US SOCCER

[Grizalltheway]

If we make it to the round of 16 we're automatically the 16th best at minimum

Yeah, but that would only be true if they seeded 1-32. According to the world FIFA world rankings I saw last week Germany was #2 and #Portugal #4. If they seeded top 8 you wouldn't have 2 top 8, much less 2 top 4, in the same group. How did they come up with the groups? Just randomly draw names?

The teams that qualify out of their regions are randomly drawn into groups, and the FIFA rankings are more meaningless and worthless than a preseason FCS poll.

[Grizalltheway]

No kidding. I mean to **** awat the PL title that way...wow.







I have no idea what the PL title is or who the **** Crystal Palace is. Sounds like a shitty casino in Reno. Meh.

1st thought that comes to mind on here is Patriot League, which has always been referred to as PL on here and AGS. Plus I sort of live in PL territory. Maybe it's an ECB thing...

English Premier League.

[Grizalltheway]

More in-depth explanation of the process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup_draw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[∞∞∞]

So...

For US to advance a win, a draw and Portugal win by less than 5, a draw and a Ghana win by less than 2 or a loss and a draw for Portugal and Ghana

Am i missing something?

yes you are missing that this tie means Klinsmann does a handshake with Germany, agrees to a tie, and we both go through

FIFA says it takes match-fixing seriously...

...but in reality, FIFA is a corrupt sports organization that takes little to nothing seriously.

We're safe.

[Grizalltheway]

Yeah, the only thing they're truly worried about is filling their coffers.

[tribe_pride]

If we make it to the round of 16 we're automatically the 16th best at minimum

Yeah, but that would only be true if they seeded 1-32. According to the world FIFA world rankings I saw last week Germany was #2 and #Portugal #4. If they seeded top 8 you wouldn't have 2 top 8, much less 2 top 4, in the same group. How did they come up with the groups? Just randomly draw names?

Seedings were done with last October rankings and the draw was done shortly thereafter. The top 7 seeds plus the hosts are considered seeds. Germany was the 2 seed and believe it or not Brazil was the 11 (but as host became a seed) and Portugal was 14.

The host gets screwed when it comes to FIFA rankings because tournaments are big for ranking purposes. Because the host gets an automatic bid, they don't get the big bonus points for the World Cup qualifying for ranking purposes. Most people don't think the ranking system is very good.

The seeds were put in pot 1
Pot 2 was Africa, South American teams not ranked, and 1 European team (drawn at random first - which would up being Italy)
Pot 3 was Concacaf and Asia (so we can never play an Asian team unfortunately)
Pot 4 was European teams not ranked (minus the one European team picked randomly for Pot 2)

Each group has a team out of each pot. Only caveat was that Italy in Pot 2 was not allowed to be with a European seed so they automatically wound up against one of the 4 South American seeds in this case Uruguay

[BDKJMU]

Is it considered a 95' game? Or is it still a 90' game with time adjusted for "stoppage"? And if you want to call it a 95' game, shouldn't you consider the time that was added in the first half, or did the second half start at something like 48'?
Can someone that speaks without using their hands (see what I did there?) explain the correct way to describe the game?

It's a 90 minute game with stoppage added on....which is why goals scored in stoppage read 90+5 not 95. Just as a first half stoppage goal is 45+whatever minute it was.

The second half starts at 45:00

There was 2 minutes in the first half. So he'd have to call it a 97 minute game. Also the whistle didn't blow until about 47:38 in the first half and about 95:09 in the second. So it was really a 97:47 game

Here's a novel idea. Just stop the damn clock when the ball goes out of bounds, during injury, or substitution. Restart it when play resumes. SIMPLE. Then you have a 90 minute game.none of this 94-98 minute BS..

[∞∞∞]

Yeah, the only thing they're truly worried about is filling their coffers.

FIFA is a "non-profit" that has billions in their coffers...and they justify it by saying it's a rainy day fund. Because the most popular sport in the world needs a rainy day fund.

[BDKJMU]

Yeah, but that would only be true if they seeded 1-32. According to the world FIFA world rankings I saw last week Germany was #2 and #Portugal #4. If they seeded top 8 you wouldn't have 2 top 8, much less 2 top 4, in the same group. How did they come up with the groups? Just randomly draw names?

Seedings were done with last October rankings and the draw was done shortly thereafter. The top 7 seeds plus the hosts are considered seeds. Germany was the 2 seed and believe it or not Brazil was the 11 (but as host became a seed) and Portugal was 14.

