WORLD CUP 2010

Happy hour starts in 5 minutes
Right now, England is looking outclassed by the Germans-maybe they can pull a second-half change of face.
 
The officiating is just getting worse and worse. England got robbed of a goal this morning and now Argentina gets a gift of one with a player obviously off sides. I fail to understand why the world puts up with this "that's futbol" attitude when technology could help out with some of this ridiculousness.
 
I wonder if the sheer number of bad decisions especially on allowing or disallowing goals might instigate some sort of public outcry? If it happens during the finals and costs a team the game it may do just that.

In spite of the "gimme" goal-Argentina looks really good-they attack well and the ball handling by Messi is just fun to watch.
 
Neophyte said:
The officiating is just getting worse and worse. England got robbed of a goal this morning and now Argentina gets a gift of one with a player obviously off sides. I fail to understand why the world puts up with this "that's futbol" attitude when technology could help out with some of this ridiculousness.
Click to expand...

I understand FIFA's desire to keep technology out of the game. Soccer is a very fluid game, they do not even stop the clock for injuries. Unlike the other major sports like for instance Basketball which is similar in style, in that you maneuver for a goal, there are few breaks or stoppages in time that would lend itself to the use of technology. They do not want to lose the flow of the game. Unfortunate in some instances, but I understand their desire to keep replay out.

Now, with a situation like we just saw in the Argentina v. Mexico game, there was enough time to have the 4th official which was instituted because of the Henry incident, make a quick call. But what about a close offside call where there was no goal scored? Are you supposed to have that replayed too? Should every close foul be subjected to a thorough examination from an official in a booth? Look at the delay in football. They have learned to take adbvantage of it with more commercial time. Is this something we should see in Soccer? I don't think so.

Here's a scenario for you: What if there was an offsides call that was not made? The shot was taken the goalie stopped it and they pushed the ball forward and scored a goal at the other end. Should that play be reviewed? The referee in soccer is given the lattitude to over look a foul if it is to the team who was fouled's advatage to not have the call made. Technology threatens that subjectivity which is a huge part of the flow of a game.

It is a fine line Neo. On one hand there are certain situtaions that warrant a quick look, but where is that line drawn? I think that is what FIFA officials are battling and once this World Cup is over, they will be forced to face.
 
I am not talking about a blanket use, Brian. I agree, in a sport where the clock never stops it is necessary to be concerned with the flow of the game and not change it's most basic nature.

Having said that, they could use "live" technology at the goal line to determine if the ball crosses the line without having to resort to instant replay.

I think were I to be in charge I would do something similar to the NFL system where not everything is reviewable, the coaches would have one challenge a game or a half and all goals would be subject to a quick review. A system like that would have fixed both the non-Goal in the England/Germany game this morning and the Argentinian goal with the man off sides this afternoon.

In neither instance would it have even impacted the play of the game.
 
Last edited:
Neophyte said:
I am not talking about a blanket use, Brian. I agree, in a sport where the clock never stops it is necessary to be concerned with the flow of the game and not change it's most basic nature.

Having said that, they could use "live" technology at the goal line to determine if the ball crosses the line without having to resort to instant replay.

I think were I to be in charge I would do something similar to the NFL system where not everything is reviewable, the coaches would have one challenge a game or a half and all goals would be subject to a quick review. A system like that would have fixed both the non-Goal in the England/Germany game this morning and the Argentinian goal with the man off sides this afternoon.

In non of those cases would it even impact the play of the game either.
Click to expand...


I think you're right. I guess the traditionalist in me and FIFA would like to see purity in the game remain. Unfortuantely, with technology exposing every human error made in this World Cup, both FIFA and I are going to have to accept the inevitable. There is going to have to be a system in place. My only hope is that it is as limited as possible.
 
I dont' think - overall - that the officiating has been that glaringly awful. Seriously. You could point to any weekend of NFL football and find just as many 'controversial' decisions. Bad decisions in the NFL are only slightly mitigated by instant replay, which although better than nothing, produces it's own share of bad decisions.

There have been, no doubt, plenty of bad calls in the 2010 World Cup, but generally, the teams that have deserved to win, won (including Ghana vs. the US, and Germany vs. England). I really don't see the outcry. Even in the US-Algeria game, the truth is, had the US taken advantage of a number of opportunities the blown call wouldn't have mattered. Not to excuse blown calls, but they happen, and great teams don't decry them, but make them inconsequential.
 
