The Soccer Thread (Version 13) — Winter World Cup Edition

It's amusing how many "fans" are blasting the U.S. for scoring only two goals in the group stage ... and are oblivious to the fact that they allowed ONE goal in the same span.

 

England had nine goals in its other two group matches and the US held them scoreless. That's a top class defensive performance by any measure.

 

Oh, while we're at it, I also had another Soccer Guru explain to me with some agitation that the offside rule could never be gotten rid of without destroying The Beautiful Game?

Why? Here's why. If the offside rule was ever abolished or significantly modified, offensive players would sprint all over the field wherever they wanted, teams would make long booming lead passes, and players would be storming in on the goaltenders for probably a dozen breakaway shots per game.

Patient and patterned midfield maneuvering and strategic passing would disappear from the game. Also with players making numerous 40-50 yard sprints in the course of the game, players would be exhausted if they had to play entire games.

All of this of course would mean the destruction of The Beautiful Game.

Oh, the Soccer Gurus I got this stuff from were European natives who had emigrated to the US, become soccer coaches when their kids neared high school age, begged for regular coverage from the newspapers, then when they got it, continually issued quotes about how stupid American sports reporters (ie, me) and sports fans could never understand the beautiful game.

 

Removing the offside rule in soccer is just as crazy as removing it from gridiron football or rugby or hockey.

 

Hockey's got an offside rule for pretty much the same reasons. Wouldn't be much fun to watch 60 minutes length of the ice passes either go for icing or easy breakaway goals.

 

Area man has thoughts on why world's most popular sport sucks.

 

You could flip this and say that the US should have scored more, too, and it should have, but it is pretty damn impressive that England did virtually what it wanted against the other two and couldn't against the US. Heck, England also gave up two against Iran. Flow of game is probably different with that many goals, but still.

It is also why I don't think it's a no-hoper against the Dutch. They scored five total goals in group play.

If the US could figure out how to finish, dare I say they might be a scary team.

 

From here on out, they might not need to finish. Just play a 120-minute (180 with this World Cup's stoppage time rules) scoreless draw and then win it in a shootout.

 

I don't understand the offside complaint. Because the US had a goal taken away by it (and it looked really close, but sports)? It is a fundamental aspect of the sport. It would completely change how it is played. As has been mentioned, it is similar in hockey. It's not like it's a crazy rule. So it should be changed just because some people who don't watch the sport really at all, and who don't like how little scoring there is, think it should be? It's not even a hard rule to understand or be in compliance of.

 

This Group C thing is kind of a tough call. Not really excited about the whole Saudi part of Saudi Arabia-Mexico, but an El Tri faceplant would be entertaining. But that could be curtains for Memo Ochoa's fantastic hair. So conflicted. What fun would it be if Mexico doesn't even make the Round of 16 to crap out inevitably? And then there's a chance Messi gets put out ... or Lewandowski?

 

There’s a possibility of a dead draw for second, right? Which would then go to total yellow cards to determine which team advances.

 

IMO bitching about offsides is really bitching about VAR, which is now technologically advanced enough to catch offsides situations invisible to the naked eye. I agree VAR, like all replay, is a curse, but we're all stuck with it, so it might as well be as accurate as possible.