our best player along Reyna.
The last game being an early game might help the americans as euros based players seem to not play well in the heat. Ghana has a very good defense but all usa needs is one break.
It was just bad luck on beasley goal.

Ive been watching all the games , its the first soccer ive ever watched in my life, and im 30, its not as boring as I thought , Im starting to enjoy it , it helps alot that there arent commercials, now if I could only figure the rules out

The US played quite well, they showed a lot of energy. A complete reversal from the Czech game. They're really about where I anticipated them being after 2 games - with 1 point. The goal differential is a real bitch though, so they won't win any tiebreakers. 4 points is what they need but they also need an Italy victory over the Czechs.

Are you guys kidding me! This was a superb win for the USA, against a strong team with a lot of football history behind them. Like it or not soccer (football) is the number one spectator sport in the world and by a long margin. Get behind your team guys...Go USA!!!

Ronaldo stinks up the joint for Brasil once again.

Ronaldo made a brilliant pass that led to the first goal for Brasil. He blew a couple of other opportunities but showed that even when he's fat and out of shape he can outplay most people in the world.

As soon as Ronaldo left the field, Brasil seemed to play with more speed. I am surprised Ronaldo is a starter as he occupies dead space so Brasil is easier to defend., They need to understand that winning will come with Ronadlinho, Kaka and Robinho.
I have a lot of respect now for USA and South Korea. Koreans were being run over the field but near the end of the game, they just kept running and realized their only chance vs superior France was to win in the air and they just did that to tie the game. So 2002 was not a fluke.
I think Italy will play to win cause if they lose vs czech they are out. I hope USA plays same aggressive game on thu then anything is possible and playing Brasil would be a treat in round of 16, much different story than in 94. USA earned a lot of respect yesterday.

Nobody wants to play Brasil in the second round, so Italy should play tough to make sure they win and don't tie and finish in second. Since any of the four teams can make it in and except for Italy, a tie may do you no good, I hope both games will be wide-open, heavy-shooting affairs.

The South Korean fans were certainly loud, as were the French, you could barely hear the announcers at times.

I thought that Ronaldo played for Portugal, and Ronaldinho played for Brasil, but I am just an American, so I could be wrong.

You are right and wrong. There's a Ronaldo on Portugal and a Ronaldo and a Ronaldinho on Brazil.

Christian Ronaldo: Portugal
Ronaldinho: Brazil
Ronaldo: Brazil
Robinho: Brazil

Brazilians like to use one word to describe their entire name like Madonna.

Even though I think Brazilians back 4 are porous and they have a shit goalie, they still have explosiveness to compensate for those weakness. I think a team like Germany or Holland would beat them though.

France got royally fucked in today's game and Korea caught another break like they did in the last world cup. The second goal for France was not called even though the entire ball crossed the line and the Korean goalie was about a foot behind the line. The officiating in this cup has been horrendous and I have a feeling a major game will be decided by the officiating.

One last thing about South American soccer that I completely hate is how much they dive. Brazil and Argentina dive so much that its criminal. The refs give those two powerhouses so much respect that they fall for it every time. Unfortunately Korea has picked up on this habit as have other Asian teams.

They all flop around, it's pathetic. Every time one of these pussies falls to the ground they start screaming and rolling around and flail the arms. Soccer needs a self-policing system like baseball, where if someone fucks with your team you bean his ass or one of his teamates the next time they're at bat, or football where you just clobber the fucker the first chance you get. And these guys wouldn't last two minutes in a hockey rink or even on a basketball court.

It's like watching a bunch of women sometimes, except the womens soccer players are tougher.

Both of the U.S. red cards came from tackles from behind and Maestroani's was a "studs-up" one from behind. The fouls against the U.S. were warranted, but not the straight red, nor even the second yeloow for Pope. I taped the match and there were at least 3 "from behind" tackles made by the Italians and NOT ONE was whistled a foul. Why? In all three cases the Americans did not fall to the ground writhing in pain, but instead tried to continue play to gain an advantage. The fouls were deemed innoucuous or light-footed, even though they came from behind. The referee I believe was from Paraguay, and if you see futbol played in South America, acting is a big part of the foul process, the better the act the better the (perceived) foul. The italians were flopping all over the place, as they knew the proclivity of the Uraguayan referee to call some fouls too easily. Add to the fact that FIFA, told all of the teams and especially the referees that tackles from behind should be red-carded, you have the rational for this type of officiating. Add to the fact that this same referee was suspended for half a year for suspicious activity (match-fixing?) and having the entire Serie A league under investigation for match-fixing, and the Mafia., etc..etc and ... well, you see the difficulties the U.S. faced BEFORE they even entered the stadium. Arena only complained that the officials give some of the larger, established soccer countries more "leeway" when judging a foul, he may be right. But egregious fouls should be punished, the Italian who purposly elbowed and cut Brian Mcbride is probably history for the WC. but noe of the U.S. fouls were deemed too egregious for further action to be taken.

The plain fact the Italy did not take the U.S. serioulsy, and only a off-side call saved them the ignominity of a defeat at the hands of a nine-man U.S. squad, a fact that all of the italian press noted. In fact the Italian coach wanted the press and the Italian nation to know that, although it might not be labeled the "group of death", it has been labeled the "group of steel" by much of the Europena media. And after the match, coach Lippi was happy to point that out.

And besides, after receiving his second yellow card and being ejected from the game, several million Catholics got thier one and only chance to utter the words: "FUCK YOU, POPE"


OG

How can a referee from Uruguay get involved in an Italian match-fixed scandal?

Referees from any country can be contracted to work as officials in other leagues outside of their own country. If I am not mistaken, Uruguay doesnt even have a local major soccer league. The fact that he is from Uruguay, doesnt prevent him from receiving bribes from local Italians in an Italian league nor would it preclude him from receiving bribes in an international match such as the World Cup.

Wherever he usually works, he sucked ass in the US-Italy game.

Uraguay DOES have a preofessional league. Most countries in south America do. This particular referee, was actually suspended by FIFA for 6 months in 2002 for "irregularities" in match officiating at both the national and international level, although he was never formally charged or convicted of any crimes. Nevertheless, how he became a WC referee with those credentials bothers me a bit. Add to the fact that there is a massive investigation into match fixing in Serie A, which includes several of the largest teams, AC Milan, Juventus, etc and include even coach Lippi and about half the Italian WC team, the media and of course, the Mafia, well you can see where this is going.