I think you are right so far, Boone. The correct team has moved on in all or nearly all cases (I think the US was the better team in the Ghana game but they failed to prove it so Ghana deserves to move on). I also think it is only a matter of time before one of these calls keeps the better team from moving on.

Consider the Chile/Spain game on Friday. The ref started the game pulling Yellows left and right for things that had been let go for the first two weeks of the tournament. The announcers, neither tied to either team in terms of nationality, were a bit stunned. Then later in the game he pulled a second yellow on a Chilean player for something that was obviously accidental and away from the ball so the ref did not clearly see it. The Chileans played the rest of the first half and all of the second half down a man. Prior to that, they were making a real game of it but after, it was obvious it just wasn't going to happen.

I don't know if Chile or Spain is the better team. I suspect Spain is but I can tell you that until they went a man done on a bad call, they were giving Spain all Spain could handle.

I think my problem with the bad officiating in Soccer is that it can dramatically impact the outcome and it is easily fixed, especially where goal scoring is concerned. One ref and two linesmen are just not enough to see all the action when there are 24 men on the pitch. Not when they have to watch the ball and all sorts of stuff is happening away from it.
 
I know I'm late, but I have to agree with Om. The US has no finishers. If they ever hope to compete at the world level, we need another Brian McBride, or another few Landon Donovans. Or a Jozy Altidore that knows what to do with the ball when it counts.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
I know I'm late, but I have to agree with Om. The US has no finishers. If they ever hope to compete at the world level, we need another Brian McBride, or another few Landon Donovans. Or a Jozy Altidore that knows what to do with the ball when it counts.
Click to expand...


After watching the Argentina and Mexico game today, it is obvious the U.S. is still a good ways away from the elite in the world. Those two teams played soccer with the fluidity of elite teams, crisp passing, quick runs, movement away from the ball to create space, putting the ball exactly where it needed to go in most cases, delievering blistering shots on target, the game was non-stop action.

The U.S. has proven they can compete and made a good run of it in this World Cup, but I think are they have yet establish themselves in that upper echelon once again. With a win against Ghana, a game I feel they should have won, they could have done that. Landon Donovan, even though he puttered out at the end of the Ghana game, proved to be a world class player. Other than that, no one on offense showed they have the killer instinct Om was speaking of.
 
Also, another major reason is we just aren't as skilled with the ball as the other teams. You watch Mexico, Argentina, Germany, etc. they all pass to/along the backline pretty much with impunity. Ghana attacked as soon as we passed, and our guys weren't skilled enough to one-touch pass it away, or dribble around them, and it led to turnovers.
 
Pretty good write-up of the USA's performance at the World Cup from Michael Davies, ESPN soccer blogger:

Sunday, 2:05 p.m. Hollywood Center Studios, Edit B.

It is not easy to both edit a television show and watch 120 minutes plus of a World Cup game but somehow I managed it. And when all is said and done, I'm not sure what I actually achieved by doing so. Everything negative I feel is cancelled out by everything positive I feel. And everything positive by everything negative I'm left feeling.

Saturday's U.S. game leaves me staring at, metaphorically speaking (because I never drink enough), a giant half glass of water. It is labeled:

How to View the Performance of the U.S. at this Year's World Cup of WiffleSoccerParity

Is it half full or half empty? Because I am English, let's start with the negative.

The U.S. blew a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make it to the semifinals.

Ghana is ranked 32nd in the world according to the FIFA rankings. Uruguay, who the U.S. would have met in the quarterfinals, is ranked 16th. Yes, the Soccer Power Index ranks both teams higher, but there is no doubt that the "funny corner" of the draw in which the U.S. (ranked 14 in the FIFA rankings) found itself -- no Brazil, Argentina, Holland, Spain, Portugal or Germany to face until the semifinals -- presented an almost unprecedented, and unlikely to be repeated, opportunity. Furthermore, Ghana was without its most celebrated player, Michael Essien, who was so influential in Ghana's controversial victory over the U.S. in Nuremberg in 2006.

If the U.S. also lost to Ghana 2-1 in 2006, how can this 2-1 loss possibly indicate progress? Yes, it's a round later. Yes, the U.S. had to play Ghana on its home continent. Yes, it went to extra time. But it was still Ghana -- a country the size of Oregon. And without Portland.

