US SOCCER

[tribe_pride]

2-0.
So what's the soonest we could potentially play them? They look pretty tough right now...

3-0 Mexico.

Semis if things stand as is (meaning both teams finish 2nd in their group). They play Netherlands right now. If they make up the difference and finish 1st, they play Chile and we would have to win our group to be in the same 1/2 of the draw.

Mexico and Brazil would both be 2-0-1 and Brazil's goal differential is +4 and Mexico's is +4. Brazil also has more goals scored (6 vs. 4) so really Mexico needs to make up 1 goal on goal differential on Brazil to top the group. Can either be them scoring or Cameroon.

[dbackjon]

Brazil up 4-1 - they are pouring it on.

[dbackjon]

Croatia scores. Mexico needs a miracle to win group now.

[tribe_pride]

Back to 3-1 Mexico so will finish with

Brazil - win group and plays Chile in the 16 - winner likely to play (Uruguay or Italy) vs. Columbia winner in the QFs
Mexico - 2nd and plays Netherlands in what should be a great matchup (If Costa Rica wins its group, they could be the QF matchup.
Croatia - 3rd and had it tough after the opening game where they got screwed
Cameroon - Last in group and joins Australia for last overall in the tourney with 0 points.

[clenz]

Seriously, just leave this thread.

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

It happens in MLB games and NBA games. I've also seen it at NHL and NFL games - though not as frequently as soccer.

Part of it is that in these countries (every one except America) these clubs have academies starting at 7 or 8 years old where they *sign* these kids and they go to the soccer academy and work their schooling around that.

Many of the kids are from the academies.

[93henfan]

Did not know Pete Rose was coaching the Mexicans.

[Skjellyfetti]

haha el piojo is the shit. dude is intense as hell.

https://vine.co/v/MtAhnv0TaYA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Grizalltheway]

http://www.mlssoccer.com/worldcup/2014/ ... -ever-espn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bandl]

Holy shit, almost 1100 posts! How pissed is BDK going to be when he finds out?!?!

[Ivytalk]

Mexicans rioting in the streets of LA after their latest win.

Where are those INS gendarmes when you need them? Talk about shooting pescados in a barrel...

[93henfan]

Mexicans rioting in the streets of LA after their latest win.

Where are those INS gendarmes when you need them? Talk about shooting pescados in a barrel...

I like to rib the full-time soccer fans, but I first became a part-time soccer fan during the 98 World Cup when I lived in SoCal. I was in Tijuana (yeah, it was still safe to go there in 98) on one of the days that Mexico played. About 15 minutes before the game started, the streets became all but deserted. I had been trained that if you are ever in a foreign place and everyone suddenly disappears, something is about to blow up.

Anyway, yeah, they take their soccer pretty seriously.

[CID1990]

Mexicans rioting in the streets of LA after their latest win.

Where are those INS gendarmes when you need them? Talk about shooting pescados in a barrel...

INS doesnt exist anymore. 9/11 killed it

allow me to introduce you to its larger, more bureaucratic and highly inefficient replacement, USCIS.

[Ivytalk]

Mexicans rioting in the streets of LA after their latest win.

Where are those INS gendarmes when you need them? Talk about shooting pescados in a barrel...

INS doesnt exist anymore. 9/11 killed it

allow me to introduce you to its larger, more bureaucratic and highly inefficient replacement, USCIS.

Thanks for the update. But it would have been a field day for the immigration cops and a disaster for landscaping businesses across the city.

[clenz]

"The US is known to give all they have in every single game, otherwise Mexico wouldn't be here." Jurgen Klinsmann


SHOTS FIRED MOTHER FUCKERS

[CAA Flagship]

I brought up my dislike for the offsides rule earlier. It's not that I hate the rule as much as I think it is too difficult to correctly call as a referee. And with such a limited number of shots on goal, it is a tragedy when the referee calls offsides when it isn't. Was Dempsey offsides on his goal yesterday? I'm sure Portuguese fans are saying he was. It was so close and could have been called either way when looking at it live.