I do not believe that this happened. I think (and hope) there was no attempt at match fixing, BUT, you have a referee who have been accussed of iregularities, you have a possibly corrupt football federation, millions no, billions of dollars bet, and the national pride of a football nation at stake, and then: you have one of your best defensemen SENT OFF by a fouls so blatant, to overlook it would be to arouse suspicion from everyone. So if you were a referee "on the take", what would you do?. Well , the first would be to look for red card offenses, even those so trivial it would give you an excuse for a a sendoff. So you do. BUT this, if you are "on the take" , is not good enough, since it may look like Italy may even lose, being outplayed by the US so far in the match, so at halftime you get a "message". And coincidentally in the firat minute you send off another American, making the odds incredibaly in favor of Italy to bring back a second goal.

Of course this is pure conjecture and I'm sure FIFA polices this to insure they do not. However a 1-1 draw a result that pleases a lot of people, (except maybe the oddsmakers) so the suspicion is allayed. The ref did a strict, but legal, job, the result were equitable and the WC continues.

If you were fixing a match, though, it would look just like this.

OG

I dunno. I'm getting to where it's hard to care about some of these games.

Disclaimer. Don't get me wrong, I'm a footie fan through and through, and I'm always pissed off when an uninformed "dumb yank" says something like "the reason that Americans don't like soccer" is "what happened in this game" and the "what happened" turns out to be ... A TYPICAL GOOD GAME ... that he couldn't understand. Mister Dumyank assumes, too often, on scant evidence, "I knew I was right." I'm not down on footie. It's my only sport, besides a desultory "going to the gym" sort of thing that I claim to do sometimes.

Nevertheless, I'm just getting to where ... well ... I can't work it out any more. Is Angola good or bad? Did Mexico self-destruct (as is typical) or is a field of Portugal subs really all that much better than them? And when Argentina and Holland play today, does the result really matter AT ALL? No, I don't think it does. What a pity. They should be meeting in the semi-finals, not in a means-nothing opening round game.

I want to be invigorated by this tournament. Zidane and Co. did it for me in 1998. I predicted their result against Brasil because I could see (the whole world could see) that they were on an emotional high, a zenith, a vector upwards. Oh the memories. The Hand of God in 86, Rossi's indomitable performance after gambling allegations in 82, the wraith-like Rummenigge or Breitner manly trading shirts and shaking hands in good spirit after unfair, unjust, say-it-isn't-so! elimination, Platini and Tigana racing down the flank, Cruyff twisting behind another stupefied defender, "young Beckham will learn" from his Simeone slash seeing red to captaining his nation in red, old films of Garrincha or Pele or Jairzinho just brimming full of joy for O Jogo Bonido, and (Jesus! Mary Mother of God! And Joseph too!) Frank de Boer to Denis Bergkamp against Argentina in 98, The Goal Of The Ages.

I don't feel like this tournament has any of that good stuff. This tournament is a bunch of guys who know what glory is, and don't know how to grasp it, and instead they just watch from a distance as it flies by. Some people watch things happen, some people make things happen, and some people say, "What happened?" The Uruguayan bitch-shit who refereed the USA-ITA match ruined that game, and that angered and disappointed me. Otherwise, I'm just bored.

Maybe my own disenfranchisement, sense of disillusion about the rest of my life, is permeating my perception of the tournament. I'm in a place where I'm pissed off at work and getting out of it, wondering what to do with the rest of the summer and the rest of my career, amazed at the duplicity of my employers (which is why I'm leaving) and the evil power-grabbing going on in my government (which is something I can't figure out how to "leave," but I would if I could). I wanted the Cup to give me exciting escape for a while. A manly Calgon, "take me away!"

Instead, it's turned out to be just another bunch of unknowns kicking a ball around. How disappointing. Je suis desole'. Even an eventual World Championship for Holland wouldn't drag me up, I'm feeling.


(Message edited by book_guy on June 21, 2006)

GHA 2 - 1 USA
ITA 2 - 0 CZE

Yah, now I know I'm just bored. The diagnosis has been confirmed.

But I'm not so worried about myself, now that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the problem so far has been the performance of the teams I'm watching, and not the state of my emotional well-being.

Yeesh. What a bunch of dogs.

Ghana beats the US 2-1 in soccer.

How is that possible?

They must be laughing in Ghana.

I can see the headlines now ...
"Former slave colony whips USA"

Do you recall that famous headline when the Brooklyn Dodgers won their only World Series in Brooklyn back in 1955 and the headline appeared of a smiling hobo asking the question "Who's a Bum?"

The folks from Ghana should rightfully ask ...
"Who's your master?"

Suffice it to say that it will be at least 4 more years before soccer gets a national TV contract.

I put American soccer right next to American ping-pong. Yeah the Chinese crush Americans routinely in ping-pong but ... who cares ??

Too bad USA wasnt fortunate enough to play Angola and Iran...they would have killed either team. If Mexico was in this bracket instead of USA, Mexico would have finished with zero points. Czech team is very good, Italy is a top 3 team in the world and Ghana has two of the best midfielders on the planet(Essien and Apiah) and are a powerhouse team.

How bad is Mexico? Portugal played their second string team with nothing on the line and still beat Mexico. Viva Portugal. Look for Ghana to play pretty well against Brazil but the best game in the first round will be Holland vs. Portugal as both teams are good enough to go to the Finals. Look for Germany to win it all and the referees to make some poor decisions which knock out a couple of the top teams.

The one thing that really drives me nuts about this World Cup is the referees trying to ruin the game with ridiculous yellow cards and penalty kicks. The call against the USA which allowed a penalty kick to end the half, sucked the life out of the USA and put them in a position of impossibility. If yellow cards are to be used, they should be given to players that continually dive in order to draw a fould....especially the African and South American teams. It's funny how the two corrupt continents of Africa and South America have the most notorious floppers and divers in the World Cup. Argentina and Ghana being the worst culprits here.

Look for Bruce Arena to be fired or resign as he completely mismanaged this World Cup. Having a 4-5-1 set was too conservative and all of the players seemed out of place. USA has always been a gambling and aggressive team but this setup looked more like the Italy teams of the past only we didnt take advantage on counters as Donovan and Beasley played like scared little kids out there. He should have had a 3-4-3 setup and put Eddie Johnson in as a striker along with two other strikers. Beasley should have sat the entire tournament and Twellman should have been placed on the team as he was the USA's best offensive weapon going into the tournament.