The U.S. conceded yet another early goal.

At a certain point this stops being about conceding early goals, and starts becoming about conceding too many goals. The U.S. has had one clean sheet in its past 14 matches (against Algeria -- thank you, crossbar). And according to the popular narrative, the U.S. has one of the best goalkeepers in the world. What does that say about the defending? How many goals would the U.S. concede with one of England's keepers in goal?

Not one of the Americans' five goals was scored by a striker.

Landon Donovan, right midfield, three goals. Clint Dempsey, left midfield, one goal. Michael Bradley, defensive midfield, one goal. Maurice Edu, defensive midfield, one disallowed goal. Jozy Altidore, Robbie Findley, Herculez Gomez, Edson Buddle, forwards, zero goals, nul points, nada, zilch, zippo. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Emile Heskey. And Altidore has some Heskeyish qualities -- size, strength and perhaps more speed than Heskey ever had as a young man. But at his first World Cup (2002) Heskey scored against Denmark and was England's best player against Brazil. He scored 21 goals for Liverpool in a single season in 2001-02. Altidore scored twice for Hull City this past season. Until he proves he can score at the top level, he does not score at the top level. And until the U.S. has a top-level striker like Luis Suarez, David Villa or Gonzalo Higuain, the Americans can not expect to go very far in a World Cup.

Dempsey and Donovan scored four out of the five U.S. goals at the World Cup.

Clint and Landon will be 31 and 32 at the next World Cup. Perhaps not past it. But no longer in their primes.

The U.S. played two good halves of soccer in two weeks, six bad halves and two poor extra-time halves.

Second half against Slovenia. Second half against Ghana. Other than that, and this is harsh I know, they were either neutralized or outplayed. OK, Algeria just sat back. And Landon's injury time goal was the moment of the tournament. But this team has not looked as good as Ghana looked Saturday at any time in the tournament. And this is Ghana we're talking about. The 32nd-ranked team in the world, playing without its best player.

What do all these new U.S. fans focus on now?

Because they are in neither South America nor Europe, there is no significant tournament for the Americans to compete in until 2014. And don't talk to me about the CONCACAF Gold Cup or the Confederations Cup because nobody cares. Even qualifying games in CONCACAF, save for the games against Mexico, are tough to get too excited about. This is something that really hurts the U.S. Too few genuinely competitive matches. Too easy a route to qualifying. The reality is that some of these fans will get into Major League Soccer. A few more, perhaps, will start watching EPL games on ESPN and Fox. Most will drift away from the game until 2014.

Final thoughts ...

Donovan is world class.

Tim Howard will still be in his prime next World Cup.

Altidore has potential.

Michael Bradley, Maurice Edu are good for the future. Maybe Jose Torres, Findley and Benny Feilhaber.

Role players -- Carlos Bocanegra, Steve Cherundolo, Jay DeMerit -- might not be around but show the U.S. is developing more players.

Whole country felt pain.

Somewhere, some kid watched that game and thought, I can be the striker the U.S. is looking for at the 2018 World Cup.

ESPN has committed to this World Cup and made it fantastic -- that will massively spur the game on in this country.

Please bring U.S. national team games back to the big cities.
Click to expand...

Click link for the rest of the article.
 
servumtuum said:
This ought to create some interesting fall-out. FIFA might just be setting themselves for some unwanted public ridicule. Probably not the most well-thought-out response imaginable.
Click to expand...


Guys, I think it is important for you to consider that FIFA is the epitome of the good ole' boy system. They will fight tooth and nail to preserve what they have. I am not saying it is right, but look at the Henry situation last year. If that is not enough eveidence that FIFA cares little about popular opinion I don't know what is.
 
Brazil up 3-0 on Chile-and they seem relaxed while doing it.

Damn.
 
An example of what the elite teams have that the US does not: Brazil's second goal today.

Beautiful centering pass to Kaka, who's first touch threads the Chilean defense right to Fabiano. The goalie comes out to challenge - at this point, the US striker would most likely panic, and kick the ball right at the goalie. Maybe we score, maybe it goes right into the goalie's hands. Fabiano, however, deftly dribbles around the goalie, then easily taps the goal into the empty net.

You can watch it here:
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=264112&cc=5901&ver=us
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top