What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official Soccer Discussion Thread*** (3 Viewers)

No idea why, but I just watched the highlights of the penalty kicks. That was just pathetic. Way to go U.S. :thumbdown:
They only have themselves to blame. They wasted so many good chances, especially early in the match (and that Wambach one at the end of extra time would have been so sweet to see converted), Buehler committed a cardinal sin of defending on Japan's first goal, and the first three PK takers were lousy. It was there for the taking and they let it slip away, twice.
 
:lmao: Brazil goes 0/4 and they're out of the Copa America. Doesn't REALLY matter, they'll be in the Confederations Cup....but it makes for a much more exciting Copa with both Brazil and Argentina going out in the quarterfinals...
:yes: really enjoying this tourney thus far. I'm going to miss watching Messi but should be even more interesting with the dominant nations going home.
 
Why oh why do they decide a World Championship on penalty kicks?

One of the worst ways to win or lose a game that took away from how great regular and extra time really was.One of the best games I have seen in a while.
This has driven me CRAZY for years!Yes, can anyone defend or explain the way a soccer game is decided after a tie in regulation in these big games??

I don't get it!! It's a sport that flaunts the conditioning and wearing down aspect of their game with nonstop play just 3 substitutions, YET when it comes down to a tie (after OT) they decide it with penalty kicks??!!?? This does NOT determine the best soccer team or refect the game itself.

They said they have gone back and forth with the golden goal (like hockey the first goal in OT wins). What was wrong with that?? Have it just like hockey score in OT it's over.

The overtimes are stupid. One goal should finish it. Here is a sport that is dominated by ties YET they have an overtime that allows ANOTHER TIE! They play out the 30 minutes!! Hey you already had 90 minutes to prove yourselves so if the other team scores in OT it should be over. You lost. Don't get the continuation and ANOTHER second chance at all.

AND why not just play it out no matter how many overtimes it takes?? The sport that thrives on conditioning should embrace that. It would be awesome, it would epic to keep going no matter how long it takes!

Well soccer guys??

 
Great patience, and goal by Suazo. Finally.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Chile score a couple more, they have been dominating the second half.

 
Why oh why do they decide a World Championship on penalty kicks?

One of the worst ways to win or lose a game that took away from how great regular and extra time really was.One of the best games I have seen in a while.
This has driven me CRAZY for years!Yes, can anyone defend or explain the way a soccer game is decided after a tie in regulation in these big games??

I don't get it!! It's a sport that flaunts the conditioning and wearing down aspect of their game with nonstop play just 3 substitutions, YET when it comes down to a tie (after OT) they decide it with penalty kicks??!!?? This does NOT determine the best soccer team or refect the game itself.

They said they have gone back and forth with the golden goal (like hockey the first goal in OT wins). What was wrong with that?? Have it just like hockey score in OT it's over.

The overtimes are stupid. One goal should finish it. Here is a sport that is dominated by ties YET they have an overtime that allows ANOTHER TIE! They play out the 30 minutes!! Hey you already had 90 minutes to prove yourselves so if the other team scores in OT it should be over. You lost. Don't get the continuation and ANOTHER second chance at all.

AND why not just play it out no matter how many overtimes it takes?? The sport that thrives on conditioning should embrace that. It would be awesome, it would epic to keep going no matter how long it takes!

Well soccer guys??
I'm not a soccer guy, but I would prefer playing until there is a winner. I would add substitutions as the game went on, though.
 
Why oh why do they decide a World Championship on penalty kicks?

One of the worst ways to win or lose a game that took away from how great regular and extra time really was.One of the best games I have seen in a while.
This has driven me CRAZY for years!Yes, can anyone defend or explain the way a soccer game is decided after a tie in regulation in these big games??

I don't get it!! It's a sport that flaunts the conditioning and wearing down aspect of their game with nonstop play just 3 substitutions, YET when it comes down to a tie (after OT) they decide it with penalty kicks??!!?? This does NOT determine the best soccer team or refect the game itself.

They said they have gone back and forth with the golden goal (like hockey the first goal in OT wins). What was wrong with that?? Have it just like hockey score in OT it's over.

The overtimes are stupid. One goal should finish it. Here is a sport that is dominated by ties YET they have an overtime that allows ANOTHER TIE! They play out the 30 minutes!! Hey you already had 90 minutes to prove yourselves so if the other team scores in OT it should be over. You lost. Don't get the continuation and ANOTHER second chance at all.

