Sports The Football Discussion Thread!

[Andrew]

We lost to Germany?

Wow, the U.S. sucks at soccer.

We lost to the team in 2nd in FIFA's Rankings?

Wow, the U.S. isn't as bad as everyone thought.

FTFY :)

 

[Sir Codin]

We lost to the team in 2nd in FIFA's Rankings?

Wow, the U.S. isn't as bad as everyone thought.

FTFY :)

All that does is justify Germany's position at second. Wow, they're second place and we lost against them? No duh. If America really wanted to look like they were good at soccer, then what they should've done was...I don't know...win the match?

We haven't won the World Cup in like...ever. The closest we've gotten is the semi-finals in 1930. The SEMI-FINALS.

We always lose and for some reason, the entire world holds it against us, so pardon my frustration.

If the U.S. wants to look like they don't suck in my eyes, they need to win the cup this year. Otherwise, they're terrible.

 

[Weeaboo Name]

You really aren't very funny. Please try harder.

 

[Sir Codin]

You really aren't very funny. Please try harder.

Who ever said I was trying to be funny? I'm just saying it like it is.

 

[Ryoutarou]

I guess it's always a little more difficult for America to seem like a strong power because they're in a relatively weak confederation where the only team that offers any decent competition is Mexico. Yeah, America lost to Germany, but Germany is a powerhouse. The US created a few really good chances late in the game and managed to hold to the scoreline to just 1-0, which isn't bad considering that Portugal, a team considered to be a lot stronger with better players, was thrashed 4-0 by them.

Winning a World Cup is no small order, there are a lot of great nations that have never won one. It's a huge margin of success, but not the only one. That the US has gotten out of this group at all is a testament to just how far they have come as a team and organization - no one, not even big name former US players, expected them to get out of the group. I expect (and hope) the US makes it to the quarterfinals, leaving the tournament at that stage is by no means a disappointment considering the road they've had to get there. This is, what? The first time the US have made it out of the group stage two World Cups in a row? That's remarkable growth.

 

[Gabri]

The US have never been strong in football. The fact that it's not a relatively popular sport in the country doesn't help, either. Now, it can't be said that they outright suck because they lost 1-0 to one of the strongest national teams in the world. Losing doesn't always mean you suck. Either way, it's not from a couple of matches that you determine whether a team is good or not; how many times, mainly in the National Cups (the FA Cup, most of all), do you see teams from lower divisions beat teams that are top in their countries?

Germany's position as second was pretty much justified by the thrashing they gave us on the first match (the fact that we had a defender sent off in the first 15 minutes didn't help, but still) and the only teams that I see, in this moment, to be able to give them a run for their money are France and Brazil (maybe Argentina too). And the US didn't beat the fourth-ranked team (which, for some weird reason, is Portugal) by an inch. It is good for the US to even have qualified for the next round considering that they were in a strong group and were never strong themselves.

Winning a World Cup isn't just done like that to "hey look, we're not bad at all!". Look at the Netherlands, they've been having stong squads for the last 30 years or so, and not even a squad mainly composed by Ajax's Total Football team (which included Johan Cruyff) have won it in the 70's. Neither did the Euro 88' winning squad (including Gullit and van Basten) win it in 1990.

Maybe 'Murrica can pull something funny against Belgium (which I doubt, Belgium has a lot of great players), but I can't see them going past Argentina if they do (because Argentina will pound Switzerland).

 

[Sir Codin]

That's the big problem. America sucks at soccer and needs to get better, because some of us are actually tired of losing.

We focus so much on American Football rugby-for-pussies, basketball, and baseball that it's no wonder our team sucks. If we channeled even half the energy we put into those sports into soccer, we might actually stand a chance at getting to the semi-finals for once in almost 90 years. And even then we'll still be losers because that's how it works; the guys with the cup are the winners, everyone else are losers.

Tl;dr: This is the problem:

 

[Ryoutarou]

A huge problem with the game catching on in the US is that it doesn't lend itself very well to TV marketing. The US is a country whose programs and broadcasts absolutely thrive on commercials - the average American football game, on TV, is about two hours long and only somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 minutes is actual game time. The rest of that two hour black is dedicated to replays and, not surprisingly, commercials. With there being no time outs in soccer, you're left with a sport that only provides a very short window for advertisements during a 90 minute game.

And even then we'll still be losers because that's how it works; the guys with the cup are the winners, everyone else are losers.

I'm not even sure this would do anything for the sport, winning often doesn't guarantee popularity. As an example, my favorite sports team, the San Antonio Spurs, are absolutely underrated by the American media. This is a team that has won five championships in 17 years, that regularly finishes in the top four teams during the regular season, that has only finished out of the top five once in 15 seasons, basically the most successful American sports team by winning percentage, and yet they're criminally underrepresented by media here.

Other teams that don't win as much get much more notoriety because their players have these loud and boisterous personalities, which I think is what the broadcasters and the people in general want. I've always felt that soccer doesn't allow for this as regularly as other sports and I think that, among other reasons, does a lot to make it difficult for potential fans to identify with players and find some sort of connection.