I suggested earlier that a hockey line would be more appropriate but it was suggested that the placement of the line would be too difficult as it would restrict breakaways. After watching some games, I agree, and am now back to my original thinking from decades ago that the offsides rule should be completely wiped out. In order to do this, there is definitely one thing that has to happen. An area immediately in front of the goal would have to be designated as a "no enter" zone, unless you have the ball, to give the goalie some room to operate. I think that if you take the rule away, you would remove the group of 4-5 defenders that typically sit in the middle of the field about 15 yards in front of the goal. I think this would open up the middle more giving the opportunity to get more shots on goal. In basketball, the baseline area outside the key on each side of the basket is called the "dock". A defender can't closely guard a player in the "dock" and be in position to help defend in the middle also. When compared to basketball, what soccer lacks in controlling the ball on offense (feet vs. hands), it has a tremendous advantage with space because of the size of the field. By allowing the offense to set up in the "docks", the defense will have to position themselves to guard them and, because of the size of the field, it would remove them from a help defense position. This is how I see the middle opening up more.

Now that is worse than to move the offsides line up. With no offsides, defense will stay back and there will be no breakaways. Your no-enter zone completely and materially changes the sport. As I said before, there are 2 ways goals are scored. Set pieces and breakaways. Set pieces normally have people in front of the goal who can get their head or feet on it to put it in. Breakaways come in 2 fashions. 1 is down the middle which is not effected by your rule. The other is bringing down the side and passed to the middle then put in. You would not be able to score that way. In fact, none of the 4 goals from the US game yesterday would have been allowed by your rule and only the Dempsey goal in the first game would work.

How far does your zone extend? Not sure how far your no-enter zone would be but your way would make the sport more individualized rather than team oriented and will leave goaltenders helpless. Teams would isolate players on one side of the zone and have them work one on one. These guys can place shots well enough when going one on one that the keeper would almost be useless out there.

By the way, correct call on no offsides. If you freeze the attached at the 23 second mark, you can see Dempsey is clearly on side. The sideline official, like normal, was in perfect position on the far side. You can see him moving into position in the 5-10 seconds before up top. If you wanted to do a replay for offsides, I'd be in favor of that.

When the average score of a pro soccer match is 2-1, leaving goaltenders helpless should be a focus. But quite honestly, they are pretty much helpless anyway. They have very little lateral or vertical distance they can cover on most shots because it happens so fast. The only time a goalie can prove his worth is when he decides to either come out of the net to catch or punch a pass, or not. Nobody ever blames a goalie for a hard shot on goal. If there is any criticism, it would come if they decided to stay in the net, like the last two goals in the USA-Portugal game (I'm not criticizing here, I'm just saying they had a choice to defend either the shot or the pass).

In a sport where the ball is controlled with your feet, rather than either with your hands or with a stick as an extension of your hands, the defense already has "a leg up" (pun intended). Goals are so celebrated because the sport is too defensively lopsided. The sport needs to evolve to showcase offensive talent, and not give you 90 minutes of "defense by rules".

So I like the idea of instant replays on offsides. This would, at least, eliminate a tragedy. But there still has to be a way to increase scoring.

[kalm]

Now that is worse than to move the offsides line up. With no offsides, defense will stay back and there will be no breakaways. Your no-enter zone completely and materially changes the sport. As I said before, there are 2 ways goals are scored. Set pieces and breakaways. Set pieces normally have people in front of the goal who can get their head or feet on it to put it in. Breakaways come in 2 fashions. 1 is down the middle which is not effected by your rule. The other is bringing down the side and passed to the middle then put in. You would not be able to score that way. In fact, none of the 4 goals from the US game yesterday would have been allowed by your rule and only the Dempsey goal in the first game would work.

How far does your zone extend? Not sure how far your no-enter zone would be but your way would make the sport more individualized rather than team oriented and will leave goaltenders helpless. Teams would isolate players on one side of the zone and have them work one on one. These guys can place shots well enough when going one on one that the keeper would almost be useless out there.

By the way, correct call on no offsides. If you freeze the attached at the 23 second mark, you can see Dempsey is clearly on side. The sideline official, like normal, was in perfect position on the far side. You can see him moving into position in the 5-10 seconds before up top. If you wanted to do a replay for offsides, I'd be in favor of that.

When the average score of a pro soccer match is 2-1, leaving goaltenders helpless should be a focus. But quite honestly, they are pretty much helpless anyway. They have very little lateral or vertical distance they can cover on most shots because it happens so fast. The only time a goalie can prove his worth is when he decides to either come out of the net to catch or punch a pass, or not. Nobody ever blames a goalie for a hard shot on goal. If there is any criticism, it would come if they decided to stay in the net, like the last two goals in the USA-Portugal game (I'm not criticizing here, I'm just saying they had a choice to defend either the shot or the pass).