AND why not just play it out no matter how many overtimes it takes?? The sport that thrives on conditioning should embrace that. It would be awesome, it would epic to keep going no matter how long it takes!

Well soccer guys??
I'm not a soccer guy, but I would prefer playing until there is a winner. I would add substitutions as the game went on, though.
:goodposting:
 
Why oh why do they decide a World Championship on penalty kicks?

One of the worst ways to win or lose a game that took away from how great regular and extra time really was.One of the best games I have seen in a while.
This has driven me CRAZY for years!Yes, can anyone defend or explain the way a soccer game is decided after a tie in regulation in these big games??

I don't get it!! It's a sport that flaunts the conditioning and wearing down aspect of their game with nonstop play just 3 substitutions, YET when it comes down to a tie (after OT) they decide it with penalty kicks??!!?? This does NOT determine the best soccer team or refect the game itself.

They said they have gone back and forth with the golden goal (like hockey the first goal in OT wins). What was wrong with that?? Have it just like hockey score in OT it's over.

The overtimes are stupid. One goal should finish it. Here is a sport that is dominated by ties YET they have an overtime that allows ANOTHER TIE! They play out the 30 minutes!! Hey you already had 90 minutes to prove yourselves so if the other team scores in OT it should be over. You lost. Don't get the continuation and ANOTHER second chance at all.

AND why not just play it out no matter how many overtimes it takes?? The sport that thrives on conditioning should embrace that. It would be awesome, it would epic to keep going no matter how long it takes!

Well soccer guys??
I guess I'll take a stab at this, because a lot of people probably won't.First of all, I don't think you'll find too many people outright defending the extra time/PK setup as it currently stands - but I will say that I'm not against the concept of PKs deciding a championship game. Having played a handful of 120-minute games myself (when I was in better shape), I can tell you that the game honestly devolves into something different by that point. Yes, I agree that the sport and its fans pride themselves on being high-endurance athletes, but soccer is unlike the rest of the sports in that you get absolutely no break. Obviously I'm not knocking hockey, baseball, etc., and I realize that those sports (namely hockey) are insanely difficult to play, but players in those sports aren't playing non-stop the entire time. I haven't played those other sports at a high level, so I can't really compare them, but even the best athletes aren't going to be able to keep going for much longer than 120 minutes.

I've heard different ideas that aren't bad - allow more subs in overtime, allow previously subbed out players to re-enter, etc. - along with some (IMO) silly ones - remove a player every few minutes, etc. I think the real bottom line is that FIFA strives for a reasonable overtime that doesn't change the way they want the game to be played - which is the way they have it now, 3 subs (keeping the emphasis, like you said, on endurance), keep it simple 11v11, etc. Any more than 120 minutes without making changes to the substitution rules is really pushing it.

Golden goal - I don't really have an argument for this. I don't mind the game the way it's played now (I think it allows for more drama), but I can see why others would disagree.

PKs - I don't have much of a problem with PKs being the game-decider. I don't really see how it's a worse solution than two worn-down teams hoofing it forward in the 170th minute, hoping that the other team's defender collapses from exhaustion to lead to a goal. If one team deserved to win, they would have done so before PKs - that's how I look at it - and 2 hours is plenty of time to do so.

I guess those are my thoughts. I wouldn't be upset if the rules were changed, but I honestly don't hate PKs like a lot of people do.

 
Why oh why do they decide a World Championship on penalty kicks?

One of the worst ways to win or lose a game that took away from how great regular and extra time really was.One of the best games I have seen in a while.
This has driven me CRAZY for years!Yes, can anyone defend or explain the way a soccer game is decided after a tie in regulation in these big games??

I don't get it!! It's a sport that flaunts the conditioning and wearing down aspect of their game with nonstop play just 3 substitutions, YET when it comes down to a tie (after OT) they decide it with penalty kicks??!!?? This does NOT determine the best soccer team or refect the game itself.

They said they have gone back and forth with the golden goal (like hockey the first goal in OT wins). What was wrong with that?? Have it just like hockey score in OT it's over.

The overtimes are stupid. One goal should finish it. Here is a sport that is dominated by ties YET they have an overtime that allows ANOTHER TIE! They play out the 30 minutes!! Hey you already had 90 minutes to prove yourselves so if the other team scores in OT it should be over. You lost. Don't get the continuation and ANOTHER second chance at all.