And as for Rodneys' comments....those who know and understand soccer will tell you that Ghana was a dark horse to make the final 8 before the cup even started. Now that Serbia and Ivory Coast showed there true colors, it is obvious that the USA was in the toughest bracket. Ghana is as good as any team left, unfortunately Essien will have to sit the next game for having two yellow cards and Essien is a top notch world player...just ask Chelsea fans in England or Leon fans.

(Message edited by blazers on June 22, 2006)

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. How did the USA end up not getting seeded over Mexico? We beat them in qualifying, have a consistent winning record against them since the last WC, qualified higher than them in CONCACAF, are ranked higher than them in the Coca-Cola rankings, and have better uniforms too. If you just swapped the two, our performance would have looked so much better.

Ah, if if if.

And the damn referees. They are indeed doing their best to ruin this cup. Every four years we have a new ball, a new set of directives to the officials, a new reason to hate Sepp Blatter and Joao Havelange. And an Uruguayan ref who wasn't even clean enough for THAT nation's league? Yeesh, that's GOTTA be low.

I'm starting to think that even football can be ruined by multi-national conglomeration and globalization of economic trade opportunities. If it isn't dusty, with a crappy old ball, on the streets, someone's dirty laundry hanging in the background, it isn't real football.

Like that ad: Cisse! Zidane. Lampard. Robben. Messi. Beckham. Beckenbauer. Beckenbauer!? I like the longer version when Kaka misses and Jose sends him to the bench ("Tu! A banquillo!"). Damian Duff hops up off the bench with the "now coach?" hopeful look of a ten year old in his eyes. Now THAT is footie. No referee. No trophy.

But then, Frank de Boer to Dennis Bergkamp, turn twist undress an Argentinian, The Goal Of The Ages. Worth seeing again. They replayed it during the NED - ARG game, by the way.

I think Rodney may be right, that this failure will have grave effects on major soccer coverage in the US, not so much because the market isn't there, as because the hassles involved (paying European prices when the demand is only American in size; giving up plush time slots; no breaks for advertisements; odd time-zone issues; major Spanish-language competition and second-string rights to the SIN conglomerate) will discourage the TV execs. Now they have an "excuse" to call soccer "not cool" and "not a real man's sport" AGAIN. Dammit.

I'd like to see Vince Saragussa (sp?) run for ninety minutes. Or Clemens figure out what the rest of his team was hoping he'd do with the ball without having time to sit back, ask his catcher for advice, get a signal, talk to someone from the bench, dial a beer, and then play again. Or Rothlesburger take a major hit from Onyewu or Nesta without his helmet.

Wait. I think Rothlesburger did go without his helmet ...

There is no way in hell germany wins the world cup, they would have to possibly beat sweden, argentina, italy and brasil in 2 week time frame.
Portugal has advanced for first time since 66, they have no chance of reaching semi, they would have to beat holland and possibly england to reach semis, but big deal they beat iran, angola and mexico.
The south americans are going to stick it to euros. Argentina vs Brasil maybe unless Italy turns some tricks, they can reach semi by beating australia then possibly switzerland.
I think it's great though outside the mexico game, some very good games this weekend. 1/4 on paper look phenomenal.
USA is middle tier team so they needed help to go through first round, and they got jobbed 2 games in a row, uruguayan and f. german referee, supposedly top euro referee.
Also it's complete bs that yellow card on Essien, that dude can play and he will miss brasil game so i think brasil 2-0 in an easy game on Tues.

I think the USA should consider hiring a foreign coach, like a Brasilian or something.
I was pissed at the play of Donovan and Beasley. These guys cannot control the simplest of passes. Donovan never fights for a ball, he always throws away any possession. In the first half, mc bride headed the ball on a platter, it was a semi volley, not an easy shot but not real difficult and Donovan kicked it to the sky.
I liked Dempsey and Convey. Our center back is going to turn into a real pro playing in England. But we need to find a star player in the middle, Donovan is too small and is limited talent wise. But at least he is a smart guy leaving Bayer Leverkusen after 1 month or 2, he pulls 1/2 mil playing in LA.
I have always liked McBride but he is old now. Eddie Johnson seems to have the tools to become a player, i hope he ends up in a middle tier league in Europe to hone his skills.

One difference between hype and the real deal, Lionel Messi wins the world junior championship last year with Argentina. Freddy Adu in same championship does nothing with USA. Messi then leads Barcelona to title and euro league. Adu has 0 goals in MLS and he whines about playing time. Messi against Holland, a big defender is ready to tackle him hard. I expected him to jump, no in the last tenth second, he moves the ball to the side and avoids tackle, then he tries to make a pass for a shot. Little things like that...maybe unfair to compare hype and the next argentina superstar. But one is 17 and one is 18. Same height, same size, both seemingly too small.

RT here. I'm not a soccer fan per se, but I am a sports fan, and I have been watching as much of the world cup as I can get away with, what with work and all. So take my opinions for what they are: really uninformed.

1. You can't score if you don't shoot. The closest comparison I can come up with is hockey, where they dump the puck into the offensive zone and see what develops. You can't get a rebound, or a loose ball, or an own goal, or anything, if you don't go north and south. I saw one game last weekend, where one team started the second half a goal behind and took EXACTLY ONE SHOT the entire second half.

Make me a soccer coach, and every game would end 9-7. But people would watch.

2. There's no real penalty for regular old fouls. Ghana fouled us a million times today. It meant nothing.

3. 300 million people and we can't find 11 guys who can kick a ball? Ridiculous.

4. Three games with our best guys and we score a total of ONCE? Nothing the first game, Italy scored for us over the weekend, and one against Ghana. Ridiculous. See #3 above.

5. All that being said, it's pretty impressive what the good guys can do with just their feet.

As I said, I don't know spit about soccer (except that it's over quickly), but there's my two cents.

Home field advantage is still big. 50% of past World Cup finalists have come from the host Country with 35% having won.

Interesting point about the home nations being finalists. But in recent memory, that stat pales.

If you count back the most recent six Copas (24 years): 2002 (neither host Korea nor host Japan make the final game), 98 (France wins in Paris), 94 (USA not in final), 90 (Italy not in final), 86 (Mexico not in final), 82 (Spain not in final), then it looks bad for the hosts (unless you're French). But that's kind of unfair since Korea, Japan, and USA weren't legitimate contendors. But then, Italy, Mexico, and Spain WERE legitimate contendors and yet, as hosts, didn't squeeze close to the final game.

