meazza Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 The only problem I had was it looked like at the end of the game, the US was content to let the game end in a draw. No one was challenging until the Italians got into the US zone. I realize they must have been exhausted, but that was ridiculous... 710184[/snapback] That is because the Italians did something uncharacteristic. They took out a defence and put in a forward playing a 3-3-3 basically. I wish we would have scored
Peter Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 Regarding US soccer, we have come a long way. We are fun to watch. Our goalkeeping is world class. Yet, we just do not have the ball skills that the elite teams have. Watch Brazil and the Dutch, for example, and you will see. Our first touches are not particularly good. We are not able to control possession. Nevertheless, we have come a long way. We have some athletes who played their hearts out yesterday. It would have been nice to get the win, but the tie was very encouraging after that miserable performance against the Czech Republic.
Adam Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 I'm annoyed aby ESPN/ABC's coverage of the game. Criticizing the officials for a bad call is one thing, but thee guys need hanky's to wipe away the tears. This company has completely lost sight of the fact that they are expected to be professional about things. This isn't talk radio- they are expected to be objective, and just report....people can make their own conclusions, and those who aren't smart enough to do that shouldn't be watching TV by themselves anyways. Shame on ESPN and ABC....they've embarrassed us again.
meazza Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 I'm annoyed aby ESPN/ABC's coverage of the game. Criticizing the officials for a bad call is one thing, but thee guys need hanky's to wipe away the tears. This company has completely lost sight of the fact that they are expected to be professional about things. This isn't talk radio- they are expected to be objective, and just report....people can make their own conclusions, and those who aren't smart enough to do that shouldn't be watching TV by themselves anyways. Shame on ESPN and ABC....they've embarrassed us again. 710206[/snapback] Which calls did they criticize?
meazza Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 I'm annoyed aby ESPN/ABC's coverage of the game. Criticizing the officials for a bad call is one thing, but thee guys need hanky's to wipe away the tears. This company has completely lost sight of the fact that they are expected to be professional about things. This isn't talk radio- they are expected to be objective, and just report....people can make their own conclusions, and those who aren't smart enough to do that shouldn't be watching TV by themselves anyways. Shame on ESPN and ABC....they've embarrassed us again. 710206[/snapback] I'm guessing this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJCJKLSIUyE&search=mastroeni http://in.sports.yahoo.com/060608/137/64wwv.html
Ramius Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 I'm guessing this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJCJKLSIUyE&search=mastroeni http://in.sports.yahoo.com/060608/137/64wwv.html 710255[/snapback] I dont think ABC went overboard in the coverage. They questioned the yellow cards on totti and pope in the first half. They said the red card by the italian was deserved. In the second half, they were definitely against the 2nd yellow card issued to pope. they were going on how it was a relatively clean tackle, and it didnt deserve a card. But they also commented that since the ref was over-officiating sooo much, that pope should have been more careful, knowing that those ticky tack calls were going to get carded. But they were incensed at the red card against mastroeni. And they had every right to be. That card was the biggest bull sh-- makeup call. Did it deserve a yellow? probably. but a red? Hell no.
meazza Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 I dont think ABC went overboard in the coverage. They questioned the yellow cards on totti and pope in the first half. They said the red card by the italian was deserved. In the second half, they were definitely against the 2nd yellow card issued to pope. they were going on how it was a relatively clean tackle, and it didnt deserve a card. But they also commented that since the ref was over-officiating sooo much, that pope should have been more careful, knowing that those ticky tack calls were going to get carded. But they were incensed at the red card against mastroeni. And they had every right to be. That card was the biggest bull sh-- makeup call. Did it deserve a yellow? probably. but a red? Hell no. 710257[/snapback] The FIFA rulebook clearly states that a 2 foot tackle by the back is a direct red. It wasn't an intent to injure, but it was very late and sloppy. I've seen it called many times during European soccer matches and I wasn't surprised by it. De Rossi's was a straight red as well, and I was surprised that a player like him would do something like that. The ref though, was overofficiating, but it also as a result of the US team coming out hard. Everytime Toni had the ball, he would get clipped. The ref tried to get control of the game, and inherently lost control of the game. I know you may think my opinion is biased, but I wouldn't be upset if it happened to Italy. A tackle like that could destroy a players career.
Ramius Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 The FIFA rulebook clearly states that a 2 foot tackle by the back is a direct red. It wasn't an intent to injure, but it was very late and sloppy. I've seen it called many times during European soccer matches and I wasn't surprised by it. De Rossi's was a straight red as well, and I was surprised that a player like him would do something like that. The ref though, was overofficiating, but it also as a result of the US team coming out hard. Everytime Toni had the ball, he would get clipped. The ref tried to get control of the game, and inherently lost control of the game. I know you may think my opinion is biased, but I wouldn't be upset if it happened to Italy. A tackle like that could destroy a players career. 710258[/snapback] i see your point, i just dont agree with the rules i guess. (i played a few seasons of soccer in HS) Soccer has a lot of f'ed up rules that if removed, would make the game better. just a few: 1) yellow cards dont carryover to the next match. by far and away the most ridiculous rule. 2) I read your earlier post, but offsides is still very confusing. MAke it more clear cut. As well as screening the goalie. thats not interference, its a solid play to help your team score. Also, a question. If a player goes off due to injury, and they dont sub, their team plays down a player until the injured player can get back on the field?
