The Soccer Thread (IV)

Indeed.

And this:

"If I didn’t think that USA had the potential to win every game they play then how could I even consider myself a supporter? "

I think it's easy to be a supporter and have little faith in your team's ability to win a certain game. I guess it's because A. I'm an Oakland Raider fan and B. I've followed the national team since the 1980s, and that includes a long period of knowing the team would get its hats handed to them almost every time out.

I think what makes me a supporter is the fact that the results don't affect my support of them. I hope they do well in every game, but . . . .

I agree that they SHOULD win in Honduras. As Trooper points out, Honduras will be missing some players, and the U.S. should be at full strength. And a full-strength U.S. team is superior to a Honduras. But this group . . . still looking for that elusive 90-minute effort. Spain and Egypt were great, but two games out of, what, 10 this year? That just doesn't cut it.

birdscribe: People are always firmly convinced it's all there for the Lions. And something always happens.

 

This is true. But Spain, among others, will be saying exactly the same thing. England need to defend better than they have the past few games. They're still making stupid mistakes, and those will be punished in the latter stages of a World Cup. More to the point, they won't be able to paper over the mistakes by scoring three, four, five goals a game.

But the fact that it'll be winter in South Africa, meaning it'll be rather cold and possibly rainy, can't possibly hurt.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think we play the B team vs Honduras. You play to qualify, not to finish first.

 

Why? If you cede the Honduras game, you're putting all your chips on getting a result against Costa Rica. A month is plenty of time for a team like the Ticos to get its house in order, and likewise there's no guarantee Honduras (or the US, for that matter) will be as good as it is now come October.

With this US team's habit of starting slow and/or giving up early goals, the last thing you want is to be tied or trailing at halftime vs. Costa Rica and have World Cup qualification one defensive slip-up or Peter Prendergast Moment (TM) from slipping away. Just because the US is playing at home doesn't mean three points are a sure thing.

If there are points to be won, you try to win them. There's no point limiting your ambitions to three points when six are on offer.

 

Another reason I think you don't play the B team against Honduras - goal difference. While not likely, it is possible if Costa Rica ties T&T and then beats the United States, the USA and Costa Rica will be tied and you put it in the hands of goal difference. Should the USA play the B team in Honduras, it's possible you could see and ass-whipping.

 

I'll agree to disagree, but I want my A team to get a tie at home. If we don't have Landon, we're a shit side with no creativity.

 

Agreed. Throw everything at Honduras. Everything.

 

Landon has now gone at least two games without a card.
Don't those cards ever get wiped away after a guy stays clean a while? I know that happens in leagues.

 

I wasn’t trying to question you, Piotr. I was just giving my take on it. I do recall the lean years (I grew up in Kearny). But that doesn’t change the way things are now. The US is a better team. I believe they can win.

I don’t believe that the slate is ever wiped clean.

 

Brazil is better and has been able to win the competition on neutral ground (Mexico, USA, Japan).

 

Is there any point in playing the World Cup in 2014, or should we just give the damn thing to Brazil, since they're hosting?

 

They lost last time they hosted.