But I think the biggest problems is just that advertisers can't shill their products out as often in this game as they can with other popular sports in the US.

 

[Aeroblast]

World Cup is an extremely difficult competition to win; you're competing between dozens of powerhouses who have developed as a footballing nation in the span of several decades. Even Spain, who won last 2 Euros and the last World Cup crashed out of the group stages after second matchday.

On a more immediate note though: USA can beat Belgium. Belgium have great individual players but they struggle to work as a unit.

 

[Hitsushiro]

The US have never been strong in football. The fact that it's not a relatively popular sport in the country doesn't help, either. Now, it can't be said that they outright suck because they lost 1-0 to one of the strongest national teams in the world. Losing doesn't always mean you suck. Either way, it's not from a couple of matches that you determine whether a team is good or not; how many times, mainly in the National Cups (the FA Cup, most of all), do you see teams from lower divisions beat teams that are top in their countries?

Germany's position as second was pretty much justified by the thrashing they gave us on the first match (the fact that we had a defender sent off in the first 15 minutes didn't help, but still) and the only teams that I see, in this moment, to be able to give them a run for their money are France and Brazil (maybe Argentina too). And the US didn't beat the fourth-ranked team (which, for some weird reason, is Portugal) by an inch. It is good for the US to even have qualified for the next round considering that they were in a strong group and were never strong themselves.

Winning a World Cup isn't just done like that to "hey look, we're not bad at all!". Look at the Netherlands, they've been having stong squads for the last 30 years or so, and not even a squad mainly composed by Ajax's Total Football team (which included Johan Cruyff) have won it in the 70's. Neither did the Euro 88' winning squad (including Gullit and van Basten) win it in 1990.

Maybe 'Murrica can pull something funny against Belgium (which I doubt, Belgium has a lot of great players), but I can't see them going past Argentina if they do (because Argentina will pound Switzerland).

Brazil will lose against Chile, and wouldn't have a chance against Germany. Argentina will draw 0-0 against Switzerland and have Messi save them in the 95th minute. Both teams are overrated.

 

[Nathan]

Brazil will lose against Chile, and wouldn't have a chance against Germany. Argentina will draw 0-0 against Switzerland and have Messi save them in the 95th minute. Both teams are overrated.

I think Argentina can beat Switzerland. Did you see the match against France?

 

[Ivysaur]

Did you see Argentina's match against Iran? They were disgustingly hideous and only won because Messi pulled a Messi.

Meanwhile, go Chile!

 

[Pepperton]

Neymar has had so many chances, and hasn't converted on any of them. Right now, it looks like a stunning upset. Chile has the momentum, energy, and defensive prowess to take over a nervy Brazil team. Will certainly be an interesting half hour, but the advantage is slightly in Chile's corner. All dependent on if Brazil can up their tempo and get some rhythm back.

 

[Ivysaur]

This Brazilian team would be an embarrassment for their legendary squads. It would be truly sad if they won just because of home advantage.

 

[Ryoutarou]

Yeah, if this is the way Brazil are going to be playing, they don't deserve to make it through to the next round. I've been impressed by Chile's game since the start of the second half. (though Hulk really wants to make up for that disallowed goal)

 

[Nathan]

Well Brazil goes to the next round. I really feel bad for Jara though.

 

[Hitsushiro]

Didn't like the game much, at least second half was relatively decent. Because by the 2nd time Brazil slowed down and allowed Chile to actually play football.

Brazil are a disgrace. It is probably the nerves and the pressure as it is on their home soil, but that's not how you play the game. They'll probably luckball it next round against Uruguay/Colombia as well, but I can't see them beating France/Germany.

They shouldn't have made it past the group stage, really. They ♥♥♥♥ed everyone over with the penalty against Croatia (they should have gone through). Sad, very sad, but expected...

Anyways Brazil did have some chances especially in the first half, but Neymar has been screwed up by Barcelona and thinks he can walk into the goal. He should have taken the risk, even toe bashing the ball. But no... Hulk was awesome, we happened to witness him on a good day. But as a team Brazil aren't good enough. Game was ♥♥♥♥ 'cause they didn't allow anyone to play the ball.

 

[Aeroblast]

There are all-time great strikers who played for Brazil - Pele, Romario, Ronaldinho, R9...

And then there's Fred and Jo. Even their names sound like cartoon characters.

 

[Hitsushiro]

I'm not gonna lie, I was going for Uruguay the entire tournament. I always like the way they play. But Colombia very much deserved it! They were amazing. Not only James, but as a team, especially with ball distribution. Unlike a certain team (I wonder), they actually play the ball. And they do it well, as seen by their results. Good luck to them, and I hope Brazil doesn't get lucky next time.

I think not having Suarez really made the team take two steps back. Whilst they do have Cavani, I think Suarez is more reliable to actually score goals. But it would have been a different story if they started attacking from the beginning, and not the 70th minute.

 

[bobandbill]

That was quite the goal from James. He is having a good tournament - five goals four assists or something like that?

Pity for Chile, they sure came close there. Their first two penalties though were not good.