meazza Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 i see your point, i just dont agree with the rules i guess. (i played a few seasons of soccer in HS) Soccer has a lot of f'ed up rules that if removed, would make the game better. just a few: 1) yellow cards dont carryover to the next match. by far and away the most ridiculous rule. 2) I read your earlier post, but offsides is still very confusing. MAke it more clear cut. As well as screening the goalie. thats not interference, its a solid play to help your team score. Also, a question. If a player goes off due to injury, and they dont sub, their team plays down a player until the injured player can get back on the field? 710259[/snapback] 1) They DO carry over. For example, if Donovan had gotten a yellow vs the Czechs, and a yellow vs Italia, he would skip the third game vs Ghana. It only gets cleared after the first round of the knockout stages. (I'm not 100% sure on the accuracy but it is something like this). 2) If a player is offside but is on the other side of the goalkeeper, (not screening) he is considered as passive offside. The goal will stand. If a player is in front of the net (like they do in hockey) it is considered offside and the goal will not count. It is due to interpretation by the referee, and so far I've seen it properly interpreted. The whole offside rule is to prevent players from staying in front of the net or near the net for a goal. If a team is good defensively, they will use the offside trap which means they will time themselves to put the attacking player offside when the pass is made. Italy uses this often and is a big reason why they are a good defensive team. Yes, if a player suffers an injury whether he breaks his leg or what not, he has to stay on the sidelines and most likely will be subbed. If there are no more subs, the team will have to stay without him. A big reason why the players get carried off the field. The ref wants it done in 30 seconds or less so that is the amount of time he will add in extra time. Often players will just be sprayed with novacaine and told to go back on. I agree with you about how some rule changes in soccer would inherently make the game more exciting to watch, but this is how the Europeans like it. The game on the field is exactly the same as it was 100 years ago.
meazza Posted June 18, 2006 Posted June 18, 2006 He Guys!You should all be proud of your team! Even if they don't pass the first round this is by far the best USA team i have seen play. In any other group team USA 'd pass that round easily. The 94, 98 and 02 teams were good classic northern european style soccer teams, this one has style, substance and heart, the whole package ! The progress made by american soccer is really impressive. You're not far from the best and in 4 or 8 years you could shake the world!!! And well it's not over yet!! Good luck for the Ghana game! and don't watch France tonight, this is too ugly to watch! I hope we lose and let the real teams play for the Cup! 710152[/snapback] I know how you feel. I feel the same way about the Azzurri. What a horrorshow yesterday. Now I must wait in anticipation for this game vs a very scary Czech Republic who had an embarrasing game. I was not meant to be a sports fan.
Pete Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 He Guys!You should all be proud of your team! Even if they don't pass the first round this is by far the best USA team i have seen play. In any other group team USA 'd pass that round easily. The 94, 98 and 02 teams were good classic northern european style soccer teams, this one has style, substance and heart, the whole package ! The progress made by american soccer is really impressive. You're not far from the best and in 4 or 8 years you could shake the world!!! And well it's not over yet!! Good luck for the Ghana game! and don't watch France tonight, this is too ugly to watch! I hope we lose and let the real teams play for the Cup! 710152[/snapback] He Olivier- Ce va? Thanks for the kind words towards team USA. You know your football. Whos gonna win? Sante!
Bill from NYC Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 Does England have a realistic chance to win the Cup? If USA is eliminated, they are far and away my second choice. After that, Argentina and Brazil, and I base this on the hot girls. To those of you who have never seen female Argentinian soccer fans, please accept my sympathies, because you are missing something truly beautiful.
meazza Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 Does England have a realistic chance to win the Cup? If USA is eliminated, they are far and away my second choice. After that, Argentina and Brazil, and I base this on the hot girls. To those of you who have never seen female Argentinian soccer fans, please accept my sympathies, because you are missing something truly beautiful. 710563[/snapback] England has a very good chance. Everyone seems to be clicking. Good defence, strong midfield and very talented attackers.
meazza Posted June 19, 2006 Posted June 19, 2006 http://www.wegaannaarduitslandtoe.nl/voetbalvrouwen.asp NSFW
Hardy Pyle Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Italy played like crap, but they proved that you can basically lose the battle of possession time and have your shots on goal limited and still win, as long as the other team can't finish worth a damn. Why is Landon Donovan even playing?? Can anyone really say that Freddy Adu wouldn't have done better than all but one or two of these guys? I get so frustrated watching this pinball passing crap every time they get in around the top of the box. Dempsey and Pablo both took shots, and Beasley had a nice ball, but that was it. Meanwhile there's Donovan sitting there taking part in these dinky passes that eventually get intercepted. That being said, he did play better than last game, but that's not saying much. The game was just as entertaining as it was frustrating, though....I just wish we'd have turned our edge in possession time into a couple more GOALS. 710035[/snapback] I'm not sure what game you were watching.....(and Adu is not near good enough to play on this level...same with the other striker. Eddie Johnson. His technique and touch are not up to par) Meanwhile, Arena has hailed Landon Donovan for his sensational performance in the dramatic 1-1 draw against Italy which featured three red cards.
Hardy Pyle Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Here's one more (and I don't even like him too much). But he impressed the snot out of me. 'Landon did things against Italy that I've never seen him do before,' Arena told ussoccer.com. 'He demonstrated to the world, and more importantly his team-mates, that he is a great player in any kind of game.'
meazza Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Here's one more (and I don't even like him too much). But he impressed the snot out of me. 'Landon did things against Italy that I've never seen him do before,' Arena told ussoccer.com. 'He demonstrated to the world, and more importantly his team-mates, that he is a great player in any kind of game.' 711762[/snapback] Maybe next time he'll get a shot on net
meazza Posted June 21, 2006 Posted June 21, 2006 Hup Holland! Hup! 711889[/snapback] This has been a nice game but it will finish 0-0. The real game is tomorrow. Winner advances, loser goes home and wonders what went wrong.
Recommended Posts