The host gets screwed when it comes to FIFA rankings because tournaments are big for ranking purposes. Because the host gets an automatic bid, they don't get the big bonus points for the World Cup qualifying for ranking purposes. Most people don't think the ranking system is very good.

The seeds were put in pot 1
Pot 2 was Africa, South American teams not ranked, and 1 European team (drawn at random first - which would up being Italy)
Pot 3 was Concacaf and Asia (so we can never play an Asian team unfortunately)
Pot 4 was European teams not ranked (minus the one European team picked randomly for Pot 2)

Each group has a team out of each pot. Only caveat was that Italy in Pot 2 was not allowed to be with a European seed so they automatically wound up against one of the 4 South American seeds in this case Uruguay

That sounds more messed up than the old I-AA playoff seedings for 16 teams when they only seeded 1-4. It would make much more sense and be far simpler to simply seed #1-32 using the FIFA rankings at the time.
Group with #1, #16, #24, #32
Group with #2, #15, #23, #31
Group with #3, #14, #22, #30
Group with #4, #13, #21, #29
Group with #5, #12, #20, #28
Group with #6, #11, #19 #27
Group with #7 #10, #18, #26
Group with #8, #9, #17, #25

Round of 16 & qtr finals group with #1 seed is paired up with group with #8 seed. Same with #2 & #7 seeds, #3 & #6, #4 & #5.

Semis would have it if top 4 seeds advanced it would be 1 vs 2 and 3 vs 4.

If that had been done using the rankings at the time according to the wiki link above US group would have been #4 seed Columbia, #13 seed US, #21 seed (22nd ranked) Ecuador, and #29 seed (49th ranked) Iran.

Simple. I have just solved the clock problem and the unevenness of the groups. All from a guy who watches a handful of World Cup games every 4 years.

[Skjellyfetti]

Here's a novel idea. Just stop the damn clock when the ball goes out of bounds, during injury, or substitution. Restart it when play resumes. SIMPLE. Then you have a 90 minute game.none of this 94-98 minute BS..

Pretty much what college soccer does.

And, the clock ticks down like 'Muricans are used to.

[CitadelGrad]

Here's a novel idea. Just stop the damn clock when the ball goes out of bounds, during injury, or substitution. Restart it when play resumes. SIMPLE. Then you have a 90 minute game.none of this 94-98 minute BS..

Pretty much what college soccer does.

And, the clock ticks down like 'Muricans are used to.

It's unfortunate, even tragic, that most "Muricans aren't nearly as sophisticated as you are.

[tribe_pride]

Seedings were done with last October rankings and the draw was done shortly thereafter. The top 7 seeds plus the hosts are considered seeds. Germany was the 2 seed and believe it or not Brazil was the 11 (but as host became a seed) and Portugal was 14.

The host gets screwed when it comes to FIFA rankings because tournaments are big for ranking purposes. Because the host gets an automatic bid, they don't get the big bonus points for the World Cup qualifying for ranking purposes. Most people don't think the ranking system is very good.

The seeds were put in pot 1
Pot 2 was Africa, South American teams not ranked, and 1 European team (drawn at random first - which would up being Italy)
Pot 3 was Concacaf and Asia (so we can never play an Asian team unfortunately)
Pot 4 was European teams not ranked (minus the one European team picked randomly for Pot 2)

Each group has a team out of each pot. Only caveat was that Italy in Pot 2 was not allowed to be with a European seed so they automatically wound up against one of the 4 South American seeds in this case Uruguay

That sounds more messed up than the old I-AA playoff seedings for 16 teams when they only seeded 1-4. It would make much more sense and be far simpler to simply seed #1-32 using the FIFA rankings at the time.
Group with #1, #16, #24, #32
Group with #2, #15, #23, #31
Group with #3, #14, #22, #30
Group with #4, #13, #21, #29
Group with #5, #12, #20, #28
Group with #6, #11, #19 #27
Group with #7 #10, #18, #26
Group with #8, #9, #17, #25

Round of 16 & qtr finals group with #1 seed is paired up with group with #8 seed. Same with #2 & #7 seeds, #3 & #6, #4 & #5.

Semis would have it if top 4 seeds advanced it would be 1 vs 2 and 3 vs 4.

If that had been done using the rankings at the time according to the wiki link above US group would have been #4 seed Columbia, #13 seed US, #21 seed (22nd ranked) Ecuador, and #29 seed (49th ranked) Iran.

Simple. I have just solved the clock problem and the unevenness of the groups. All from a guy who watches a handful of World Cup games every 4 years.

