Running, all-purpose World Cup thread

[PaseanaARG]

France was hosed on that "second" goal. Ball was over by a good bit.

And yes, Fred is the best Brasilian name. I loved his celebration dance.

 

[buckweaver]

I think the reason this is a "step backwards" if they don't find a way to rally into the second round is because they didn't even make a respectable showing against the Czechs. And that's inexcusable. Getting beat by the No. 2 team in the world, I think, was to be expected. Getting knocked out in group stages -- in this particular group -- I think is also to be expected.

But if we give even half the effort that Ghana gave, then a 1-0 or 2-0 hard-fought loss isn't bad at all. And a knockout isn't a step backwards at all.

The effort against the Czechs, however, was an embarrassment. And that, indeed, makes this entire World Cup a step backwards.

 

[Flash]

France is in tough now, giving up a draw to the South Koreans. They needed that win, because the Swiss are very capable of beating S.K. and Togo. France is definitely on the bubble for the second round.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Am I reading Thursday's schedule correctly? The US/Ghana and Czech/Italy matches are being played at the same time, right?

 

[PeteyPirate]

Am I reading Thursday's schedule correctly? The US/Ghana and Czech/Italy matches are being played at the same time, right?

They do that so there can't be any shenanigans as far as knowing results and playing for ties or something shady like that in the third game of pool play.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Am I reading Thursday's schedule correctly? The US/Ghana and Czech/Italy matches are being played at the same time, right?

They do that so there can't be any shenanigans as far as knowing results and playing for ties or something shady like that in the third game of pool play.

That's what I thought, but wasn't sure.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

I can't believe there hasn't been a more positive response towards the United States play yesterday especially considering all the criticism on Monday. The US dominated a team expected by many to make it to the final game for the first 20 minutes of the game and would have won the game had Mastroeni not received that bs red card (the pope yellow was the right call.) Even when the US went down a man they were still controlling play. Donovan was attacking all throughout the second half and Keller was world class. Yeah the US has to do a better job of finishing but they kept giving themselves chances with superior midfield play. I can see us beating a very skilled Ghana team and Italy-CR tying leaving the United States out. Still it would be a successful world cup and it would show that we've made major strides.

That's ridiculous. I don't know anybody who expected Italy to make it to the finals and the USA certainly didn't dominate the Azzurri. The Mastroeni red card was the right call, the Americans in no way controlled play (the card shark ... uh, referee did that, with the two teams happening to be there) and slipping from the quarterfinals in '02 to a first-round exit this year would be neither a successful World Cup nor a sign of making major strides.

 

[urgrad04]

One man's "major strides" is another man's "step backward."

I am not going to accept that you are sitting here telling me that going from the quarterfinals to not advancing past pool play is actually an improvement for the U.S. soccer program, so you should clarify your remarks.

Because in '02 the United States were lucky to move onto the second round after an awful performance against Poland only to qualify because Korea beat Portugal. We also drew an average Mexico team in the second round so it was said by many soccer experts that the US could actually play much better and not make it out of the group stage.If we were in Mexico or Spain's group we'd easily advance. A week ago everyone on here was comparing this team to the '98 team...that squad would have lost to Italy 3 or 4-0. I think those are signs or improvement.

 

[Starman]

Completely off-the-wall trivia question:

When was the last time a World Cup game required the winning team to score four goals (i.e. the losing team scored three, in regulation)??

We'll wait.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Completely off-the-wall trivia question:

When was the last time a World Cup game required the winning team to score four goals (i.e. the losing team scored three, in regulation)??

We'll wait. 

Is that a serious trivia question or some sort of insult aimed at the sport because there's not enough scoring for your taste?

 

[KP]

Not to be decided by PKs, but settled in extra time.
June 15, 1986 (Leon, Mexico)
Belgium 4 USSR 3 in the second round (2-2 after 90)

June 17, 1970 (Mexico City)
Italy 4, West Germany 3 in the semifinals (2-2 after 90)

But I think the answer you are really looking for...
July 23, 1966 (Liverpool, England)
Portugal 5, North Korea 3 in the quarters.

 

[JayFarrar]

I don't feel like wading through 55 pages, so if this has been asked, please forgive, but what have people thought of Wynalda's and Lalas' running commentary during the pre-game,  half-time and post-game talks?
To me, they have come across as buffoons. Homered up Americans who keep predicting U.S. wins for a team that has yet to score a goal in two matches. They have mocked star players for other countries, Beckham and Ronaldo in particular and just generally they haven't provided any insight. Plus, when the Italian guy was on Saturday, I thought him and Wynalda were going to fight.
Maybe ABC thinks it makes for good teevee, but it just seems like they have come across as an embarassment.
No wonder Julie Foudy fled to the safety of her soccer camp. She's the only one there who has won anything and has generally been solid.