If you count back four more Copas: 78 (Argentina wins at home), 74 (Germany wins at home), 70 (Mexico not in final), 66 (England wins at home), then it looks great for the hosts. Except for Mexico, you WIN the tournament! But this is the great era of (a) questionable referees (I can't credit Argentina with a fair victory, for example), and (b) less international travel. So, the hosts winning may be a true statement, but not very applicable to sports today in 2006.

If you count back four MORE Copas: 62 (Chile not in final), 58 (Sweden loses final game), 54 (Switzerland not in final), 50 (Brazil hosts, Uruguay wins, there is no "single final game" because it's round-robin play, but Brazil does finish as a disappointed and surprised second place, so I'll let you count that as "hosts lose final"), it looks average for the hosts: two and two.

And the pre-WWII Copas? That's a totally different era again. Uruguay won at home (30), Italy won at home (34) and then beat France in Paris (38). So, again, it looks good for the hosts. But that's because the only countries who went could afford to go, and that was few and far between. Hell, the USA participated! With Italians on the squad!

If I remember correctly. Maybe I got a few mixed up?

Anyway, the point is, it's only in the more distant past that "50% of host nations make it to the final game." I don't think we should count that way. Better to say, "Mexico has hosted TWICE but they never made the final game. England and France win at home but never scratch otherwise. And you only REALLY win at home if you're playing the Dutch. They're game to make any game look good!" Oranje!

I've recently come to the conclusion that the biggest under-heralded sides are Sweden and Belgium (after the Netherlands, of course; but everyone knows the Oranje are the "greatest team never to win the Cup"). The Swedes and the Belch are BIG and ATHLETIC and SURROUNDED by footballing nations. Those two countries (and maybe Russia, though the existence and then breakup of the USSR calls that whole thing into question) are the ones to watch out for.

Of course, both Sweden and Belgium are currently eliminated. So that Scotches that.

So, here's a few pronouncements. Keep in mind I'm saying this on Sunday night. GER, ARG, ENG, and POR have already advanced. (NED has been screwed by Rasputin.) The remaining octo- and quarterfinals look like this:

GER gets trounced by ARG. 3-0. Maybe 4. Hosts go home. Wait, they're already there. Hosts watch from home.

ENG gets trounced by POR. 7-2. Maybe 8. But Beckham scores a free kick or two. Where is Germaine Defoe? (He's the ONLY guy in that Adidas ad who isn't at the Cup! Besides Cisse, who broke his leg, but at least he got a call-up.) We'll see Theo Walcott only after England is down by a gillion goals, as a token gesture, at precisely the worst time to insert him. Sven will act like he did a great job and was full of risky new ideas. Coyly, as though he were going to ask us for a date after the news conference. We'll all wonder what he was thinking. In fact, what was going on between his ears was precisely this ... NOTHING.

Switzerland looks good, Italy looks weak but advances, Brazil looks great (well, Ghana is hardly an opponent) but gets badly injured and has to learn to dive dive dive (with these refs? everything is necessary, nothing is omitted, anything can happen), and France finally wakes up.

Yes, France. Spain invokes its perennial death-wish, loses to France, who then handily lose to Brazil, who then handily thump Portugal or England.

So we see Brazil from their boring semi-final bracket, and a good semi-final between Italy and Argentina in the other bracket. If not, then Germany and someone. Who cares?

Like I said two or three posts back, I'm bored. That fucking Rasputin twerp who refereed the POR-NED match ruined it for me. I haven't seen a good game YET. OK, MAYBE Trinidad and Tobago against the Swedes. Or the ARG-MEX match, though Mexico kind of threw in the towel for long periods and had to be reminded that they might actually be able to win, if only they'd actually TRY to.

I liked, when David Beckham scored, watching Posh Spice Beckham's tits. They look profoundly fake, the way they're hiked up their in her little tittie-top. But she looks good. In a princessy sort of want-to-spooge-on-her-face-just-to-ruin-her-make-up kind of way.

OK, thanks for listening. These rantings brought to you by FIFA, Pele, and the letter B. And a LOT of questionable officiating. Hello? Earth to Sepp? Sepp? Are you watching? Hellll -- oooo ?

Nobody home.


(Message edited by book_guy on June 25, 2006)

Disagree with you on a couple of things. The officiating hurt Portugal more than it did Holland. The only thing that was ridiculous was Figo doing a bit of acting after getting elbowed but that was reactionary to Figo's headbut earlier. Portugal and Holland are dead even as teams but Portugal has much better talent.

England is so damn lucky. Portugal with a full team would crush England right now but Deco got a red card in the rasputin game and Christian Ronaldo appears hurt from a fould that might have been given a red card on some ocassions. IMHO, England does not have a player as good as either Deco or Ronaldo right now. Granted England is playing without Owen and Rooney is a bit out of shape from his injury.

Mexico actually outplayed Argentina IMHO but Argentina is loaded with more talent than any team in the world cup. Carlos Tevez and Lionel Messi are straight up insane. Lionel Messi may be the most talented player in the World Cup and that includes Ronaldinho.

Lastly, the injury of Robinho could be crucial for Brazil as he is the only one that provides a spark for them now. I think Brazil's back 4 and horrible goalie will be exposed against better teams.

I don't think we disagree about the POR-NED game at all. Now that I've seen them, I agree with you that, in the long run, NED is a bit weaker team, because of what I perceive as POR's superior depth and that utterly intangible "effectiveness." I think the ref did ruin the game, but at least he didn't ruin it AND create an upset. (Hmm. Just like the ITA-USA match. An opportunity for the underdog to create an upset was avoided by bad refereeing. Confusing ...)

Engerlund bugs me. They don't "deserve" ANYTHING that they've gotten so far in this Cup, but there they are acting all smug and entitled as though, well, they ought to win the whole thing every time just because they happened to do just that once a long time ago. Victoria drove in a barouche in 1850, so all queens drive in a barouche in all years. England won in 1966, so England should win in all years. To them, it's simple: tradition.

If I weren't so closely allied in my family with the Scots who'd like nothing more than to stick a nice long claymore right up the butt of any invading Englishman, I might be more sanguine about Beckham. But really, doesn't he slow down their play and ruin their midfield? Plus, Gerrard Lampard Carrick Beckham all leading things? Who's in charge here? Ah yes, a bunch of boys from the English lower classes all deferring. Defer defer defer ...