In a sport where the ball is controlled with your feet, rather than either with your hands or with a stick as an extension of your hands, the defense already has "a leg up" (pun intended). Goals are so celebrated because the sport is too defensively lopsided. The sport needs to evolve to showcase offensive talent, and not give you 90 minutes of "defense by rules".

So I like the idea of instant replays on offsides. This would, at least, eliminate a tragedy. But there still has to be a way to increase scoring.

I think that last Portuguese goal came at the 4:29 mark.

[tribe_pride]

Now that is worse than to move the offsides line up. With no offsides, defense will stay back and there will be no breakaways. Your no-enter zone completely and materially changes the sport. As I said before, there are 2 ways goals are scored. Set pieces and breakaways. Set pieces normally have people in front of the goal who can get their head or feet on it to put it in. Breakaways come in 2 fashions. 1 is down the middle which is not effected by your rule. The other is bringing down the side and passed to the middle then put in. You would not be able to score that way. In fact, none of the 4 goals from the US game yesterday would have been allowed by your rule and only the Dempsey goal in the first game would work.

How far does your zone extend? Not sure how far your no-enter zone would be but your way would make the sport more individualized rather than team oriented and will leave goaltenders helpless. Teams would isolate players on one side of the zone and have them work one on one. These guys can place shots well enough when going one on one that the keeper would almost be useless out there.

By the way, correct call on no offsides. If you freeze the attached at the 23 second mark, you can see Dempsey is clearly on side. The sideline official, like normal, was in perfect position on the far side. You can see him moving into position in the 5-10 seconds before up top. If you wanted to do a replay for offsides, I'd be in favor of that.

When the average score of a pro soccer match is 2-1, leaving goaltenders helpless should be a focus. But quite honestly, they are pretty much helpless anyway. They have very little lateral or vertical distance they can cover on most shots because it happens so fast. The only time a goalie can prove his worth is when he decides to either come out of the net to catch or punch a pass, or not. Nobody ever blames a goalie for a hard shot on goal. If there is any criticism, it would come if they decided to stay in the net, like the last two goals in the USA-Portugal game (I'm not criticizing here, I'm just saying they had a choice to defend either the shot or the pass).

In a sport where the ball is controlled with your feet, rather than either with your hands or with a stick as an extension of your hands, the defense already has "a leg up" (pun intended). Goals are so celebrated because the sport is too defensively lopsided. The sport needs to evolve to showcase offensive talent, and not give you 90 minutes of "defense by rules".

So I like the idea of instant replays on offsides. This would, at least, eliminate a tragedy. But there still has to be a way to increase scoring.

I wrote 2 paragraphs on why the no zone idea was bad and you focused on 3 words. I almost didn't put those in because of your possible response and that it was not really necessary for the point. You also didn't respond to how big you want this no enter zone to be and how it would be overcome by everything else I said.

As to your first paragraph, even if you take out your first sentence, you are wrong and shows that you have little idea of what a good goaltender can do. The keeper is like a QB for the defense. You may not be able to see it but they do a lot more than you know such as organizing the defense and being the field general. They are the one player who can see the entire field throughout the game. The goalie is helpless at times (as is any other player) but most times they make things look easy because of good positioning which takes time to learn. It's not just come out or not or punch or catch. And there has been plenty of blame on some of the goaltending this WC. Some great plays by others but there have been some criticisms outside of what you said.

[89Hen]

"The US is known to give all they have in every single game, otherwise Mexico wouldn't be here." Jurgen Klinsmann


SHOTS FIRED MOTHER FUCKERS

[CAA Flagship]

When the average score of a pro soccer match is 2-1, leaving goaltenders helpless should be a focus. But quite honestly, they are pretty much helpless anyway. They have very little lateral or vertical distance they can cover on most shots because it happens so fast. The only time a goalie can prove his worth is when he decides to either come out of the net to catch or punch a pass, or not. Nobody ever blames a goalie for a hard shot on goal. If there is any criticism, it would come if they decided to stay in the net, like the last two goals in the USA-Portugal game (I'm not criticizing here, I'm just saying they had a choice to defend either the shot or the pass).

In a sport where the ball is controlled with your feet, rather than either with your hands or with a stick as an extension of your hands, the defense already has "a leg up" (pun intended). Goals are so celebrated because the sport is too defensively lopsided. The sport needs to evolve to showcase offensive talent, and not give you 90 minutes of "defense by rules".

So I like the idea of instant replays on offsides. This would, at least, eliminate a tragedy. But there still has to be a way to increase scoring.