AND why not just play it out no matter how many overtimes it takes?? The sport that thrives on conditioning should embrace that. It would be awesome, it would epic to keep going no matter how long it takes!

Well soccer guys??
I guess I'll take a stab at this, because a lot of people probably won't.First of all, I don't think you'll find too many people outright defending the extra time/PK setup as it currently stands - but I will say that I'm not against the concept of PKs deciding a championship game. Having played a handful of 120-minute games myself (when I was in better shape), I can tell you that the game honestly devolves into something different by that point. Yes, I agree that the sport and its fans pride themselves on being high-endurance athletes, but soccer is unlike the rest of the sports in that you get absolutely no break. Obviously I'm not knocking hockey, baseball, etc., and I realize that those sports (namely hockey) are insanely difficult to play, but players in those sports aren't playing non-stop the entire time. I haven't played those other sports at a high level, so I can't really compare them, but even the best athletes aren't going to be able to keep going for much longer than 120 minutes.

I've heard different ideas that aren't bad - allow more subs in overtime, allow previously subbed out players to re-enter, etc. - along with some (IMO) silly ones - remove a player every few minutes, etc. I think the real bottom line is that FIFA strives for a reasonable overtime that doesn't change the way they want the game to be played - which is the way they have it now, 3 subs (keeping the emphasis, like you said, on endurance), keep it simple 11v11, etc. Any more than 120 minutes without making changes to the substitution rules is really pushing it.

Golden goal - I don't really have an argument for this. I don't mind the game the way it's played now (I think it allows for more drama), but I can see why others would disagree.

PKs - I don't have much of a problem with PKs being the game-decider. I don't really see how it's a worse solution than two worn-down teams hoofing it forward in the 170th minute, hoping that the other team's defender collapses from exhaustion to lead to a goal. If one team deserved to win, they would have done so before PKs - that's how I look at it - and 2 hours is plenty of time to do so.

I guess those are my thoughts. I wouldn't be upset if the rules were changed, but I honestly don't hate PKs like a lot of people do.
I have no problem with PKs. Was involved in two that went that far, won one and lost one--scored in both. By that point, it's as much mental as physical and it's not an easy walk from the center circle.
 
pks suck. period.

But, I don't like the idea of playing forever either, so I guess in a tournament, they'll have to do. I like the idea of the replay a whole lot more, but that is not a viable alternative.

Also, I don't feel that the women's team choked all that bad. Yes, they blew a late lead....but even though they had a pretty good shot advantage, possession throughout was fairly even. Each team had a game plan and executed it well. It was actually a pretty enjoyable game to watch. I hated the substitution the US made late, taking off Rapinoe...and they let Rodrigeuz rot on the bench, but it's hard for me to argue with the women's coach as she is head and shoulders above bradley. This US team was not a phenomenal team in comparison to their peers. They may have been third best entering the tourney, so a runner up finish is not to be a disappointment, other than the fact they allowed a goal with just a few minutes left.

Japan made attacking substitutions throughout the game...I liked that.

 
I have no problem with PKs. Was involved in two that went that far, won one and lost one--scored in both. By that point, it's as much mental as physical and it's not an easy walk from the center circle.
I think I've only played in 1 game that went to PKs, and I actually scored the game-winner as the 6th shooter, IIRC. We were shooting first, I scored mine - poorly taken, but the GK guessed the wrong way - and their guy missed it for our win. There's no longer walk than that walk toward the net.Our league championship game last year was decided on PKs, but I was out of the country on vacation :mellow:
 
Why oh why do they decide a World Championship on penalty kicks?

One of the worst ways to win or lose a game that took away from how great regular and extra time really was.One of the best games I have seen in a while.
This has driven me CRAZY for years!Yes, can anyone defend or explain the way a soccer game is decided after a tie in regulation in these big games??

I don't get it!! It's a sport that flaunts the conditioning and wearing down aspect of their game with nonstop play just 3 substitutions, YET when it comes down to a tie (after OT) they decide it with penalty kicks??!!?? This does NOT determine the best soccer team or refect the game itself.

They said they have gone back and forth with the golden goal (like hockey the first goal in OT wins). What was wrong with that?? Have it just like hockey score in OT it's over.