Because different regions' teams only play each other so much, I think part of the idea is to prevent a group being solely or primarily all from 1 region. They way the draw is done ensures that. By the way, if you want to snake the seeds like you did, the region with 8 and 9 would also have 24 and 25 not 17 and 25

The biggest problem is that the current ranking system sucks.

[CAA Flagship]

Is it considered a 95' game? Or is it still a 90' game with time adjusted for "stoppage"? And if you want to call it a 95' game, shouldn't you consider the time that was added in the first half, or did the second half start at something like 48'?
Can someone that speaks without using their hands (see what I did there?) explain the correct way to describe the game?

It's a 90 minute game with stoppage added on....which is why goals scored in stoppage read 90+5 not 95. Just as a first half stoppage goal is 45+whatever minute it was.

The second half starts at 45:00

There was 2 minutes in the first half. So he'd have to call it a 97 minute game. Also the whistle didn't blow until about 47:38 in the first half and about 95:09 in the second. So it was really a 97:47 game

Thanks clenzy, that's what I figured.


This clock thing makes me batshit crazy to the point of wanting to strangle nursing homers.

[clenz]

Up until 96, or so, no one knew how much stoppage time was to be as the ref didn't have to twll anyone. I think the first major tournament ro show stoppage was the 96 euros

[CAA Flagship]

Seriously, just leave this thread.

Seriously they don't do it in any other major sport I know of. I am seriously asking why.

Of all the screwed up things about soccer, THIS is what concerns you?

Little League championship teams have taken the field with their closest Major League team for the national anthem at a game sometime after the LLWS ended. And my son's team went on the field with a minor league team in Richmond for the national anthem. It's supposed to be a thrill for the kids and adds to the pageantry of the event.

[89Hen]

Seriously though, imagine LeBron on the pitch

You ever watch Pros vs Joes and see how unathletic some of the superstars actually are?

At least he'd be able to flop.

[89Hen]

Taylor Twellman just tweeted that added time was 4 minutes until Zusi walked slowly on his sub. The official then added another minute because he didn't run.

Fucking Zusi.

That's some bullshit. In the Argentina/Iran game, after Messi's goal in stoppage time Argentina subbed for a guy in the far corner of the field and wasted a full two minutes. No time added.

[Ibanez]

Seriously though, imagine LeBron on the pitch

You ever watch Pros vs Joes and see how unathletic some of the superstars actually are?

At least he'd be able to flop.

LeBron flop? He cant tolerate a cramp.

[89Hen]

soccer is definitely a weird game as far as timekeeping goes. They don't actually stop the clock when they stop play (except for end of halves), but instead the ref arbitrarily throws a number out towards the end of each half for how much longer past 45/90 minutes that they'll play. And even then, I believe they won't actually whistle the half/game over if a team is deemed to be still on the attack.

strange.

That being said, the arbitrary number was 5 minutes, and the US decided to only play for 4:45 or so

IMO the more weird part is that the ref usually waits for a developing play to end before blowing the whistle. Imagine a team running on the field without any timeouts to kick a game winning FG and the refs allowing them to kick it even after they've reached 0:00. It's these little things that drive many Americans nuts, including me.

[tribe_pride]

soccer is definitely a weird game as far as timekeeping goes. They don't actually stop the clock when they stop play (except for end of halves), but instead the ref arbitrarily throws a number out towards the end of each half for how much longer past 45/90 minutes that they'll play. And even then, I believe they won't actually whistle the half/game over if a team is deemed to be still on the attack.

strange.

That being said, the arbitrary number was 5 minutes, and the US decided to only play for 4:45 or so

IMO the more weird part is that the ref usually waits for a developing play to end before blowing the whistle. Imagine a team running on the field without any timeouts to kick a game winning FG and the refs allowing them to kick it even after they've reached 0:00. It's these little things that drive many Americans nuts, including me.

By many Americans, you mean those that don't follow soccer except for every 4 years. For those of us who have played it since we are young, it is something that you are used to and no big deal. Remember that it is a running clock at all times so it's always an approximation.

[89Hen]

By many Americans, you mean those that don't follow soccer except for every 4 years.

Correct. I was talking about 92% of Americans.

[CAA Flagship]

IMO the more weird part is that the ref usually waits for a developing play to end before blowing the whistle. Imagine a team running on the field without any timeouts to kick a game winning FG and the refs allowing them to kick it even after they've reached 0:00. It's these little things that drive many Americans nuts, including me.

By many Americans, you mean those that don't follow soccer except for every 4 years. For those of us who have played it since we are young, it is something that you are used to and no big deal. Remember that it is a running clock at all times so it's always an approximation.