They bug me, those smug pricks. How do they manage to appear both entitled and deferential at the same time? Passive-aggressive, I guess ... and where is Germaine Defoe? I do hope POR runs roughshod all over them.

I'm looking forward to Ghana upsetting Brasil.

I don't understand why Switzerland is in the World Cup, I thought they were a neutral country.

PS: The final will be Germany/Brazil.

I am just appalled by the referees. It's a complete disgrace. This is the biggest sporting event by far and all FIFA can come up is moron refs to call the game.
Too many games have been tainted to list them and I am also getting the feeling that "big teams" get preferential treatment.

Portugal-Netherlands was a total wrestling match and then flop fest. Ugliest soccer game I've seen, though I'm not much of a fan. I think the problem with the refs is a chicken-egg thing: Do the refs react because people flop, or do they flop because the refs call it? Either way, soccer looks like a REALLY fucked up sport right now.

Soccer looks fucked up, yup. It disappoints me. I think the best WCs are now in the past. We saw inklings of FIFA ineptitude as early as 1986 or 1990, and of course there've ALWAYS been disputes over refereeing. But now, the ENTIRE TOURNAMENT is just a dispute over refereeing. How'd you like to be an Australian defender right about now?

Disgustive purgation ...

I always hate it when DumbLimeys and other eurotrash complain about soccer being fucked up, you're just too dumb to understand the game. You're just uninformed, that's why you're complaining about the fine quality of this tourney.

bookguy,
Did you enjoy that upset? Ooops! Looks like Ghana's a goner.

I am seeing 3 appetizing 1/4 finals. 6 teams that did not need help from the referee to advance.
The best referee is the italian guy.

Italy got some help from the refs, that's for sure....but who else? And dont say Portugal, because the refs tried everything possible to take the game away from Portugal.

Winner of Argentina-Germany game wins the whole thing.

ARG-GER does look like a great game. Can't call it.

There haven't been too many great moments in this tournament, for me. But it's not because I'm uninformed. Maybe I'm just blase` about ALL of life right now, and that's pervading my viewing experience.

I hated the refereeing of the POR-NED game, even though I'm a rabid Oranje fan and did indeed see that many of the mistakes were going against POR and in favor of the Oranje. For me, the refereeing just reduced it to a fisticuffs match, in which some players (both sides) were "out of control," while others (both sides) were trying to "work the ref," and others (both sides) were steadfastly determined to do their best to play good ball despite the ref but were stymied BECAUSE of the ref. It wasn't just the result that the ref influenced, if he did. It was also the OVERALL EXPERIENCE. I don't want to see four reds unless there's some kind of brawl that merits it. I go to NHL for THAT.

Likewise with the ITA penalty, late. Sure, on close analysis, it "COULD" be construed as a penalty. Or a dive. But close analysis also should point out that the penalized event took place well into injury time, well after the game "could" have already been over. It isn't that the ref was wrong, or the outcome undeserved. It was that the ref had primary say in the decision-making, rather than letting the players decide the outcome.

Brazil looked good, off and on. And I PREDICTED (see above!) that France would wake up, and lo they have! I also predicted Ivory Coast wouldn't have their act together and Ghana would be hard to beat in group play, and that Netherlands would be too inexperienced to get very far, and that CONCACAF wouldn't scratch. So, don't call me uninformed. I was right on top of those predictions.

Of course, I said the African team to watch would be Togo because they'd have their "act together" (my words, literally) more than any other African nation; and I said this was the big year of the Asian teams, "look out for Iran and Korea" (my words). So I'm eating a few of my words, too. Togo? Urgh ... the soap opera of the tournament.

If you cant guess which 1/4's are good for prime time:
Argentina-Germany
Brasil-France
England-Portugal
Ukraine is awful and does not deserve to be here, they got a phantom penalty against Tunisia plus Tunisia deserved a pk after a handball.
Italy should not be here either. they were going to lose until Spanish referee gave them the game basically.
Portugal played very well against Holland. It's a real shame Deco is out as he is their best player.

Lot of rematches in 1/4s
Argentina-Germany is 86 and 90 rematch, in 90 Germany was given the world cup by mex referee and phantom pk.
Portugal-England is 66 rematch and recent euro 04 rematch.
France-Brasil is 86 and 98 rematch with france advancing or winning wc each time.

The referees are so bad I am scared now. I want the italian referee basically for any game my team plays.

I just cant see Germany beat much more polished Argentine team but it's a home game.
Portugal, can they play minus 2 starters? Can England play at 5:00 pm local time, like the French they are complaining the grass is too dry for early games, it's just too hilarious. I am not impressed by Ericsson, they play too defensive, wasting Gerrard and Lampard.
Can Brasilian coach be smart and start Robinho instead of Adriano? French are finally playing their game and have no pressure on Sat.

The winners of both 1/4's involving south american teams should meet in the finals.

I would not bet on any game.

There haven't been too many great moments in this tournament, for me

However you feel about the guy, however you feel about the team, Beckham's goal was fucking incredible. Would make ME a fan of the sport if I was deaf, dumb, and blind.

And everybody bashing Ronaldo looks like a fucking pinhead right now.

Lol, same could be said for Zidane?

VAMOS REAL MADRID???

Robinho has been injured and did not play against Ghana. It is a pulled muscle so it is day to day. I really hope he plays against France because he gives them a certain spark.

The world cup coverage here in Brazil is just great. Every day, they have at least 8 pages of WC coverage in the newspaper.

Porker, I'm going to have to say, I'm not so excited about Beckham's free against Ecuador. Sure, he did a great job of it. In fact, I'd have to say it is only one smidge less impressive than the one he hit against Greece in England to secure qualification for 2002. But first, please note, goalkeeper error. Poorly placed wall. Idiotic location to give up a free kick whenever said rock star might be prancing about the pitch.

And then there's this other issue, please note. To me, deciding a game on one or two phenomenal "critical moments" is what's wrong with BOTH the refereeing AND the dependence on penalties, free-kicks, and highlight-reel-style coverage. I don't like "big moments," and my disaffection with FIFA, with this Copa, with the whole thing about where soccer (and sport?) are going, is encapsulated in this very issue.

