There’s actually quite a few examples of what I am talking about in that thread actually. At the time it was fairly typical (as someone notes) for whenever Soccer/Football was discussed someone would come flying in to let us know how shit and boring it is and how vastly superior American Football is. It got very, very tiresome.
So, most of the last bunch of comments are actually my point. The US (as a team) didn’t do well, if they did well, they would have changed set up and limited the number of chances Belgium created (as Russia, Algeria and South Korea did in the group stage). Playing to your strengths, ie organization and determination, would (for instance) mean trying to smother the better team… at the very least it doesn’t lead to a game where your goal keeper gets to play the best match of his live.
They might well have done even better if they had played to their strengths, even though that would have probably been a bore to watch. This was like sending a handful of men heady on against an army of thousands and being happy you only died in the last 50 yards (while being shot numerous times along the way… and then being hailed for how brave you are. In a situation like that, not charging but using a different tactic is what should be celebrated.
BBC at half time discussed how ‘dangerous’ it was to have 6 players in front of the ball, when you are likely to lose it at least some of the time.
So again, I applaud the effort and how they rallied at the end. But they had a stupid game plan and didn’t seem to willing to start playing realistically. If this really was the best the team could do, while playing the best strategy, that really doesn’t bode well for US soccer. Being ripped apart by a talented, but largely unproven Belgian side (not one of the great Football nations, at least not yet).
Do you realise that football was called soccer in England before football was called soccer in the US?
:eek:
It’s still typical today, although less so all the time.
Warning: That sportswriter is known for obnoxious curmudgeonliness.
Oh, why did you have to post that? You’re just making us look bad in front of the Europeans.
I don’t know how it is in the rest of the world, but in the US sportswriters on the whole are sub-moronic troglodytes. Plenty of exceptions, of course, but it’s safest to start with that assumption.
Also because if one of the two sports is worthy of the name Foot Ball, is the one that uses a ball instead of an egg and manages it with a foot instead of a hand (most of the time).
ETA: This was in response to a post (that seems to have been edited out) explaining why Europeans (and South Americans in my case) get annoyed by the use of the word “Soccer” to refer to football.
True, but not many would say a 0-0 score in a hockey or baseball game meant nothing had happened. This particular dickhead is an exception.
Sportswriters are the same the world over I think, mostly sub-moronic troglodytes with a few noteworthy exceptions.
Ugh, yeah. That’s a totally dickish comment and attitude, and I’m embarrassed that there are Americans like that.
We may get annoyed with you guys, but you definitely have grounds to be annoyed with us right back.
I am rather amused by those that proclaim “soccer is boring.” It’s an utter failure of logic. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world. Therefore, it’s not inherently boring. QED. Stating “I find soccer boring” is much more neutral, and may indeed be relevant to a conversation, but in most cases, there’s no reason to volunteer that information.
It’s threadshitting, and in real life, it’s conversation shitting. I don’t know why people feel compelled to do it.
If asked directly whether I like American football, I’ll try to demur by saying that I “don’t follow it.” If pressed for a real answer, I’ll tell the truth, which is that I don’t find it interesting. I feel no need to declare the sport itself uninteresting, and I certainly wouldn’t break into a conversation about last night’s game to tell the participants what cretins they are. I just don’t get why some Americans think it’s okay to do that about futbol.
Actually, I do have a theory, but it’s likely to be controversial. 
Nitpick: extra time.
… was that a surprise?
I thought it was Futbol, pronounced in the exaggerated foreign accent of your choice.
I liked how he turned bright pink with exertion. I’m a redhead too, and that happens to me, leading to everyone asking me if I’m okay. It was kind of nice to see someone else with that particular affliction.
Where’d you get the idea that the US team’s main strength was organization and determination? They’re not a conservative or a good team in possession, and they defend like shit. I don’t think anyone believes that the US had a chance against Belgium if they parked the bus. They had to score to win. And as it happened, the riskier they played the closer they came to breaking through.
It seems a very strange thing to do to criticize the inferior team’s tactics when the game’s just finished and it was much closer than it ought to have been.
Well the plaudits are because we’re the new kid on the block and that will continue until we field a better team. I didn’t think it was the best game to watch but it was fun watching an underdog make it through the first 90 minutes. Although I was perplexed by their strategy.
You left out the defenders in this. You’re giving the Goalie all the credit when most of the defense work is funneling the ball down to a window where the goalie can be most effective. The US team was actually pretty good at this.
while it was clearly a defensive strategy for the US team that didn’t mean they had to give up the rest of the game. If they played a 4-1-5 they would have stood a better chance. They weren’t controlling the field any better than the Belgians so they might as well have moved their halfbacks up when they ran it up the side. They had all the time in the world to crowd the goal but for whatever reason chose not to. If you watch the game again the first 90 minutes they ran it deep up the sides and then chipped to the center. There were 2 forwards at the goal and their halfbacks were 5 meters away watching the world go by. Of course, in that kind of heat and humidity it was a game of endurance but I’ve always felt it was better to score early and defend the remainder of the game. Much less running.
Not exactly Alfred, Lord Tennyson, are you?
I disagree with this to an extent. Never underestimate how anti American your average working class European(and journalist) can be. Often it is of the petty variety - as in the example of the American use of the word soccer. I see petty mindedness and ignorance on both sides.
For every dumb comment from an American putting the sport down there is a corresponding comment dripping with snobbery from old time European fans.
I think the US team did reasonably well in the tournament, no more than that. As they came up against better sides the difference in class became more marked.
I didn’t see the Argentina-Switzerland game, but I find it hard to believe that Switzerland was closer to winning their game than the US was to winning their’s.
In the 89th minute the score was 0-0, and the US had what looked like a gimme goal, essentially a one-on-one against the goalie. Sadly he kicked it high, missing the goal entirely. If that extremely makeable shot had gone in, it’s almost a certainty the US would have won the game.
Pretty predictable that this thread would take this turn on an off day with no games to talk about.
One thing that hasn’t been commented on much, although the ESPN announcers mentioned more than a few times, is how exhausted the US team had to be considering their schedule. They had to fly more than 11,000 miles during the group stage alone, by far the most of any team, while Belgium flew just over 1,000 miles, the least of any team. The Belgians could fly to their base after a game and be in bed before midnight. The US team would get in at 4 or 5 AM the next day. They also had to play in Manaus, and no team that played in Manaus, winner or loser, won their next game.
No one in the US who knows even the tiniest bit about soccer considers the USA to be remotely close to Belgium in terms of skill. We are thrilled and a little bit surprised to have made it out of the Group, and to have a chance in regulation time to win or to send it to penalties vs. Belgium is amazing. 99% of Americans are just very proud of their team, and hold no ill feelings towards any other team.
I fail to see how a team that came thirdin the inaugural World Cup in 1930 and has qualified for every tournament since 1990 could possibly be characterised as “the new kid on the block.” Leave that tag for true debutants like Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Personally I view the US as being near the top of the second tier of nations when it comes to football, with the capacity to surprise top ten teams on their day. Keeping it close against Belgium wasn’t really that unexpected as far as I was concerned.