The overtimes are stupid. One goal should finish it. Here is a sport that is dominated by ties YET they have an overtime that allows ANOTHER TIE! They play out the 30 minutes!! Hey you already had 90 minutes to prove yourselves so if the other team scores in OT it should be over. You lost. Don't get the continuation and ANOTHER second chance at all.

AND why not just play it out no matter how many overtimes it takes?? The sport that thrives on conditioning should embrace that. It would be awesome, it would epic to keep going no matter how long it takes!

Well soccer guys??
I guess I'll take a stab at this, because a lot of people probably won't.First of all, I don't think you'll find too many people outright defending the extra time/PK setup as it currently stands - but I will say that I'm not against the concept of PKs deciding a championship game. Having played a handful of 120-minute games myself (when I was in better shape), I can tell you that the game honestly devolves into something different by that point. Yes, I agree that the sport and its fans pride themselves on being high-endurance athletes, but soccer is unlike the rest of the sports in that you get absolutely no break. Obviously I'm not knocking hockey, baseball, etc., and I realize that those sports (namely hockey) are insanely difficult to play, but players in those sports aren't playing non-stop the entire time. I haven't played those other sports at a high level, so I can't really compare them, but even the best athletes aren't going to be able to keep going for much longer than 120 minutes.

I've heard different ideas that aren't bad - allow more subs in overtime, allow previously subbed out players to re-enter, etc. - along with some (IMO) silly ones - remove a player every few minutes, etc. I think the real bottom line is that FIFA strives for a reasonable overtime that doesn't change the way they want the game to be played - which is the way they have it now, 3 subs (keeping the emphasis, like you said, on endurance), keep it simple 11v11, etc. Any more than 120 minutes without making changes to the substitution rules is really pushing it.

Golden goal - I don't really have an argument for this. I don't mind the game the way it's played now (I think it allows for more drama), but I can see why others would disagree.

PKs - I don't have much of a problem with PKs being the game-decider. I don't really see how it's a worse solution than two worn-down teams hoofing it forward in the 170th minute, hoping that the other team's defender collapses from exhaustion to lead to a goal. If one team deserved to win, they would have done so before PKs - that's how I look at it - and 2 hours is plenty of time to do so.

I guess those are my thoughts. I wouldn't be upset if the rules were changed, but I honestly don't hate PKs like a lot of people do.
I'd change it to two 20 minutes extra time periods, add one more sub per team, make them sudden death, and then end with PKs after that.
 
Sorry I wans't able to post in the thread... I was drinking and watching the game at a friend's house.

All I have to say is VIIIIIINOOOOOOTIIIIIIINTOOOOOOO!

 
'dickey moe said:
Well, we still won WWII.
You're being very short-sighted. The Japanese let us win WWII so they could install nuclear reactors around their country that would eventually release nuclear contaminants into their atmosphere due to a massive earthquake/tsunami combo just in time to turn their women into super-soccer players in order to win the 2011 Women's World Cup!
 
Best Tweet I saw on this was from the DeathStar PR Dept!

Congrats to Japan, they did something the Empire could never do, beat a SOLO!

:nerd:

 
Funny old game.

The US plays worse than it's previous 2 opponents but still wins, then goes out an plays their best game of the tournament- outplaying a red-hot Japan team (at least in how they'd been playing up to now... not really their looks)- and loses.

Once again, I thought the difference was the spacing of the US MF, which was too flat and gave up too many balls and too much space on both sides of the ball. They tried knocking it around to kill off the clock, and almost got away with it... just lacked enough skill and composure, so ultimately failed, despite some really nice triangle sequences.

Given how each team had played up until yesterday's game, and given the tragedy in Japan this year, I am actually happy that Japan won.

btw- Hope Solo comes across as being a giant #####, in interviews IMO. And she isn't that hot- 6.5.

 
Now that Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile etc are officially out of the tourney, can we expect to see some movement on the transfer front? Waiting to hear about Aguero, Neymar, Tevez, Falaco, Sanchez, etc.

 
Aguero is likely going to Man City, especially if Tevez is gone. Both deals look to be close to completion. My Atleti should get 40+m€ for him. Forlán looks to be staying put.

 
Aguero is likely going to Man City, especially if Tevez is gone. Both deals look to be close to completion. My Atleti should get 40+m€ for him. Forlán looks to be staying put.
Dont believe it. I can see him going to Barca/Real or Chelsea, but not City. With Tevez looking to leave, it would be very surprising if Aguero heads there.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top