For me, footie is about the ebb and flow, the longer-term vision of the whole game, the periods of time that one team or the other would dominate, the manner in which domination either leads to success (Brazil) or domination is usurped by a goal against the run of play (Italy). Beckham does take a fabulous free kick, but it's not really about the REST of the game. I guess I have an "excessively high attention span" and want to look at the LONG VIEW of the game. That desire isn't accommodated by television replays squeezed into a five minute segment, or by free kicks and referees deciding the game.

Beckham does take a great free kick. But so did Frank de Boer; so did Hristo Stoichkov; so can Roberto Carlos, Ronaldinho, about seven other Brazilians, half the Italian squad, and every single French striker that did or did not make the World Cup roster. Yawn. I've seen them before. Sure, to rise to the occasion at the big moment and not let it get to you? That takes nerves, and it's exciting to watch the great masters perform at the great moment (Totti vs Australia). But I don't want my experience of this Cup reduced to the highlight reel.

To Athos: indeed, the winners of the games with South Americans will be in the Final game, it appears. Either GER or ARG; versus BRA (can't see FRA, ENG or POR beating them?). The three "real" Quarters (excluding ITA-UKR) are great rematches, and real toss-ups to choose, each with its own reason for tension. I'm WAY excited about ARG-GER, in the early slot Friday. I don't know who to root for! Maybe I'll grow less blase` about life slowly but surely as I watch good football.

Wait. Who've they decided will ref the ARG-GER game? There's still time for Sepp to ruin everything ... And there's also the issue of ITA (as they are likely to surpass UKR) probably being better rested and less red-carded, than whoever emerges from the GER-ARG slugfest.

Go Barca?!!


(Message edited by book_guy on June 28, 2006)

GER ARG great game. Too bad it was settled by such an idiotic method.

Geez, nothing seems to please me now ...

I say no more shootouts. Allow each team one additional substitution per 15-minute overtime period and let them run until they puke and only bench players are left in the game or someone ends an overtime period up a goal.

No shootout necessary for France to stomp Brazil yet again.

If you're in Rio right now, I'll bet the pussy dries up tonight.

Dem Disappointed Gnomes

Cacotony: or simply start removing players. Play the first 15 with 11, the next with 10, the next with 9 ... eventually two goalies ... heeheehee, I'd love to see THAT!

I did call France. They're on an UP vector. I'm looking forward to both semi-finals. As long as FIFA remembers to keep the refs at home.

Amazing that the best player on the field in a France-Brazil game was a 34 year old player. Zidane has found the fountain of youth and watching him was like watching a magician and virtuoso in his peak. Adriano should have started the game IMHO as he is bigger and tougher than the other front players of Brazil.

Portugal did not play as fluid as they have in the past but it's hard to look fluid against a 4-5-1.

I hate the penalty kicks. It will eventually get replaced with golden goal of some sort(possibly less players or 3 additional substitutes) It's like having a tie after a 9 inning baseball game and then deciding the game on a home run derby contest.

One last criticism of soccer rules. I believe that the person who is fouled in the penalty box should be the one who ALWAYS takes the penalty kick. Having a Designated penalty kicker is ridiculous and makes no common sense.

About all of my predictions have been correct so far. I still stay with Germany to win it all and knew that England and Brazil would get knocked off before the semi's. I also stated that Portugal would be a dark horse.

Oh yeah, Athos said, "Lastly, I believe just There is no way in hell germany wins the world cup, they would have to possibly beat sweden, argentina, italy and brasil in 2 week time frame. Portugal has advanced for first time since 66, they have no chance of reaching semi, they would have to beat holland and possibly england to reach semis, but big deal they beat iran, angola and mexico. The south americans are going to stick it to euros. Argentina vs Brasil maybe unless Italy turns some tricks, they can reach semi by beating australia then possibly switzerland."

I guess one of us was right, although Athos does know quite a bit about soccer...

Blazers
I was so wrong...the f. French are going to take it...ah ah ha good luck to Portugal but I want Germany so bad I can taste it.
The brazilians were so quiet at the pub, it was eerie. They cant fire the team so the coach will be villified.
Italy is better than Germany, but Argentina was better too.
Both France and Portugal are playing their game. Frankly I wanted Brasil to win for their people but I never felt France being threatened. I picked France to beat Brasil today after the Spain game.
France is better than the team that won in 98 cause they have an offense with Ribery, that guy is a gem in the making.
France-Portugal is rematch of euro 2000 when france won semi on controversial golden gioal pk
Italy-germany amazing they have not met since finals in 82. Italy has been eliminated on pks at each wold cup since 86 when they lost to france 2-0.
The sad part for Ronaldo, he never had a great world cup in his career. and Ronaldinho, is that all the "best" player in the world can do?

If Italy wins the whole thing, how do you think the people in Australia should feel, they got robbed on phantom pk in round of 16.
The referees from the whole world concept has to go, go with the best referees no matter what.
I noticed the referees in the 1/4 finals were very good all of a sudden.
Somebody has to advance. Portugal did not win today, this game is recorded by FIFA as a tie 0-0 but england goes home tomorrow and Portugal takes the train to Munich.

I agree. Get rid of the shootout. And even for those of us who really appreciate the footwork, teamwork, passing and strategy, 120 minutes of any game without a score is way too much.

Why not widen and heighten the goal? That would likely open the game up.

Leave the net alone. Just ditch the offside rule. That's one of the big reasons why people want replay, and even the total pro refs miss that call sometimes.

So, drop the offsides rule, let's get a "fast break" attack, and keep playing until someone breaks any tie.

I think the limited substitution tends to create a superstar mentality. Hockey does this considerably better, with "lines" of guys that specialize in different things. It puts more people on the field, and let's even the lesser-known players get game time. Ditto basketball, football, etc. Increasing or unlimiting substitutions might be another way to get scores up, if people feel too strongly about the offsides thing.

Dem Changin' Gnomes

From Globo

Missed these...Globo again

Fun pics. Thanks! Heehee ...

Agreed: the offsides rule is a problem. Even at the biggest tournament in the world, the linesmen consistently get it wrong. It's a "technicality," whereas all the rest of the FA or FIFA rules of play are designed with more "spirit of the game" and less "letter of the law" in mind. Ever tried to explain offsides to an American football or baseball fan? ("Right, so the salt" ... "sea salt" ... "right, so the SEA salt is the goalie, OK?" from 'Bend it Like Beckham'). Even someone who can apply the infield fly rule or complain about too many men in motion in the backfield, can't get soccer offsides.

