Jump to content

Football: No Title Ideas


Consigliere

Recommended Posts

Brazilian TV is now showing that in the goal of Peru, a free kick, the referee had his arm raised, meaning it was an indirect foul...but Ospina touched the ball and made the goal legal anyway. The reserve keepers of Arsenal and City ended up dooming Chile.

Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and Colombia qualify in that order, Peru goes to the play-off against New Zealand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange that Mexico and Costa Rica have collapsed since it has been clear there is a chance to stop the US. One Panama goal from missing the playoffs currently. Their first came from a goalmouth scramble that nowhere near crossed the line.

 

Unbelievable...

I'd have thought the US, with Mexico, had the securest spot at every World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Horse of Kent said:

 

 

Unbelievable...

I'd have thought the US, with Mexico, had the securest spot at every World Cup.

One thing I've learned over a couple of decades watching football is that if you try very hard to fail, you usually end up being successful at it.

That rule does not apply if you have Lionel Messi in your squad, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peru’s goal against Colombia that did for Chile was farcical as well. Ospina got fingertips to Guerrero’s free-kick but could not keep it out. Only problem is that it was indirect, so had he just watched it sail in the goal would not stand. It was Ospina’s touch that made it live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Teng Ai Hui said:

Bruce Arena should be fired in the morning.

This is a complete disaster from all angles. It hurts the national team’s progress. It hurts youth soccer. It’s bad for the stock market (Fox must be loving that $600m deal they did for the WC). And worst of all, it’s bad for the WC. It will significantly hurt their viewership and their ability to expand the game in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is a complete disaster from all angles. It hurts the national team’s progress. It hurts youth soccer. It’s bad for the stock market (Fox must be loving that $600m deal they did for the WC). And worst of all, it’s bad for the WC. It will significantly hurt their viewership and their ability to expand the game in the U.S.

The world cup matches will be on at times when most Americans couldn't watch anyway, even if it was a big football watching nation. The rest of the world couldn't give a shit about watching the US (in particular).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is a complete disaster from all angles. It hurts the national team’s progress. It hurts youth soccer. It’s bad for the stock market (Fox must be loving that $600m deal they did for the WC). And worst of all, it’s bad for the WC. It will significantly hurt their viewership and their ability to expand the game in the U.S.

It's not a complete disaster.

The game in the States is in a WAY more secure spot than it was in 1986.  So many more Americans have access to view and are becoming avid fans of EPL, the Bundesliga, La Liga, etc.  MLS, for all its faults, is in a fairly secure place.  The US will not have to build up awareness of the game from scratch.

Yes, it is a pisser the US won't be in Russia, but it may be the rock bottom that the USSF needs to get its act together for the long term future of the men's team.

P.S. - I love Timmy Howard, but can someone tell me the US has a goalkeeper available in the pipeline that isn't eligible to join AARP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is obviously a disaster for the USMNT, but could be helpful in the long term. If it provides the impetus to phase out pay-to-play at youth level, widening the talent pool beyond middle class white kids, then that would be a major improvement for the future. It should be the end of Bruce Arena (amazed he has lasted this long, to be honest) and any replacement whose ideal player is not a 30 year old who has never set foot outside the MLS is going to be an improvement. Even better if whoever the next manager is builds around Pulisic, McKennie and Jonathan Gonzalez in midfield. They have a couple of years to bed in with no competitive football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is a complete disaster from all angles. It hurts the national team’s progress. It hurts youth soccer. It’s bad for the stock market (Fox must be loving that $600m deal they did for the WC). And worst of all, it’s bad for the WC. It will significantly hurt their viewership and their ability to expand the game in the U.S.

It's not bad for the WC at all.  The rest of the world won't even notice that the perennially limited USA team with their know-nothing, ra-ra fans will be absent.  It only matters to advertisers who will see a slightly smaller TV audience in America for just three games, all aired at lunch time -- the soccer fans in the US who watch the WC more broadly will still be watching, mainly on DVR anyway.  The number of kids playing soccer in fall 2018 won't be any lower, and the MLS will find it just as impossible to take significant TV audience market share from NFL, NBA, MBL and NHL.  Absolutely nothing changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

The world cup matches will be on at times when most Americans couldn't watch anyway, even if it was a big football watching nation. The rest of the world couldn't give a shit about watching the US (in particular).

 

The World Cup is different from the rest of soccer here in the states. I know so many people who might watch a soccer game a month, but during the WC they’ll try to watch as many games as they can.

And I know the fans of other nations won’t care. That wasn’t my point. I was talking about the business side of the event, and not having the U.S. in it is going to lose FIFA a lot of money (not that that corrupt entity deserves it)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iskaral Pust said:

The rest of the world won't even notice that the perennially limited USA team with their know-nothing, ra-ra fans will be absent

Quite. The English will be filling that role, as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

Quite. The English will be filling that role, as usual.

Still sore? To be fair no English fans I know are remotely ra ra. They see the national team as at best an embarrassment and at worst a national disgrace. But people from North north east are generally less into england than southerners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The World Cup is different from the rest of soccer here in the states. I know so many people who might watch a soccer game a month, but during the WC they’ll try to watch as many games as they can

 

They'll watch anyway.  They're watching because they are fans of soccer, not fans specifically of the USMNT.  The additional viewership comes from the casual viewers who jump on the bandwagon for a week because there's lots of media coverage that the USMNT reached some new milestone (very unlikely to repeat after 2014).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Still sore?

About what? Not qualifying? I wasn't ever sore about that.

Quote

To be fair no English fans I know are remotely ra ra.

You have watched an England game recently? The ones attending the match (particularly those idiots bumping out the Dambusters theme over and over and over again) seem pretty ra ra to me. I'd rather be in a US crowd than an England one.

ETA - anyway, my main point was to show that taking swipes at other teams' fans is easy but cheap. Not cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...