Tonight is the big game. USA at home vs Mexico. Winner qualifies for WC 2006 in Germany. If a tie, I think both teams might qualify or at least clinch a playoff depending on how things break. Game time is 7:30 pm, with live TV on Telemundo and ESPN Classic. Replay on ESPN2 in the middle of the night. USA has had the upper hand over Mexico in the USA for the past six matches or so, but Mexico looked much stronger in their last match in Azteca, and showed very well in the Confederations Cup in Germany over the summer.
Wow. 2 - 0 USA at 60:00.
Looks like a lot of red and green in that stadium, even with it being in Ohio.
The U.S. is just playing stall-ball now, trying to run the clock out.
Good night for the New England Revolution, with a 1-0 club victory at Salt Lake and a game winner for Ralston on the national squad.
I was out to dinner and didn’t catch anything but the last ten minutes or so of the qualifier, did the U.S. control the game as well as the score would indicate? Anything I missed that I really need to know about? Thanks!
The US played pretty well, but it wasn’t total domination. We shut down their offense. Onyewu was amazing in the middle of our defense. We had a magical 5 minute space which allowed us to get the victory.
The US basically has Mexico’s number in the last 5 years. The only stumbling point as been AT Azteca, but the elevation is something very hard to deal with.
Usa
Usa
Usa
Score could have been easily 3-0 as Damon Beasley missed a chip-shot on a one-on-one with the goalie (Claudio Reyna set him up with a beautiful long pass).
Looked as if Mexico was playing for a tie (that’s all they needed to qualify for World Cup) - US looked decent, although not especially stellar. Defense played well, though (They shut down Borgetti and other striker).
Game should be a confidence builder and give Arena a chance to play others in the last three games…
No sour grapes from the Mexican coach after the game:
All class, that guy.
Of course, he’s gonna get ripped by the Mexican press and public, so he probably has to say something like that.
So, the Mexicans got their butts kicked by their aunt and their grandmother, eh?
Imagine how I’d be gloating if I cared about soccer.
I particularly enjoyed the scoreline:
Dos a Cero
Now where have I seen that before?
No doubt. Two whole scores in the game, eh? What a barn-burner of a sport that is.
Well, at least I will join in the chant:
USA
USA
USA
So do we now know what we’ll be ranked, or do we just know that we’ll be in?
In Columbus in 2001? Or was that early 2002? I can never quite remember. And later, again, in Korea? Love that score line.
Gooch was a total stud, simply shut down Borgetti. Most likely MotM, although Beasley made a good case with his goals, his nice runs, getting back on defense and drawing lots of fouls. Mexicans were lucky not to get a red, as was Frankie Heydude.
The Mexicans gloated big time after their win at Azteca but, with the exception of the games played there, The US has pretty much dominated Mexico lately, even in those games palyed in Texas and California. Let see which team plays better im Deutschland in 2006. The Mexicans don’t traditionally travel all that well and their best players all play at home in Mexico where many of America’s players are, or have European experience. You only get better playing against better players. It’s a shame that MLS can’t provide that level of competition but it is a place for good, young Americans to get noticed. This will only continue. Foreign clubs are always looking for talent and don’t much care where it comes from.
As to whether a game that ends 2-0 is dull or not, that depends on your ability to understand what you’re watching. If your trained to believe that the only thing that matters is how many points are scored then you have only yourself to blame if you can’t see the bigger picture. Is a one-hitter that ends 1-0 boring? Did the starter carry a no-hitter into the ninth? That’s not boring even if there’s not much scoring. In gridiron fooball, is the only part of the game worth watching the part where the ball gets carried across the goal line? What about the play of the offensive and defensive lines? What about the defensive schemes against the pass vs. the run? If the Ravens win a game 7-6, was that a boring game. One of the most exciting games I ever watched was decided by a field goal kicked in the snow after a work-release convict drove a snow plow out onto the field to clear a dry spot for the kicker. I don’t think either team scored a TD that day.
The American obssession with the number of points scored gave us the steroid scandals of the 1990s. Who cares how many points were scored? The real question is was it a well played game? If the answer is yes then that’s all should that should matter. Those of you who sneer at 2-0 scorelines should watch the game with somebody who knows what’s going on. Then, if you still find it boring, then that’s your loss. Watch the game in person. American TV has made great gains in it’s ability to televise a soccer match but it’s not a game that adapts to TV well. If all you can do is follow the ball then you’re missing a large part of what’s going on.
As for the Americans playing a small team, that too is a refreshing change from the days where the only thing that American players had going for them was their size and athletic ability (as opposed to their soccer ability). European and South American athletes now train year round. Without equal skill, we no longer belong on the same pitch with them. I’d like to see a little more size to counter the game’s hard men who will try to kick smaller players out of the tournaments, i.e. someone like Jens Jeremi of Germany or Goetcoachea who crippled Maradona when he played in Spain. I trust Bruce Arena to find and field the best players regardless of their size.
Here endeth my rant.
IMO? Yes, No, Yes (as was demonstrated in their Superbowl year during the regular season), and regarding that game you mention, bad footing resulting in offensive incompetence does not a great game make.
Football and baseball have the nice feature of earning and keeping offensive territory, to be translated into scores. In games where no territory is ever earned, all there is is scoring; there is no building upon earlier efforts. So while basketball has a bit too much ease of scoring, in hockey and soccer it’s just plain dull. Playing small-ball to load the bases is exciting, even if the runs don’t score. Marching down the field in a 15-play 8-minute drive to get to the goal line is interesting football, even if the defense picks it off in the end zone. In soccer and hockey, there is no real earning of territory. I suppose cycling the puck or ball in the offensive zone could be considered “earning territory”, but it’s not, really. There is no “battle for field position” in those sports.