I wrote 2 paragraphs on why the no zone idea was bad and you focused on 3 words. I almost didn't put those in because of your possible response and that it was not really necessary for the point. You also didn't respond to how big you want this no enter zone to be and how it would be overcome by everything else I said.

As to your first paragraph, even if you take out your first sentence, you are wrong and shows that you have little idea of what a good goaltender can do. The keeper is like a QB for the defense. You may not be able to see it but they do a lot more than you know such as organizing the defense and being the field general. They are the one player who can see the entire field throughout the game. The goalie is helpless at times (as is any other player) but most times they make things look easy because of good positioning which takes time to learn. It's not just come out or not or punch or catch. And there has been plenty of blame on some of the goaltending this WC. Some great plays by others but there have been some criticisms outside of what you said.

I didn't comment on the "no offsides" thing because I am deferring to your understanding of the game since you think it is so important. I said that I would be satisfied with a replay review since I feel that the call is too difficult to make on the field, and a bad call is terrible for the sport.

I didn't mean to over simplify the role of a goalie. I was just talking about the ability to block a shot. Once the ball is kicked, there is little reaction time. And many times, the goalie guesses in one direction or another to gain what little advantage he can. But it is still a pre-shot guess. The true read and reaction seems to come when he has to decide to go after the pass or stay in the goal.

So why is the scoring so low if the goalies have so little reaction time? Not enough shots on goal. The rules are too defensive minded. The superstars of the sport are the elite strikers. But if there was a way to open up the scoring opportunities, the skills of the "other" players could be put on display, and the elite strikers would shine even brighter. There seems to be so much money being left on the table because of the lack of offense.

Just about every major sport has recognized that more scoring opens up more interest to fans, especially American fans. Basketball added the three point shot, baseball made the ball livelier, hockey now allows the two line pass, and football has adjusted rules to benefit the offensive passing game. If soccer wants to truly gain a foothold in America (and it should because of the economic power this country has), it will need to do something to increase scoring from 3 gpg to 5 gpg. But how?

[tribe_pride]

I didn't comment on the "no offsides" thing because I am deferring to your understanding of the game since you think it is so important. I said that I would be satisfied with a replay review since I feel that the call is too difficult to make on the field, and a bad call is terrible for the sport.

I didn't mean to over simplify the role of a goalie. I was just talking about the ability to block a shot. Once the ball is kicked, there is little reaction time. And many times, the goalie guesses in one direction or another to gain what little advantage he can. But it is still a pre-shot guess. The true read and reaction seems to come when he has to decide to go after the pass or stay in the goal.

So why is the scoring so low if the goalies have so little reaction time? Not enough shots on goal. The rules are too defensive minded. The superstars of the sport are the elite strikers. But if there was a way to open up the scoring opportunities, the skills of the "other" players could be put on display, and the elite strikers would shine even brighter. There seems to be so much money being left on the table because of the lack of offense.

Just about every major sport has recognized that more scoring opens up more interest to fans, especially American fans. Basketball added the three point shot, baseball made the ball livelier, hockey now allows the two line pass, and football has adjusted rules to benefit the offensive passing game. If soccer wants to truly gain a foothold in America (and it should because of the economic power this country has), it will need to do something to increase scoring from 3 gpg to 5 gpg. But how?

Got it with the offsides.

As for the ability to block a shot, I would say 90% of it has to do with positioning, 10%, if that, has to do with the rest including reflexes. If you are just guessing, percentages to save drop big time which is why it's rare to see a PK saved. In the normal course of action, the goalie will try to position themselves well (learned by making mistakes). If players are coming off of center (rare to see coming straight in), it's generally better to protect the inside post as that is the quickest and easiest place to score and you have more time to go to the outside if the shot goes that way.

Some shots (like Jermaine Jones' goal) are not going to be saved because they are too good. And Dempsey's goal in the Portugal game was a no chance for the goalie because the goalie has to play the shot there. Otherwise, he is giving the passer (don't remember who that was) an open shot at the goal if he plays the pass.

My question to you though is do you think that soccer has the ability to get to join the Big 4 sports in popularity in the US? If not, I don't think the US will really become the big market to focus on. The big thing the other sports have going for them is that the best players in the world come here to play. That isn't true in soccer and I don't think will ever be true in soccer because we can't afford to pay those salaries. The last US soccer league that tried that became bankrupt.

ManU (who won) had a payroll of about $250 million in 2012-2013. ManCity (who was 2nd) had a payroll of about $300 million. Liverpool (who finished 7th) was about $180 million. Aston Villa (who finished 15th) was about $110 million the same year. Tottenham (who finished 5th) was at $135 million. We can't compete for those players so we won't get the players which does not allow the sport to grow as much here as otherwise.

