The Soccer Thread (IV)

I don't understand this type of thinking. Why give yourself one shot instead of two? Anything can happen in one game.

 

Tell that to the Germans.

 

After reading Simon Kuper's excellent analysis in his new book Why England Lose, I'm confident England will win jack shit on neutral ground.

 

Hey, gang: Remember how much fun it was trying to get Mexico-US on your TV? That was just the beginning.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2009/09/usa-honduras_tv.html

Anyone else think this is going to be the norm in the not-too-distant future?

 

Hmm. Gonna have to pick that one up.

As far as Brazil hosting, there is a difference between that and somewhere like Germany hosting.

With the exception of Japan/Korea 02 and Sweden 58, World Cups have always been won by a team from the hosting continent, or side of the world, in the case of Mexico 70 and 86 and USA 94.

There are a lot of reasons for that, and it doesn't make much sense that a European team won in 06 because the World Cup was in Europe. Not as though most of Brazil's players, for example, don't already play in Europe.

But nevertheless, a World Cup in South America, according to history, will be won by a team from South America. As things stand now, the only South American team with any chance at all is Brazil. Argentina could improve by then, of course, but Brazil will be the heavy, heavy, heavy favo(u)rites.

Of course, they were the heavy, heavy, heavy favo(u)rites in 1950, too. But Uruguay ain't walkin' through that door.

 

As things stand now....

You're a funny man, desky.

 

Hey, I aim to please.

 

So am I.

 

No harm done, Pastor. Didn't mean to sound like I was indicting you either. Being a Raider (and Indiana Hoosier football, for that matter) fan has made me quite downtrodden. It spreads to the rest of my teams . . .

 

Adebayor with a high-larious take on Arsenal and its fans:

http://soccernet-assets.espn.go.com/news/story?id=675356&sec=england&cc=4716

No wonder shirt sales are so lucrative for Premier League teams.

Citeh, unlike Oregon, is backing up the smack talk, though. Goals flying in all over the EPL today.

 

That loon almost started a riot.

 

Haven't read the book, and want to. But this "England loses because it must, because that is English" crap is nonsense. England loses for good, tangible reasons.

In 2006, its best striker (Rooney) was hurt, and its next-best striker (Owen) got hurt -- freakishly, I admit. Then, in the game which eliminated England, Rooney was red carded.

In 2002, England lost to the eventual world champions Brazil. They were the only team to score against Brazil in the knockout round.

In 1998, in the game in which England was eliminated, Beckham was red carded.

In 1990, they lost, on PKs, to the eventual world champion West Germans.

In 1986, they lost, by terrible cheating, to the eventual world champion Argentinians.

And, for a throwback, against Brazil 1970, the greatest collection of talent -- or greatest in proportion to those around it -- in soccer history, England gave Brazil it's greatest challenge, and lost 1-0. It was the only time in that event Brazil did not score at least three goals in a game.

There's nothing wrong with English players, but there's a lot wrong with their "We're going to lose, we always lose" press and fans. You can raise questions about consistently missing penalty kicks, but I think a sports psychologist would tell you you're fucked if you approach the ball thinking "I am going to miss, because I am English," while the German approaches the ball and thinks "Ist gut, ja?"

Right now, England are great. If Gerrard, Rooney, and Walcott are healthy, they should win in 2010.