Agreed: Ribery is a gem. But he's a gem NOW, not "in the making"; Hell, he's playing in World Cup quarter- and semi-finals; How much more "making" do you need? Zidane and he are great together, Henry (as usual) is unstoppable (though why do we all have this theory that he doesn't get along with Trezeguet? they were best buds in 98, clinging to one another like children during the ITA-FRA penalties; and after this win over BRA, they clung again). Sagnol, you watch him. He isn't entirely the new Marcel Desailly, partly merely because they don't need as major a keystone as Desailly, thanks to Thuram. But he is remarkable, and as long as he continues to "bring it" then Portugal is dead meat.

Agreed: Portugal hasn't played as well as they can. Their games in Euro 2004 were more interesting (except against Greece). But they're in card trouble, remember. We didn't see Deco against England.

Agreed: more substitutions as the game goes into overtime. Heck, maybe even require a result for all games (including group and league play), but with extra subs in overtime. Eliminate the draw!

Agreed: elminate the penalty shootout. The analogy to a home run derby is excellent. How idiotic. I remember liking the old NASL style shootout (more a "breakaway" like in NHL hockey: five second time limit, player starts at the 40 and goalie on his line, one-on-one; five pairs, just like now). But then, I was a kid in junior high or younger when they were playing that thing. I remember old Winston DuBose, shootout king, of the Tampa Bay Rowdies. Few could beat him regularly. (PS -- keeper got field-wide handball privileges, not just limited to his box.) That was fun; but a bit North-American-silly.

Agreed: don't mess with the goal. That just changes SO much of the game, not just the number of goals or the attacks on goal. The striker positioning, corner kicks (everybody will be going for the "Olympique"), etc.

Agreed: he who is fouled, should take the PK. Definitely an intelligent addition. Why not add that to ALL fouls across the pitch? If your midfielder gets hacked at the center circle, he must strike the ball first. If your clumsy center back gets chopped right at the opposition's area, then he has to tap it across to Beckham, rather than Beckham prancing over to take them ALL. Kind of eliminates the "special moment" aspect of Beckham-style play; but also increases the "total football" that I love so much. And the opposition knows who NOT to foul! If you are incompetent at free-ks, you find yourself getting chopped a lot more! Just like closing minutes of basketball, don't hack the free-throw-expert.

Finally: I'm getting excited about soccer, again. Maybe I just had a virus ...

Best wishes. Vive la France! So much for South American teams. Whoever wins, the European Cups will remain as always a European winner (except 1958, BRA in Stockholm, perpetual homage to Pele`), and the American Cups have American winners. (And by the way Brasil also won in Asia, for whatever that's worth.)

Where is EURO-2008? I'm looking forward to it already!

BG

(Message edited by book_guy on July 02, 2006)

One more, from O Dia this time.

Euro in 2 years i think is co hosted by austria and switzerland. Euro groups are pretty easy, France could qualify by putting their under 21 team, that's how easy their group is.
Of course do not ever touch the goal size, anyone who has played will know, you hit it right you hit the top corner for a goal, you hit the ball wrong, it's a field goal.
The first round does not mean crap as there are not 32 good teams in the entire planet.
Here is my new theory, brasil peaked a year too early so coach felt obliged to stick with his team. So in reality Cafu, Ronaldo should not be starters. In 05 they beat Argentina 4-1 playing the beautiful game but did they really expect the euros to just lay down for the beautiful game?
Same thing maybe happended to France in 01, they thought they owned the world so 1-2-3 out in Korea in 02.
All of the 4 teams remaining had to fight to get there, even Italy vs USA then Australia.
Italy always loses on pks, germany never loses on pks. so how about Germany 0 - Italy 0, germany 5-4 on pks
Portugal has never reached the finals, thats their second semi final.
France always seems to eliminate Brasil. so why not Portugal too.
How about France 1 - Portugal 0?

I'm predicting France 2 Portugal 0, or (if Deco really brings it) then Portugal 3 France 0. Depends on the flow and attitude of the game. If the Portugal that showed up for the Euro-04 final shows up, then France wins. If the Portugal that CAN show up DOES show up (hello? Earth to Scolari ...), then Portugal wins.

And, I'm predicting (as is Athos) Germany over Italy in penalties. I'd say more like 3 - 0, last 2 pairs don't even have to shoot since Lehmann is unbeatable. I followed him since he was number 3 to Kahn and (erm, can't remember, some dude with a long-ass German name). Then he became a Gooner and, as a self-respecting Spurs fan, I had to dissociate myself entirely from him ...

The offsides rule is very easy - when the ball is passed, an offensive player must have 2 defensive players between him and the goal. Without the rule, offensive players would simply stand next to the goalie all day. With the offsides rule, the defensive team can send their fullbacks up the field, forcing the offensive team's forwards with them.

Its hard to spot a close offsides infraction in real time watching TV, but sometimes you notice that a player got the ball and they were all by themselves, and that is generally offsides.

I love the shootout. Takes a extra-long, boring game and gets the blood PUMPING. If you can't hack it under pressure, cry like a pussy all the way home.

The truly GAY rule, IMO is that a goal in "overtime" or whatever the hell they call it isn't sudden death.

Portugal played pretty well actually but were just unable to get a good bounce in the box.

Just as I thought, a major World Cup game decided by an acting dive and a penalty kick. Henry had his foot barely clipped and then he jumped(yes, jumped) to the side to make it look more sever to draw the penalty. And, of course, the corrupt South American referee(same one in the Holland game) decided it was time to stick it to Portugal.

Hate to see games decided by referees...I cant imagine how pissed Australia must be to see Italy go to the finals because of a dive by Italy and a penalty kick in extra time.

Italy Germany, one minute to penalties. What on earth? Well, Italy is certainly now the superior team left in the tournament, but never count out experience.

For Portugal France, we missed the first 20 mins of the second half here in flooded NOLa, because of power outages (seems even a minor thunderstorm is enough to bring down our portion of the grid), so it was kind of like recreating the experience of a typical Costa Rican or Guatemalan trying to watch the World Cup.

Yup, I think the Henry pen was a flop. But a well-done flop, something the ref could almost "not avoid" calling. One of those "he moves too fast for me to avoid looking like I'm fouling him" things.

And to Explorer, for explaining the offsides rule: gee dude, thanks, we couldn't have figured it out without you.

