Official World Cup 2010 thread

[xlovecolouredx]

expect to see some marvelous thing from south korea and uruguay match....

[partysmasher]

Its just boring to see people play for a draw, especially for US where we're thinking the world cup is supposed to be the far and away best. Brazil - Portugal best 2/3 teams in the world and its a boring game - doesn't make us want to watch.

other soccer that is, if the best is this boring. Not to say its necessarily true but it puts that image across.

So you've seen a couple of boring games... what about portugal - north korea, italy - slovakia? What no one is considering is that the stakes in some of these matches, Brazil - Portugal being one of them, are so much higher than they ever will be between two top teams in a domestic league? Obviously some of the games in the group stage are bound to disappoint, entertaining the american TV audience is probably lower on Brazil's list of priorities than qualifying top of the group so it's to be expected. Now the top teams are qualified you can watch away knowing you'll never see another draw in this world cup, there's no more opportunities to make up for a poor result in a later game, now if you lose, you're out, teams HAVE to go for it. Don't judge the quality of the tournament overall on what you've seen so far.

[xlovecolouredx]

nah, too soon to lose a goeal, the white korea....

[mariawithoneeye]

South Korea is starting to get really aggressive. Should start to be an interesting game

[xlovecolouredx]

muslera safe it.

don't give up, south korea....

[mariawithoneeye]

goalllllllllllllllllllllllllllll for SK!

[xlovecolouredx]

chu-yong lee made a goal.

a first lossing goal of urugual in this tournament....

[mariawithoneeye]

yeah very impressive they are really going for it

[inutil]

Good game!

[inutil]

What a goal by Soarez!

[xlovecolouredx]

yeah, luiz suarez goal is so beautiful....

[xlovecolouredx]

and suarez is a top goal scorer now....

[mariawithoneeye]

Hyung's ass was fully hanging out

[mariawithoneeye]

Uruguay moves on

[xlovecolouredx]

thanks for good game, south korea....

[danthemjfan23]

alex, i know how big of a fan you are so i really appreciate your insight. you watch way more soccer than i do, and probably know way more about the sport than i do at this point, so i'm very interested to hear the other things you have to say when you get back from the dentist (hope you're okay ).

now if you lose, you're out, teams HAVE to go for it.

and don't you feel that this is when the really good soccer starts to be played? surely, some of this has to do with the caliber of teams that advance. but in my opinion, it has way more to do with the fact that every team HAS to play to win. i'm not saying that i don't enjoy watching the world cup (or soccer in general). i've watched almost every minute of every game besides the ones that have been televised simultaneously. i have thoroughly enjoyed them, and i will absolutely watch the rest of the cup, and every subsequent world cup to be played. as an aspiring member of the sports media, it's a dream of mine (or, should i say "goal" in this instance??) to one day be able to cover a world cup. but just because i'm enjoying it doesn't mean the game is the best it can be.

american hockey went through a period not too long ago where the game started to become stagnant. a few simple rule changes, and the entire philosophy of the sport has changed. things are more exciting. and i would have to imagine that the players love the way the game has opened up, and that their skills are finally allowed to be showcased. i'm not suggesting soccer should make handballs legal or any other drastic rules changes, but i think there are a few simple things that can be done to improve the quality of the games.

you asked me what i think about ties in the world cup, and if i'd like to see them eliminated. i'm not entirely sure what my answer is, to be honest. i've thought about this for 8 years now, since i was at an age to think critically about the game while watching the 2002 world cup. i've wrestled with a few ideas, but none of them solve the problem, they would just create new ones. a few of the things i've kicked around (goddamnit i love soccer puns):

- award 3 points for a win, 1 point for a loss, and 0 for a tie. then teams wouldn't be hesitant to attack the goal late in a tied match, in fear that they are scored upon on the counter attack. however, this would create a problem even worse than teams not attacking when the game is tied 1-1 at the 47 minute mark... teams wouldn't attack when they're down a goal.

- award 5 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, and 0 for a loss. this would make a win so valuable that winning 1 game would almost certainly put you through. however, if a team won its first game, they might be more inclined to slack for the next two and just play for ties.

