Sorry, I'm not Russian to delete these posts.
OT: World Cup Open Thread to Entertain Us In the Runup to Bowl Season
- Thread starter NUCat320
- Start date
I guess Japan really is that good. That friendly against them doesn't sting quite as much anymore.
So Germany helps Spain by knocking out Costa Rica, but Spain doesn't return the favor and so Germany fails to advance. I may never fully appreciate the game, but the way they structure this tournament is fascinating!
At one point, when Costa Rica took a 2-1 lead over Germany, and with Japan leading Spain 2-1, both Germany AND Spain would've been knocked out. It was quite dramatic.
The friendly which you mention saw the USA outshoot Japan-oh wait, I forgot the USA did not have a shot on goal during the entire game. I get the impression that elite players think you have to dribble the ball into the goal, when in reality they have cannons on either foot, and a rocket from 20 yards can beat a goalie directly or by deflection, as easily as finessing short passes in the box
Ha... I feel that way watching Spain sometimes. If they don't score on some cute play that involves 200 passes first, they don't want it.
It's too bad Belgium's golden generation never led to any titles. I think the defenders never matched the incredible talent of De Bruyne or peak Hazard. Now they're old.
As an American citizen of Portuguese descent, I invite you to cheer for Ronaldo. He's a likeable dude
They are talking about expanding from 32 to 48 teams. TV audience baby.
They would be put in 16 groups of 3. With two advancing to an initial 32 teams knockout round.
I can see a lot of collusion without the last round of games being played at the same time.
They are also talking about having a penalty shootout BEFORE the group games to award bonus points. That seems wild. And a train wreck, that I am all for seeing it unfold.
Not only he was, imo, the best player on the pitch, but also he had this incredibly classy answer in a presser
https://reddit.com/r/interestingas*..._adams_us_captain_at_world_cup_response_when/
https://reddit.com/r/interestingas*..._adams_us_captain_at_world_cup_response_when/
PKs are the dumbest way to decide any match. Why not have a basketball overtime decided on free throws?
Like Churchill said about democracy "the worst form of government, except for all others"
I think this is the answer.... there just isn't a better way. In basketball, scoring is a frequent event so it is more likely that a tie will be broken after a couple overtime periods. In soccer, you could go long stretches (minutes, hours, days!!) without a goal being scored. And, from what I've seen, by the time you get to the extra time, the players are dead tired and so it makes it even less likely that a goal will be scored. There just isn't a better way to end it, even though it sucks.
Of course, I would argue that it's even dumber when a team wins 1-0 because they got a penalty shot in the game. I always thought it was weird that a penalty kick goal in the game counted as a goal scored for that player. Especially when that player isn't even necessarily the one who got fouled. At the very least, the penalty kick should have to be taken by the guy who got fouled - not just your best shooter. Imagine that in a basketball game!!
You could never try the hockey thing (still, I think) - where they reduce the number of players on-ice in OT. Just too big a field.
And, after 120 minutes, more playing time is just exhaustion.
Options:
Play straight, but mandate that the bench is cleared after 120 minutes. Play Golden Goal, but with fresh players.
Yank the goaltenders. Play either ten, or with an eleventh field player. In the case of a PK, a random field player can use their hands.
Trade corner kicks. NCAA-style sudden death.
Trade set pieces — say, any spot outside the 18. Play until clearance.
PKs are awful, and a letdown.
My favorite is a new game, with fresh players. Totally absurd.
After the first two rounds I thought Spain, France, Portugal and Brazil looked like the main contenders for the title. Not a big believer in England or Argentina.
3 of the 4 I mentioned lost their last group stage game. So, naturally, I believe Cameroon is going to beat Brazil.
3 of the 4 I mentioned lost their last group stage game. So, naturally, I believe Cameroon is going to beat Brazil.
I'd try all of those and see what happens. Just like I'd like to see the PK's before the game, just in case there is a need for a tie breaker. What chaos! Can you imagine being a coach and having to adjust between the PK's and the kick off depending on the PK's shootout? Madness, want to see it.
The problem I see with corners or set pieces is that they seem to end up being as, or nearly as, random as the PK's.
They've actually corrected for that at the World Cup this year, by adding on extreme amounts of time at the end of each half to ensure that a proper 90 minutes have been played, instead of 20 minutes being taken up by nonsense.
I believe that a goal is more likely to be scored when the players are tired. I would change the rules to physically drain the players, so that their skills in open spaces standout. I would allow an immediate throw or kick in from the sideline. Any player interfering with a kick in will draw a yellow card and 10 minutes in the sin bin. With the ball changing field position frequently the players will tire, increasing the likelihood of a score. Every kick in will be the equivalent of a corner kick, with chaos in the box.
