2010 South Africa FIFA World Cup thread

[synkr0nized]

I realize this is late, but I was out with friends for most of the weekend.

The US team, while understandably upset at their loss, deserved it. We played horribly, and that's not the kind of play that makes it to the final rounds of the World Cup. Good luck to Ghana, but I expect they will be off'd by Uruguay (or definitely Brazil if it comes to it). I'm anticipating a great match when Argentina and Germany meet.

[krogothwolf]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

So they played like a 3rd division side instead of a sunday pub team? They would have needed massive improvement.

Was just making a point that the psychological effects of a goal/no-goal go both ways. No point in crying about bad goals or no goals because you can't change the fact.

Hell, if the goal had counted the Germans could have been pissed that they let a Sunday Pub team score on them and really slaughter them!

Mexico shot themselves in the foot, with the help of video review, because they exploded about the bad call and that messed up their first half. The realistic score of the match was 3-1, not 1-1, because they got all stupid because of the bad call. Ref's can't really call back a goal afterwords, and even if they can(can they?)it's very uncommon because of the fact there is no video review so they can't go over the goal again. Teams have to know that, yet they freak out over bad calls and go insane because of it so they ended up shooting themselves in the foot.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by synkr0nized

The US team, while understandably upset at their loss, deserved it. We played horribly, and that's not the kind of play that makes it to the final rounds of the World Cup. Good luck to Ghana, but I expect they will be off'd by Uruguay (or definitely Brazil if it comes to it). I'm anticipating a great match when Argentina and Germany meet.

I agree that the U.S. team deserved to lose, but I'll also note that I do feel that the United States was the stronger team overall. They were undoubtedly the best team in Group C in terms of sheer talent and I do think their game against Ghana overall revealed that the U.S. was the more skilled team (more and better shot opportunities, more consistent play.)

The problem is twofold:

1) The U.S. has crappy transitional defense. Their defense is actually pretty fine normally, so long as they're expecting the attack: but when the opposing team suddenly and unexpectedly crosses midfield with a counterattack, when the majority of the American team is on the other side of the field, their defenders crack under pressure. That's basically how Ghana scored both their goals: the U.S. was attacking down on Ghana's end, Ghana suddenly reversed fortunes, and the goaltender and the one or two defenders who could oppose Ghana's shots were caught napping.

2) The U.S. lacks a legitimate striker. Plenty of good passers, and one or two folks like Donovan who can capitalize on scoring opportunities. But they need a legit, top-of-the-world quality striker to really hammer in goals, particularly on more-difficult-than-average shots. Donovan might be close, but he's just not quite there.

If the U.S. had resolved those two issues they easily would have beaten Ghana and probably faced off against Brazil in the semis. With that in mind, I can't be too disappointed in America because they're very, very close to being a Top Five caliber World Cup team with a decent chance to win every four years. Oh, sure, Brazil and Argentina (and probably Germany and the Netherlands) would still kick their asses, but I can't think of many others who'd take a victory over the U.S. for granted.

Given where we were twenty years ago, it's pretty incredible that I can legitimately argue that America fielded a better team than the likes of England, Italy or France this year.

[synkr0nized]

I agree with your first point. Our defense, especially to those I watched the games with who never played the sport, came off appearing lazy and unable to sprint, especially when a team such as Ghana used bursts of momentum to carry offensive plays. I would say transition is something they'll need to work on, for sure.


As to our offense, sometimes it felt like 4-4-2 wasn't working well enough due to little midfield support from the outsides to the strikers. Granted I didn't catch every game (stats aside), however, so I might be basing this assessment from too few pushes on our offensive side.

[Bells]

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

Mexico shot themselves in the foot, with the help of video review, because they exploded about the bad call and that messed up their first half. The realistic score of the match was 3-1, not 1-1, because they got all stupid because of the bad call. Ref's can't really call back a goal afterwords, and even if they can(can they?)it's very uncommon because of the fact there is no video review so they can't go over the goal again. Teams have to know that, yet they freak out over bad calls and go insane because of it so they ended up shooting themselves in the foot.

Refs can reverse their calls, but they are strongly advice to not do so unless it's absolutely flawless the notion that it was a bad call. Besides the Ref in the field they have 2 guys on the sidelines and a second ref outside the field. They all have earpieces and they get information when needed, but in Football it's strongly advised to empower the rep and give value to his professional judgement on the field.

It's done that way because Fifa wants a margin of Human error in there to preserve the "Heart" of the game. To prevent it from being too mechanical and relying too much on Technology and cameras.... it's pretty much just tradition, but a ref can reverse and late call pretty much anything. It's just not done because that would open precedents for teams worldwide to challenge bad calls from past present and future, so, it would be shitstorm.

In this particular case, the Replay screen in the stadium showed that the Goal was illegal, but neither ref on the field could be 100% sure, in those cases, decisions should favor the defense. Of course... THAT is not a writen rule, just they way things are

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm pretty sure they don't want video refs because its easier for them to rig games without them.

[Bells]

Oh c'mon now... if you start to rely on video too much everything becomes subjective. Not all replays are crystal clear. And if for every foul or dangerous play someone calls for a "Replay Video" a game would run for 4 hours! And the ref would loose any power he has, because people would give all value to the video, which is most cases is open to Interpretation, so now you have pressure from all sides coming from onto the ref and 505 of all his calls in this scenario would be called "rigged" anyway.

So, it's not perfect but it's less flawed!

Also, just to say... i want Brazil to Win, of course. But my second pick for "most awesome Final Game" would be Japan Vs Ghana. That would be SO awesome if it happened....

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Rugby has video replays with only stoppages for contentious tries which takes about 10 seconds. There is no reason to not have video refs

[Bells]

On more awesome news, Paraguay X Japan is going on right now and after a incredibly balanced game, we are at penalties.

GO JAPAN GO !

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Penalties: So cruel, so unfair, so beautiful.
I hope someone cries.