- award 1 point for a win, and 0 for anything else. you want to play for the tie? fine. but you're coming away with nothing to show for it. teams would be forced to play for the win every game if they wanted a point. however, the problem that might arise here would be a team that goes down 2-0 early in a match may just give up, because scoring 2 goals is hard enough, but if they had to score 3 to get even a single point, it may just not even be worth it to them.

- same scoring breakdown as above, but eliminate ties altogether (like you mentioned the MLS doing) and go to unlimited 20 minute golden goal periods, or even penalty shots until a winner is decided. a little team may still play for the tie during the match in hopes of 'stealing' one during PKs or golden goal, but they would risk taking the loss then, too, so why not take the risk during regulation?

as you see, each scenario would have its own pros and cons. if i had a simple solution to this problem, i'd be working for FIFA, not sitting here alone in my apartment right now typing this out haha. also, i don't have a problem with ties, in theory. i don't feel like "i just wasted 90 minutes watching" if a match ends in a tie, but i feel cheated out of a good match when neither team puts in the effort i know they're both capable of just because they'd rather take a tie than play to win and be unsuccessful. i could live with the ties if all the diving and injury faking were eliminated. i think that is the much bigger issue with soccer right now.

[partysmasher]

To Dan

I absolutely think the best games are played during the knock-out stages, i completely agree with that. But that's the best part about this stage of the competition, it's not a reason for eliminating the possibility of ties during the group stage.

Without causing offence, the idea of making sure there's a winner in every game in a league or league-based stage in a competition fills me with a little bit of rage! It's a typically american idea that was introduced knowing that the average person on their couch would not want to watch a game from which a winner may not emerge. On one hand i can kinda understand given they want to get more people watching, on the other i wonder why the fuck this needs to be changed, it's the biggest sport on the planet and teams draw week in, week out, why do the rules need to be changed so all american Joe Bloggs gets the pay off he feels he deserves for those 90 mins he spent in front of the TV. Taking away draws would ruin so much. It would rob small teams of the reward they get from grabbing a late equaliser against a bigger club, only giving a bigger team more time to beat them. Like i said earlier, there would be instances where small teams go for penalties but i guess, like you said, they would still run the risk of losing them, however, as i also said earlier, you don't have to have quality players to win on penalties. It's brilliant that a team like Switzerland can grab a win off Spain and know that a good defensive display in a couple more games could send them through. Watching a great team try to break that down makes for good viewing, too. There's so much i could say on this topic but i feel really strongly about viewers, specifically American ones arguing for something that i think would cheapen the game.

Right, diving. Yeah it's shit, total shit. Luckily i watch mostly premier league football and while it certainly exists there, it's no where near as bad as it is in european football and international tournaments. I think refs need to be seen to play advantage far better, to let the players know that, if they take a knock that might be a foul but not one that would take them off their feet, they can try to stay up and play on, knowing that if they can't play the advantage, play will be brought back for the free kick. Quite often i find it's simply players making a meal of a foul challenge that wouldn't have knocked them down so the ref will give them the decision. The rest of the diving is pretty disgraceful, Ronaldo in particular is absolutely terrible for it. Officials should throw caution to the win more often and start getting the cards out for anything they feel is a dive. At the moment, teams are unable to appeal against yellow cards after the game, scrap that and allow them to, they can appeal the yellows their players get for diving, that would stop them pretty fucking quickly. It's a difficult area, challenges that don't get the ball are fouls, whether they take the player down or not and regardless of whether the fouled player rolls about afterwards. You said about players dancing about in the area hoping to get taken down instead of taking shots, i've never heard of anyone say this before and i actually completely disagree.

Oh and what you said about so many off target shots, happens all the time in every game, world cup or domestic, but they are using a really light ball in this competition that's difficult to keep down.

