VaporTrail Posted June 27, 2010 Report Share Posted June 27, 2010 Go away T. Anyways, I'm happy that we made it out of the group stage. We just need better strikers, we had a bunch of chances (against Algeria too) that Findley and Jozy just blew by kicking it straight at the keeper. Also, replay needs to be allowed, the tea sucking English got hosed. Off to watch Mexico and Argentina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 Yea I can't explain it. Growing up in another country provided me with a great experience on why soccer is a great sport. Playing soccer gave be the edge when I played basketball. I bet you are now going to tell me that NASCAR takes more athletic ability then soccer. There are so many things wrong with this website, I don't know where to start. I didn't know Die Hard can put together websites. You guys need to lighten up, And no I dont like Nascar either. Go Browns... I love american football! not kickball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownIndian Posted June 28, 2010 Report Share Posted June 28, 2010 This world-cup is filled with more refereeing controversies than memorable moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted June 29, 2010 Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 This world-cup is filled with more refereeing controversies than memorable moments. The US may have been screwed, but the Brits were ROBBED. With goals so hard to come by on that level, why in the hell can't you have a goal judge like you do in hockey? I damn well agree with the English coach, that changed the entire strategy of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowieDawg Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 Hoorta, it's crazy that in this day and age we do not have something to allow us to prove that a goal like Lampard's was indeed a goal. Goal line judges work for me - if we had come back from 2-0 down to 2 all we would have had the upper hand against a better team. Who knows what would have happened? Instead, we tanked. It;s history now. I love the World Cup - I can take or leave the premier league frankly - I don;t follow it closely. But the WC is special. the US brought 160,000 to South africa, England brought 110,000. I'd say that's impressive! I am happy to be turning my attention back to my first sporting love now, GO BROWNS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 I am happy to be turning my attention back to my first sporting love now, GO BROWNS! Nice, Howie, I enjoyed your South African pictures on Facebook, looks like you had a good time. I was kindof "in" to the World Cup this year (although Horseballs still thinks it is way too gay) but came away disappointed, and not just the at the US couldn't beat Ghana. I like the "bigness" of it, and I like it for the same reason I enjoy the olympics: countries squaring off at each other and athletes playing at the "peak" of their sport. And some of the games were enjoyable and very athletic. HOWEVER, there are still so many things I can't get past: Crowd noise. Those stupid horns were annoying as hell when watching on TV and even in European games they seem to blow those damn air horns the whole game. I enjoying cheering and booing and rallying your team .... but making noise just to make noise is insane. Also, the luck factor is so huge in soccer. Any of the U.S's four games could have gone any of three ways: win, loss or draw, with one or two calls, or a lucky goal or non-goal going for or against them. These guys bust their asses up and down the field for 90 minutes and there is one score, and half the time it is either a lucky break or disputed. In hockey (our closest version of soccer) it seems by the end of the game the team that dominated the game almost always wins the game, but in soccer, you make one mistake and you can be knocked out of the tournament, even though you may be a better all-around team than your opponent's, because it so hard to make up a goal. If a hockey goalie lets one get under his glove, and puts his team down 0-1 in the first period, if he's on the better team they'll come back to win 3-2 0r 4-2 usually. In baseball if your third basemen boots a grounder in the first inning allowing the other team to score, you still have 8 more innings to let things play out. In football, the Bears opened up the Super Bowl running a TD back for a score against the Colts, and the Buckeyes did the same thing against the Gators in the National Championship Game... but both teams ended up losing handily because the other team was better. In soccer, if your goalie falls down, or the ref makes a bad call and you are down 1-0, your chances of coming back and winning 2-1 seem astronimical, even if you dominate the game, because goals are so hard to come by. And often times they are just lucky caroms, just like hockey, but they are so much harder to make up for. And I saw the US get ripped off blatantly of two goals and the UK one ... and with goals being so precious there is no excuse for there not being goal technology or instant replay in the freaking World Cup. Zombo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownIndian Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 In general, the quality of the teams in soccer vastly determines how much u enjoy it. If i were to show a sample game of NFL in Spain and i chose to show the Browns versus Bills last season borefest then people will think that NFL sucks; but if i were to show Browns vs Bengals 07; NFL will be interesting. Teams like Argentina; Spain; Brazil are always fun to watch cos of the attacking intent (although the flopping is annoying) Teams like Italy, Paraguay ... boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.