Eliminating offsides entirely is another option or at least when the ball is played from inside the offensive zone
I believe it is possible that a World Cup winner might not actually "win" a game except by PK in the knockout rounds
I am mesmerized by the players' skills but would rather watch the grass grow than 100 square passes culminated by a pass back to the GK
Remember FIBA changed the rules of BB so let's experiment with rule variations in the MLS or college to see if the games are more entertaining
Summer's was a sports bar in Arlington VA that on Saturdays showed soccer and rugby in separate rooms. There was constant noise in the rugby section due to big hits and frequent scoring. Every once in awhile, there would be an explosion of noise from the soccer room, inquiries as to who scored were invariably answered "no , it was a shot on goal"
Eliminating offsides entirely is another option or at least when the ball is played from inside the offensive zone
I believe it is possible that a World Cup winner might not actually "win" a game except by PK in the knockout rounds
I am mesmerized by the players' skills but would rather watch the grass grow than 100 square passes culminated by a pass back to the GK
Remember FIBA changed the rules of BB so let's experiment with rule variations in the MLS or college to see if the games are more entertaining
Summer's was a sports bar in Arlington VA that on Saturdays showed soccer and rugby in separate rooms. There was constant noise in the rugby section due to big hits and frequent scoring. Every once in awhile, there would be an explosion of noise from the soccer room, inquiries as to who scored were invariably answered "no , it was a shot on goal"
Tell me which is a better way to break a tie in such a way that the winner earns the win 1) PKs or either 2a) no offsides called in extra time or 2b ) 9 v 9 in extra time 2c) no keeper in extra time 2d) some other modification to rules that isn't shooting free throws
Doing away with the offside rule is something every soccer fan thinks about at some point. There’s a reason it has never happened or even been seriously considered: the game is ugly without it. Players don’t play in the same positions if there’s no offside and the space behind the defense disappears. Believe it or not, it results in less chances of goal.
Having said this, slight changes to the rule have made an impact and should always be considered. These made a huge difference:
1) When I was a kid you were offside is you were not entirely behind two defenders. Now you only need to be in line.
2) Any player was considered to be offside, even if the player was, say, by the corner kick flag. Now the offside only applies if the player has a role in the play. That is if the ball is passed to him or if he interferes with a defender, goal keeper, etc
3) Offsides were called as they happened, resulting in plays being dead just to realize it was a mistake. Now the play continues and offsides are only called after
So I would not be surprised the rule evolves to any part of your body being aligned. Or not consider your whole body minus arms, but just the position of your feeet.
Other ideas are often floated around like no offsides in the last 1/4 of the pitch. But not seriously considered.
Bottom line is the offside is needed. And it’s way less frustrating now with technology. There were just so many refereeing mistakes before it came along.
Having said this, slight changes to the rule have made an impact and should always be considered. These made a huge difference:
1) When I was a kid you were offside is you were not entirely behind two defenders. Now you only need to be in line.
2) Any player was considered to be offside, even if the player was, say, by the corner kick flag. Now the offside only applies if the player has a role in the play. That is if the ball is passed to him or if he interferes with a defender, goal keeper, etc
3) Offsides were called as they happened, resulting in plays being dead just to realize it was a mistake. Now the play continues and offsides are only called after
So I would not be surprised the rule evolves to any part of your body being aligned. Or not consider your whole body minus arms, but just the position of your feeet.
Other ideas are often floated around like no offsides in the last 1/4 of the pitch. But not seriously considered.
Bottom line is the offside is needed. And it’s way less frustrating now with technology. There were just so many refereeing mistakes before it came along.
Things I’m thinking off right now:
USMNT has only allowed one goal and that was on an unnecessary penalty. Keep it up boys
USMNT has been significantly better in the first half than the second. In every single game. More so against Wales where I believe they really spent too much energy in the first. They paced themselves better in the next games and did not run out of as much gas.
USMNT has only allowed one goal and that was on an unnecessary penalty. Keep it up boys
USMNT has been significantly better in the first half than the second. In every single game. More so against Wales where I believe they really spent too much energy in the first. They paced themselves better in the next games and did not run out of as much gas.
Rumor - If the USA loses today a spot might open up for Alabama to sneak into the finals.
Van Gaal’s strategy was to sit back, invite the US to be dominating on the field. Like if The Netherlands were the underdog.
The US also tends to be an exception of how teams play behind the ball against opponents in theory stronger. So they were going to take that flow of game.
Advantage of Van Gaal’s strategy is opening up more space in between the lines of the US team and behind the defenders. It is working. Ugh
The US also tends to be an exception of how teams play behind the ball against opponents in theory stronger. So they were going to take that flow of game.
Advantage of Van Gaal’s strategy is opening up more space in between the lines of the US team and behind the defenders. It is working. Ugh
Similar threads