I am rooting for the french and this was a flop BUT the defender is a top pro, he should have known better than to invite the referee.
Portuguese kept flopping the whole game to get a make up call.
2 teams left, I am not seeing any goal in this final, maybe 1-0 either way or pks.
The bottom line whoever beats Brasil deserves to take the trophy home.
The wc was ruined by referees and acting....catch 22
But crap am I smiling seeing the germans cry...

Explorer,

Everyone I talk to gets afraid of the attackers leaving a guy permanently next to the goalie, but:

1. So what? That's man-on-man, and the goalie can suck it up.

2. If it becomes a problem, coin a new foul: goaltending (a la basketball). You can only be inside the 18 box for so many seconds without an attack.

The point though is that we (well, *I*) want to see more scoring. 120 minutes of play with no goals may be "beautiful" but at best it's an artistic abstract beauty. Boring, in other words.

DG

DG,

Without offsides, the offensive team wouldn't just sneak one guy down there, but sometimes 5 or 6, and the play of the game would suffer.

As far as a "3 second rule", with 22 players on the field, this would be a nightmare to officiate. Unlike basketball, where really only 2 or 3 offensive players would want to stand near the basket, in soccer, every player but the goalie can take advantage of position near the goal.

I don't want more goals. I like it fine just the way it is. You want dessert without the meal? Watch basketball -- thousands of meaningless points, and then ten seconds of frenetic meaningful activity (which the rules committees have wisely stretched into an unreasonable hour of playing time thanks to time-outs and other occasions for players to stop and get help from mommy because they can't do it on their own) crammed in to the end of the game.

Why would more goals necessarily equate to greater excitement? Why would fewer mean boring? I don't think that's the case. Nor do thousands of other knowledgeable fans. People who want soccer to be something that it isn't (bash'em up stupid North American marketing extravaganzas) can't understand that highlight moments aren't the only point of an athletic contest. NHL-style random goals? No thanks.

I do agree that some things can be improved. The refs even at the biggest tournament in the world still get offsides wrong. The overtime still seems unsatisfactory. Penalty shootouts are preposterous and misrepresentative. The 3-second thing is a bit cumbersome, but some other resolution may arise.

Here are other suggestions:

No more throw-ins. Instead, a five-second kick-in. You put the ball on the line and you have to whack it in to play immediately TO A TEAMMATE WITHIN TEN YARDS of the ball.

Short corners. When the ball goes off a defender out past the by-line (end-line), but crosses the by-line WITHIN the penalty area, the corner kick is taken on the by-line from the corner of the penalty area rather than from the corner of the field.

Time-based substitution increases. For each new overtime period, a right to use another substitute. In fact, add one for the first half of regular time and another for the second. And don't count goalkeeper changes against your total number of subs.

Keeper no holding. He can bat it away, he can punch it, he can save with his hands. But he can't pick it up, he has to dribble or clear it. Or bend over and swat at it percussively with his fists.

Timed yellows and reds. This would limit the diving and play-acting (I hope). Create a "half yellow" card -- say, green in color. One green means ten minutes in the penalty box, your team plays a man down. Second green equals a yellow, another ten minutes. Third green equals a red, another ten minutes and mandatory substitution. Or some similar arrangement.

Electronic ball location and instantaneous video replay for endline, sideline, and offsides calls. Identifies the ball position (and player position) for key calls, like "Cyclops" at Wimbledon.

Much bigger field. (Yes! Think about it.) You could all but eliminate the attacker's offside/onside requirement, if you made it such a long distance from him to his own goalie and defending teammates that accurate passes couldn't be made across the whole pitch. More running = more constant action.

Just some thoughts. Vive la France, allez les Bleus. Oranje forever.

I would like to see a pink card for flopping or diving.

Explorer,

I'm with you on that. I think the NFL does it right: if you interfere with the play of the game, you've got to go out.

Make being injured a 3 minute power play. If you can't stand up in 30 seconds, out you go for 3 minutes.

And yeah, the pink card just about gets it right.

DG

An hour before The Game, I predict ...

France 3, Italy 1. France scores first (Ribery or Henry, 35). Italy equalizes just before halftime (Del Piero, 45+). France blows them away with better midfield play in the second half (Henry 60), Italy almost catches them on several break-aways until the French defense figures it out. Late in the game they add another (Zidane 90+).

But Viera and several other French players find it bittersweet, since they'll be relegated when they get back to their clubs in Italy.

Zidane blew it.

One note: the French guy who missed the penalty kick was a last minute add to the French team, when Cisse got hurt.

My prediction was accurate for the first half, at least. Humph.

Strange ending. Zidane being an idiot, and a resolution on penalties? I can't really get my emotions to respond properly.

By the way, Explorer, I had understood that Trezeguet (the lone man to miss his PK) was a fixture on the French side and it was Djourassou who had been added when Cisse broke his leg.

But oh how they missed Pires!

Disappointing final. Best games were GER-ARG and GER-ITA. Klinsi!

This whole world cup was a black eye on the sport. Italy played poorly the entire tourney and their team was a giant traveling diving team, even worse than Portugal. They seemed to have at least 6 fullbacks most of the game. THIS IS NOT SOCCER.

I wanted Italy to win but France completely outplayed Italy at every level and the game has to be decided by home run derby(ie. penalty kicks). As soccer becomes global two things MUST change.

1. yellow cards for flopping

2. play until one team wins, even if they drop dead. Especially in the finals.

Zidane may have blown it, but the real tragedy is that the theme of this world cup was anti-racism and Italy may have well won this game by benefiting from a racial slur that provoked Zidane.

And I don't think Trez was Cisse's replacement. I believe that was Govou.

I'm guessing the "theme" (anti-racism) should have been part of FIFA's "special directives" to the referees, instead of all the other innocuous things that people got thrown out for.

Now that Zidane has received the best player award, we know that FIFA wants not only for referees to give out more cards, but also for players to receive more. I long for the days of Platini and Rummenigge...

France was the better team in that game. This was a very disappointing world cup.

For those of you who didn't see the Zidane incident...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bCZsIRQvxs&search=zidane

One thing I learned growing up, you dont insult algerians.

Recap: he insulted his mother but didn't mention terrorism.

Coupe de boule!

Forget conflict in the middle east -- here's more world cup controversy. Some very funny stuff here.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/13/zidane_headbutt_outrage/