[danthemjfan23]

alex, i appreciate the time you put into your response. i definitely see where you're coming from, and i can't say that your opinion is wrong on anything. you are certainly more informed than i am on this subject, so it's nice to hear your perspective. i'd be curious to hear what other people who are reading this think as well.

in regards to the dancing around in the box, just keep your eyes open for it now when you think about it. i played most of my career as a midfielder because i had good endurance and could defend AND control the ball by passing or dribbling, but there was a few years where i played forward and scored tons of goals. the saying goes "you'll never make a shot you don't take" and that is exactly the philosophy i took, which made it really frustrating as a midfielder when i'd give a teammate a great through ball leaving him with an open shot, only to see him try to dance his way into the box and have it stolen.

it's as if most teams are trying to take a page out of brazil's playbook and literally dribble the ball into the goal, instead of just shooting. sure, the percentage of shots that go in from 6 yards is much greater than the percentage of shots that go in from 15, but how often does a player REALLY get a good shot off from 6? normally, on the way through the box, the ball is knocked away because there are so many defenders around it's nearly impossible to make a clean break through everyone. does that make more sense? maybe they're not necessarily trying to get taken down, but they're certainly not shot-happy.

[fourfourtwo]

I don't see what the problem is with teams playing for the draw. Its simple strategy. Take Brazil/Portugal. Both teams (likely) were in. Brazil with the 6 points, and Portugal with the massive 9 Goal Differential against Ivory Coast.

Whats wrong with not playing your best players and avoiding risking yellows/reds for the sake of the knockout round?

Portugal didn't play Liedson, Deco was resting, Simao was a sub, Ronaldo wasn't even noticeable 75% of the game.

Brazil had Kaka out, Robinho wasn't playing...

Strategically, this was best for both teams. Sucks for the other two teams in the group, but what can you do?

[danthemjfan23]

i agree with you. my problem isn't with two teams playing for a draw that are already (basically) locks to advance. my problem is when a team's strategy going into group play is to play for 3 draws, instead of going for a single win.

[mcm1610]

One of my really good friends is a girl who was like.. the number 2 scorer in the league for women's junior college soccer. She would literally deke everyone out, including the goalie, and just dribble the ball into the goal. She was unbelievable.

In regards to the tie issue, it's like the recent NHL rule changes, and I HATE those. Sure a shootout is kind of fun to watch, but what the hell was the rest of the game for? Working through a 60 min hockey game or a 90 min soccer match just to have it decided by a skills competition? All because people find ties a waste of time.. ridiculous.

Either you end when the game ends, and it's a tie, or you play nonstop basketball- or baseball-style until someone wins. None of this shoot-out, PK nonsense.

[danthemjfan23]

so would you be okay with a "golden goal" overtime period(s) in hockey, and/or in soccer to decide a winner? or would you just rather have ties?*

*i'm not asking that in a condescending way, i hope it doesn't come off like that.

[mcm1610]

If we HAD to have a win, like... the anti-tie people just couldn't have a tie, I'd much rather it be golden-goal than PKs or a shootout. I do like how basketball adds in a certain period and we see how it goes there.

The problem is that in soccer, if 90 minutes isn't enough and a game ends as a 0-0 tie, who knows when that GWG will actually occur. It could be at the 200 minute mark or something ridiculous. That's why ties are fine with me.

I guess mostly I'm just opposed to a whole game being decided by a pk. It doesn't prove which team is better (not that the better team always wins a game anyway), it just proves which team had a better shootout lineup.

[goraiders]

If we HAD to have a win, like... the anti-tie people just couldn't have a tie, I'd much rather it be golden-goal than PKs or a shootout. I do like how basketball adds in a certain period and we see how it goes there.

The problem is that in soccer, if 90 minutes isn't enough and a game ends as a 0-0 tie, who knows when that GWG will actually occur. It could be at the 200 minute mark or something ridiculous. That's why ties are fine with me.

I guess mostly I'm just opposed to a whole game being decided by a pk. It doesn't prove which team is better (not that the better team always wins a game anyway), it just proves which team had a better shootout lineup.

I don't know how often they play in the premier leagues/ etc etc but golden goal could work I think if they play often enough. You're not going to want to play 180 minutes if you have a game in two days. Its not perfect but it might start teams playing for wins more in game.

Granted I don't pay much attention to soccer and have a very small idea what I'm talking about, but I'm just on the edge of trying to watch it after this WC.

[xfactor675]

The refs are Hungarian (at least they are there, too bad our team is lame for a very long time), I hope there won't be bad calls. Good luck US!