You mention a famous Patriots game in the snow. How about the other one, the tuck rule game? There were 7 scores in that game. (16-13 = 2 TDs and 5 FGs.) That’s an interesting defensive struggle. 3-0? BORING.
Great play is only great if it leads to tangible benefit. If I punt the ball to the 1, that’s a great play, but not if I give up a 99 yard TD pass. If, however, the more likely scenario plays out: 3 & out, punt to almost midfield, and the defense gets the ball in scoring position, well then that punt is much more meaningful.
I love defense as much as the next guy; I’m a friggin’ Giants fan, after all. But when you have a 7-6 final score, there’s a very high probability that the game sucked. How could it not? By definition, neither offense played well.
I’m no fan of baseball. My whole point is that when there are only two scores in an entire game, by definition the offenses were either inept or completely overpowered by the defenses. Neither option is the recipe for a great game.
The other strike against soccer and hockey is that there is no such thing as a last-second come-from-behind victory, which is the ultimate in drama. (The Catch, et al.) In baseball, basketball, and football, you can go from losing to winning as time expires. In soccer and hockey? You can only force overtime. That’s a big minus right there. So combine the fact that you’re lucky to see 4 scores all game with the fact that you can’t snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, and you end up with one big giant snooze-fest, IMO.
At least hockey has the benefit of constant action while the puck is live. How often do you see soccer (and rugby, for that matter) players milling around while the ball is in play? (As I said…not a fan of baseball.) Football doesn’t have much live action, but 100% of it involves all 22 players going full-out balls-to-the-wall as hard as they can. (Except for Randy Moss, of course.)
Ellis Dee, in this context you really have no idea what you’re talking about. In the 1999 Champions’ League final (sort of like the Super Bowl AND World Series rolled into one) Bayern Munich were winning by 1-0 with 89 minutes of regulation gone. Manchester United scored to tie in the last minute of the game and then scored the game winner with seconds left in stoppage time. Much more dramatic than many (maybe all) Super Bowls.
Soccer has build up and ball possession instead of field position. There are normally more scoring opportunities than a good football game, and usually more dramatic saves by the goalkeeper. A 2-0 soccer game is probably more analagous to a 14-0 football game than a 6-0 football game. But it’s probably not fair or accurate to compare the two sports at all. They are just very different. American football has lots of dull moments and just pure dead spots. Soccer can have dull moments as well, but very few times where plays stops for 40 seconds to a couple of minutes for a TV timeout. Because the play is spread out and relatively easy to see it’s easier to appreciate the little things and duels that can make the game exciting, once you understand it.
Meh, whatever. My apologies for the hijack. You can talk until you’re blue in the face, but you’ll never convince me of soccer’s greatness. It’s the Big Mac of the sports world. Me? I prefer the filet mignon of sports, otherwise known as the NFL.
Btw, your counterexample still falls short. I was referencing the ability to have actual lead changes occur in a single play, which soccer does not have. And you had to go back 6 years for your example. The most recently played regular season NFL game had a lead change on the final play of the game. Go Giants!
Just went back to the most dramatic example I remembered. Last year’s Champions League final was like the Bills v Raiders of early 90s playoff game, where Raiders were up by an insurmountable lead then lost as Frank Reich led the greatest playoff comeback of all time. Liverpool are down to AC Milan, who have only allowed a handful of goals throughout the whole tournament, and are a prohibitive favorite. Liverpool come back to tie and then hold even through added time and win in a penalty shootout. So I suppose you could say that was winning on one “play”. In fact, for the most part soccer does not have “plays” like football, so it’s an apples to oranges comparison. It’s a more flowing game.
Anyway, my point was, though I undetstand your love of football, you arguing against “world football” is sort of like an Englishman sticking his nose into one of our NFL roundups and saying stuff like, “Sheesh, that game sucks. They stop it all of the time, half of the good plays are brought back on penalties, at least five players on either side is a fat slob who can barely be described as an athlete, it’s stupid to give 6 points for a single score, yada yada yada”. They’d be wrong, pro football is a beautiful, violent, compelling sport. Soccer is a beautiful, flowing game when played well. As a fan of both I don’t understand the Jim Rome’s of the world who feel a constant need to rag on soccer. It’s more a sign of insecurity. Don’t like it: fine, just ignore it. I think NASCAR is incomprehensible, but there must be something there or no one would watch it. Must be something to soccer if half of the world, literally, will watch the World Cup Finals in Germany next summer.
So Budweiser must be good beer? It’s popular because it’s cheap; any kid in any third world country can play it with a ball of rags.
Regarding insecurity, note the overreaction marque elf had to the sixteen words I posted. And the hoops you are jumping through to try and come up with a single play that changes the score from losing to winning for a team, when in fact it simply cannot happen.
Before copping out with the “it’s too different to compare”, I’d define a “play” in soccer and hockey to be all action that takes place inside the offensive zone. Once the line is crossed, the “play” begins. Once the ball/puck is cleared, play over.
Offensive zone is where, exactly? By the rule you’ve just given, then the example I’d given previously would still hold, I believe, although I can’t say for sure that no one for Bayern touched the ball after ManU’s final goal. The point was it was dramatic, exciting as all get out, crushing for the Germans in the Frankfurt bar where I watched the game. You are trying to somehow, by defining soccer by the rules of American football(?), to say that there is no drama in soccer? I really don’t get the point.
The NFL is easily the most popular sport in the USA right now. Does that make it Budweiser as well? Sometimes popular things are popular for a reason.