It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
We are 100 days out of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.
I'm pretty excited. Even though USA is in a group of death if we can make it out we have a good shot of going beyond the first round of elimination. We've got a strong team and a good chance of doing better than any other cup.
fujaromefan presence means little to nothing. Brazil had the entire country behind them and look what happened.
I dunno about that. I think for Brazil it was just too much. Everyone was telling the players they were going to win and putting crazy, unrealistic expectations on them to the point where the some of the players themselves truly believed that they had been put here on earth by god to win this world cup, so when it started going wrong they had no idea what to do.
RVP and De Jong in for the Dutch. Aguero out for Argentina, not that he was ever very likely to start.
ChrisMcCandlessMascherano looks completely out of it.
Either some good acting or he should not be back out there.
Also who saw Messi dive into the air when Martins Indi cut off his path? Absolutely ridiculous, why wouldn't he try to run around him rather than just go down?
Fun_dipAlso who saw Messi dive into the air when Martins Indi cut off his path? Absolutely ridiculous, why wouldn't he try to run around him rather than just go down?
Da fuq? He was completely blocked off. Sarcasm, I hope? Indi's entire purpose was to make sure Messi couldn't run around him...
The way it's going, it looks like either a Holland goal or penalties - which are a complete crapshoot.
Holland is defending incredibly well, and Argentina are just getting away with enough on defense to prevent anything - that and kuyt/sneijder keep sending crosses into fucking orbit...
dont give me some bullshit "theyre too tired to keep playing its not fair'
Hockey games are 60mins of non-stop action, sure a player only plays 1-2 mins but theyre literally exerting all of their energy to skate with all their shit on. Then, they play as long as they have to until the game is settle. Mind you this is only in the playoffs, but it makes sense. Why wouldn't that happen in the world cup? Please explain to me why my statement was so appalling.
dont give me some bullshit "theyre too tired to keep playing its not fair'
Hockey games are 60mins of non-stop action, sure a player only plays 1-2 mins but theyre literally exerting all of their energy to skate with all their shit on. Then, they play as long as they have to until the game is settle. Mind you this is only in the playoffs, but it makes sense. Why wouldn't that happen in the world cup? Please explain to me why my statement was so appalling.
That is the exact excuse we will use. Using hockey as an example is HORRIBLE. Let us look at the differences between hockey and soccer.
1. Field Size- Hockey is 200 ft long. Soccer has a pitch that can vary between 100m to 130m. That is 330 to 430 feet long.
2. Game Length-60 minute regular time vs. 90 minute regular time. OT periods for hockey are 20 minutes and for soccer it is 30. It would take hockey 3 OT periods to meet a regular soccer game in terms of length.
3. Subs-Hockey has unlimited subs while soccer has 3. You lose a player to injury after those subs and you are screwed. You have to be strategic in their use.
4.Distance-Hockey players seem to average between 2-4 miles a game. Soccer players can average between 6-8 miles depending on their position.
5.Rest-Hockey players have about 15 minutes between periods, allowing for a total of 30 minutes rest. Soccer players get 15 minutes the entire game.
6. Conditions-I won't claim to know anything about how hot hockey players get, but they do not play in 90 degree heat.
dont give me some bullshit "theyre too tired to keep playing its not fair'
Hockey games are 60mins of non-stop action, sure a player only plays 1-2 mins but theyre literally exerting all of their energy to skate with all their shit on. Then, they play as long as they have to until the game is settle. Mind you this is only in the playoffs, but it makes sense. Why wouldn't that happen in the world cup? Please explain to me why my statement was so appalling.
Because hockey goes to a shootout after 5 minutes of overtime. I assume you were talking about the playoffs in which it's endless OT. But goals are more likely to come in hockey than soccer so PK's is fine. I prefer the old golden goal style to 30 whole extra minutes though.
.MASSHOLE.That is the exact excuse we will use. Using hockey as an example is HORRIBLE. Let us look at the differences between hockey and soccer.
1. Field Size- Hockey is 200 ft long. Soccer has a pitch that can vary between 100m to 130m. That is 330 to 430 feet long.
2. Game Length-60 minute regular time vs. 90 minute regular time. OT periods for hockey are 20 minutes and for soccer it is 30. It would take hockey 3 OT periods to meet a regular soccer game in terms of length.
1. Rink is 200 ft long. Whoops.
2. It would take hockey 3 OT periods to meet an OT soccer game in terms of length.
You cannot expect soccer players to run close to a half marathon at high speeds while attempting to cut, dribble, shoot, and cross.
Did you watch any of the OT games? Did you see how poor the play got by 120 minutes? Players could hardly shoot the ball, make a run, dribble like they normally do. It would amount to ugly soccer.
The reason they don't is because the clubs would freak out as it could lead to injury. Soccer being as lucrative as it is on a club level would never allow star players on a national level to do such a thing.
In the eyes of FIFA, what you're saying is basically like saying "there should be minor league style fighting in olympic and IIHF hockey tournaments"
I totally agree with you, Evan.. that should be the case, but also know that Soccer is one of the more adaptable sports - you implement that, and it's going to become less a sport of scoring goals (or lack-thereof, if you will), and more a sport of who can out-kenyan the other team with endurance - whether you'd like to believe it or not, soccer doesn't always focus it's main attention at scoring goals from a tactic standpoint - sometimes it's as if scoring is a side-effect of soccer amongst the tacticians involved.
For whatever reason, in this sport, the side of caution is taken far too often by the top sides. The entertainment you get from that of the USA rolling the dice and throwing in the chips on a counter attack is rarely seen from the Catanaccio style of the Elite teams in both international, and club levels - especially when you get to the knockout phase and either a 1-0 win is what matters, and most teams go full-defense in the aftermath of a goal.
You replace the penalties with having to continue on forever until somebody scores, and sides are going to field much much different players - rather than fielding those with ball skill, they're going to field guys with endurance. Fifa, being less interested in change than Bud Selig, or the Catholic Church, is never going to go that route - even though it would be far more interesting (and probably lead to more commercials, if you take intermission every 20 minutes like in hockey) - they're just stupid enough to never want that.
I mean, Fifa took out the sudden death extra time (golden goal) after 2002 (probably because Italy lost to Korea, and they flipped out), in favour of mandatory 15 minute halves.
Though, in some instances it makes it more interesting (USA vs. Belgium would have sucked a lot more without a full ET period), for the most part, it takes away the whole point of overtime if you compare it to every other international sport - and that's just a taste of why FIFA sucks. You institute a sudden death, and game winning heroes will be made. But without it, you're more likely to have penalty shootouts (Imagine if the USA scored a 2nd ET goal and it went to Penalties - we would be happy, I guess, but the game's ultimate decision would have been worse than impregnating your cousin.
golden goal was awesome. maybe I only like it because the French definitely benefited from it the most, but it was a great concept. Most games ended up being a balls to the wall madness of attacks.
Plus the Euro2000 final was one of the most dramatic finals ever thanks to it.
fujaromegolden goal was awesome. maybe I only like it because the French definitely benefited from it the most, but it was a great concept. Most games ended up being a balls to the wall madness of attacks.
Plus the Euro2000 final was one of the most dramatic finals ever thanks to it.
^it wasn't just the French. It made teams finally play for a fucking winning goal, rather than to not lose. Every extra time game was thrilling with the golden goal, regardless. Rarely is extra time worth a damn since (Belgium-USA being one of the rare exceptions)
Argentinas defense had not a problem with one of the greater attacking forces in the WC. I knew they would play a better defensive game than people expected, but damn.... Mascherano and romero, game of there lives. But there is no way that game should have went into extra time. Higuain was plenty on sides.