IMO, Soccer (whatever professional organization you want to use) is making an economic mistake by not handling the time differently. I feel as though this is a slap in the face of Americans. One would think that hooking the American fan would be a top priority because of the economic power that American fans, and American corporations, have. But it is as if they are saying "Fuck You, take it or leave it". It just does not make good business sense if they were trying to grow the sport.

The guy who holds the sign up for additional time can be seated at a table instead and just stop the clock. I can understand if you don't want to stop the clock when a ball goes out of bounds, but stop it when there is someone hurt or if you have a water break. If the ball goes out of bounds, there should be a 10 or 15 second rule for getting it back in, similar to basketball. The ref can simply do a count in his head.

I understand tradition, but I don't understand how this issue can be considered "tradition". Other sports have made major rules changes in an effort to make the game more exciting (DH in baseball, shot clock and 3 point shot in basketball, 2 point play in football, etc.). Handling the clock differently is not nearly as big a change as those.

[tribe_pride]

By many Americans, you mean those that don't follow soccer except for every 4 years. For those of us who have played it since we are young, it is something that you are used to and no big deal. Remember that it is a running clock at all times so it's always an approximation.

IMO, Soccer (whatever professional organization you want to use) is making an economic mistake by not handling the time differently. I feel as though this is a slap in the face of Americans. One would think that hooking the American fan would be a top priority because of the economic power that American fans, and American corporations, have. But it is as if they are saying "**** You, take it or leave it". It just does not make good business sense if they were trying to grow the sport.

The guy who holds the sign up for additional time can be seated at a table instead and just stop the clock. I can understand if you don't want to stop the clock when a ball goes out of bounds, but stop it when there is someone hurt or if you have a water break. If the ball goes out of bounds, there should be a 10 or 15 second rule for getting it back in, similar to basketball. The ref can simply do a count in his head.

I understand tradition, but I don't understand how this issue can be considered "tradition". Other sports have made major rules changes in an effort to make the game more exciting (DH in baseball, shot clock and 3 point shot in basketball, 2 point play in football, etc.). Handling the clock differently is not nearly as big a change as those.

But if it is the biggest and most popular sport in the world, why make this change to appease a sector where it will never be more than the 4th or 5th biggest sport at best? It doesn't materially change the game like the examples you listed above and would do nothing for the excitement level. Everyone knows what is going on. It's not that big of a deal. Not sure why it is a slap in American's face. Growing up, all American youth leagues play by these rules and we have always been fine with it. Some upper level leagues change the timing in the US we all grow up playing the international way.

As it is now, if there is too much of a delay in getting the ball back in, the ref has the opportunity to give a yellow card and I have seen it happen in the past. Nobody has delayed throwins (or goal kicks) by enough from what I have seen this WC to warrant a yellow.

[bluehenbillk]

IMO Bradley is getting a bad rap. If you want to blame someone I'd blame Cameron - directly responsible for both of Portugal's goals. The 1st was a physical mistake - maybe you can't kill him for that as even "own goals" happen in soccer. But the 2nd goal was a mental mistake - everyone knows from watching real football that the golden rule is you can't let a guy get behind you. it should be even easier in soccer with the offside rule but no matter how good a pass Ronaldo makes the defender - Cameron has to be in better position to take the header away, especially with the game situation.

Disclaimer - I watched about 40 minutes of the game yesterday which more than doubled my World Cup viewing to date, also surpassing the total soccer time I've watched since the 2010 World Cup.

[tribe_pride]

IMO Bradley is getting a bad rap. If you want to blame someone I'd blame Cameron - directly responsible for both of Portugal's goals. The 1st was a physical mistake - maybe you can't kill him for that as even "own goals" happen in soccer. But the 2nd goal was a mental mistake - everyone knows from watching real football that the golden rule is you can't let a guy get behind you. it should be even easier in soccer with the offside rule but no matter how good a pass Ronaldo makes the defender - Cameron has to be in better position to take the header away, especially with the game situation.

Disclaimer - I watched about 40 minutes of the game yesterday which more than doubled my World Cup viewing to date, also surpassing the total soccer time I've watched since the 2010 World Cup.

You are right. Bradley screwed up bad on that one play and that cost the US the win (in part) but he generally played a good game and was able to control the ball a lot better than he did in the Ghana game (though that was not hard). He should have had a goal earlier in the game which was saved by a defender on the line and helped to setup the 2nd goal by taking the initial shot that was deflected to a teammate.

The goat of the game was Cameron who was bad on both goals against. He played very well outside of those 2 plays but as a defender, you can't make that mistake.

Howard did not have his best of games either. Can't blame him on the goals but he got lucky on a few other plays and saved himself on the second shots.