[93henfan]

Am I supposed to be reading all these long-assed posts?

[GannonFan]

Just about every major sport has recognized that more scoring opens up more interest to fans, especially American fans. Basketball added the three point shot, baseball made the ball livelier, hockey now allows the two line pass, and football has adjusted rules to benefit the offensive passing game. If soccer wants to truly gain a foothold in America (and it should because of the economic power this country has), it will need to do something to increase scoring from 3 gpg to 5 gpg. But how?

I'd argue that soccer already has a pretty good foothold in America. This isn't the late 80's/early 90's anymore - MLS is in it's 21st year or so and is still expanding teams and looks pretty solid financially.

As for the scoring, maybe there's a way to get to 5 gpg, but then you also run the risk of seeing multiple games where you exceed that number, and possibly by a lot. I don't see the value in a 6-3 soccer game and I don't see how that's going to make more people watch it (which also ignores the fact that plenty of people watch it now at the 3gpg average).

[Ibanez]

Am I supposed to be reading all these long-assed posts?

tl;dr

[GannonFan]

My question to you though is do you think that soccer has the ability to get to join the Big 4 sports in popularity in the US? If not, I don't think the US will really become the big market to focus on. The big thing the other sports have going for them is that the best players in the world come here to play. That isn't true in soccer and I don't think will ever be true in soccer because we can't afford to pay those salaries. The last US soccer league that tried that became bankrupt.

ManU (who won) had a payroll of about $250 million in 2012-2013. ManCity (who was 2nd) had a payroll of about $300 million. Liverpool (who finished 7th) was about $180 million. Aston Villa (who finished 15th) was about $110 million the same year. Tottenham (who finished 5th) was at $135 million. We can't compete for those players so we won't get the players which does not allow the sport to grow as much here as otherwise.

I would actually argue that soccer has already surpassed hockey as the 4th major sport in the US (which isn't all that hard to do, considering the Big 3 - baseball, basketball, and football, are significantly ahead of the 4th anyway). And it's going to continue to be that way. Like it or not, the "browning" of America isn't going to stop, and there's going to be more and more of a Latin component to America, and with that comes soccer. Just look at the ratings for the World Cup - ESPN is doing great with the numbers, getting 3-5 million for the bigger name games, and for those same games, Univision (spanish speaking network) is getting 5-7 million. That's still 8-12 million Americans watching it (and that doesn't count the mobile app watching which adds another million or so). Hockey would die to get numbers like that. Heck the LA/NYR Stanley Cup Finals didn't come close to those numbers and those are the two biggest markets in America. I'd say it's passed hockey.

But I think that's where it stays. Football isn't going to decline anytime soon and is better for tv than soccer, basketball has the pro and college angles to it so it's pretty strong, and baseball is a way of living almost and it also appeals to the increasing Latin culture so it's going nowhere.

[clenz]

Just about every major sport has recognized that more scoring opens up more interest to fans, especially American fans. Basketball added the three point shot, baseball made the ball livelier, hockey now allows the two line pass, and football has adjusted rules to benefit the offensive passing game. If soccer wants to truly gain a foothold in America (and it should because of the economic power this country has), it will need to do something to increase scoring from 3 gpg to 5 gpg. But how?

I'd argue that soccer already has a pretty good foothold in America. This isn't the late 80's/early 90's anymore - MLS is in it's 21st year or so and is still expanding teams and looks pretty solid financially.

As for the scoring, maybe there's a way to get to 5 gpg, but then you also run the risk of seeing multiple games where you exceed that number, and possibly by a lot. I don't see the value in a 6-3 soccer game and I don't see how that's going to make more people watch it (which also ignores the fact that plenty of people watch it now at the 3gpg average).

This.

It might sound great to say "score more and more fans will watch" - has that worked for the NHL? Not really. Soccer isn't easy to score, that's a large part of the draw to many fans. It takes work on an individual and a team level. Would I like to see less 0-0 or 1-0 games? You bet. Do I want to consistently see 3-3, or higher games, no.

The "sweet spot" for goals in a soccer game is about 3 or 4. I could *maybe* be pushed into saying a 3-2 game on a consistent basis is better but I'm not sure.


Having said all of that baseball scoring has gone way down and so has the fanbases.


Though, internationally soccer doesn't give a fuck what Americans think.